Electoral Reform

[MotCO]

I can't agree FPTP has served us well in recent years. There is a strong case that it was responsible for Brexit and all the grief that caused, and in particular we wouldn't have handed untrammeled power to the disastrous administrations of Johnson and Truss.

"The untrammeled power... of Johnson and Truss" - is that the same power that stopped Johnson from trying to get Brexit done? Are you saying that FTTP was responsible for having a Brexit vote, or do you mean it caused the problems of trying to implement the will of the people?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

It currently has the power to delay legislation and return it to the Commons to look at it again, but ultimately the Commons can force it through.

Indeed, so I am not sure what you mean by

would have powers similar to the Lords today, but would be less afraid to use them

 

[Ashley Hill]

Perhaps we should have one vote for the party we want in government i.e those who run the country, and another for the local MP. One could have an excellent constituency MP who you support but dislike the party they represent. One vote for the government and another vote for your parliamentary representative.

 

[edwin_m]

"The untrammeled power... of Johnson and Truss" - is that the same power that stopped Johnson from trying to get Brexit done? Are you saying that FTTP was responsible for having a Brexit vote, or do you mean it caused the problems of trying to implement the will of the people?

Johnson "got Brexit done" (in quotes because there are in fact many unresolved issues) when he won an 80 seat majority in 2019, even though a majority of the public were against it by then and a majority also voted for parties that favoured a second referendum.

Under FPTP you can only really ever have two big parties that have a chance to win power, occasionally as a coalition as in 2010 and 2017. UKIP in 2015, then the Brexit party in 2019 and Reform in 2024, have tried to force the Tory party to the right by threatening to stand against it, split the right-wing vote and cause the Tories to lose a lot of seats to Labour. In 2019 they withdrew this threat and made deal not to stand in Tory seats, this being one of the main reasons for the majority. Under a proportional system they probably couldn't have done this, unless they happened to hold the balance of power as the DUP did under FPTP in 2017. One of the main criticisms of proportional systems is that small parties have too much influence if they happen to hold the balance of power, but these examples show it can happen under FPTP too.

Indeed, so I am not sure what you mean by "would have powers similar to the Lords today, but would be less afraid to use them"

It means I'm thinking that the formal powers of the Lords would remain similar to what they are now, but its members would be chosen in a very different way. But at present they are reluctant to step in, particularly if the legislation they are considering is a manifesto commitment, because they know they aren't democratically elected and if they attempt to block what might be seen as the will of the people then they will lost what legitimacy they have. If the Lords was also democratic then this concern would disappear.

 

[MotCO]

It means I'm thinking that the formal powers of the Lords would remain similar to what they are now, but its members would be chosen in a very different way. But at present they are reluctant to step in, particularly if the legislation they are considering is a manifesto commitment, because they know they aren't democratically elected and if they attempt to block what might be seen as the will of the people then they will lost what legitimacy they have. If the Lords was also democratic then this concern would disappear.

But you can't have both the House of Commns and the House of Lords having primacy which is what you are suggesting.

 

[david1212]

While I do not have a strong view on a workable system it is not right that a party that received just over 1/3 of the votes makes up almost 2/3 of the House of Commons while one with nearly 25% of the votes makes up under 20%, one with just over 12% of the vote makes up just over 10% while one with just over 14% of the vote does not make up even 1%.
The hard first step is invoking a route to change.

An issue with the current system is how can an MP with even a junior national role still also be an effective constituency MP never mind be a Cabinet minister or the PM. While constituencies would have to be larger could there be two votes, one for a specific constituency MP and another for for your choice of party for the national government. The flaw here is how are the national government members chosen? One possibility is you vote for first and second choice of the person to represent your chosen party. If your chosen party receive the highest number of votes and then your first choice person is chosen for a national government role your second choice person becomes the constituency MP.

 

[edwin_m]

But you can't have both the House of Commns and the House of Lords having primacy which is what you are suggesting.

The Lords have powers to send legislation back and delay it, but ultimately they can't stop legislation that the Commons is determined to pass, so the Commons has primacy.

 

[JamesT]

The Lords have powers to send legislation back and delay it, but ultimately they can't stop legislation that the Commons is determined to pass, so the Commons has primacy.

That primacy is ultimately rooted in the fact that the Commons is democratically elected and the Lords is not. The Commons have that mandate to overrule the Lords. But if both chambers have a democratic mandate, whose is more important?

 

[edwin_m]

That primacy is ultimately rooted in the fact that the Commons is democratically elected and the Lords is not. The Commons have that mandate to overrule the Lords. But if both chambers have a democratic mandate, whose is more important?

I don't think that's a reason not to give the Lords a democratic mandate. It seems pretty clear to me that the powers need to be separated and clearly set out, and that a workable solution exists. Just not like the US Congress please.