First Past The Post - suitable election system, or not?

[AlterEgo]

Prompted by this on Twitter:

Owen Boswarva‏ @owenboswarva

If I've calculated correctly, the Tories could have had a working majority if only 75 people had voted differently. #GE2017 #ge2017results pic.twitter.com/me3jDMpRuP

Image attached in the tweet reads:

General Election 2017

The Conservatives could have had a working majority if 75 people had voted differently.

The Conservatives needed to win five more seats for a working majority of 322. (There are 650 seats, but only 642 voting MPs when we exclude Sinn Fein and the Speaker.)

The Conservatives could have taken:

• Kensington (margin 20) if 11 voters had switched from Labour
• Perth and North Perthshire (margin 21) if 11 voters had switched from SNP • Dudley North (margin 22) if 12 voters had switched from Labour
• Newcastle-under-Lyme (margin 30) if 16 voters had switched from Labour • Crewe and Nantwich (margin 48) if 25 voters had switched from Labour



Is FPTP a good system, on that basis? Is it fair? Is it modern and fit for our needs?

Vote now, yes or no - and feel free to submit any alternatives below.

The poll is anonymous.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a preposterous system that has had its day.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, FPTP is not fit for purpose.

All votes should be equal, regardless of where you live. But that isn't the case with FPTP. If you live in a strong seat your vote counts for nothing much, but if you live in a marginal then it counts for everything. It's always been like this: if 600 people had voted the other way in 2015 then Cameron would have had to go into coalition.

I like FPTP as the base for a Parliament because it is simple and keeps the local connection (unless your MP is a speaker or a deputy). But it is clear that a form of PR is needed to "top up" based on national votes. I'd propose that the "top losers" (i.e. the candidates with the highest vote share in a constituency) are used as the top-ups, rather than party lists.

I do have a vested interest in this, as a Lib Dem, though. In my constituency the poor sod didn't even get to keep his deposit. But the Lib Dem results show everything that's wrong with FPTP. Almost 2.4m people voted Lib Dem, and they get 12 seats; 977,000 voted SNP and they got 35. But equally the Lib Dem share of the vote went down very slightly compared to 2015, yet we won four more seats than before. Something really isn't right with that.

 

[Simon11]

One key reason for having FPTP is to ensure that we don't have a hung parliament, although it hasn't worked this time.

If we had PR, most of the time it would result in a hung parliament and thus weaken the country.

 

[Tetchytyke]

One key reason for having FPTP is to ensure that we don't have a hung parliament, although it hasn't worked this time.

Or in 2010, or in 1974...

If we had PR, most of the time it would result in a hung parliament and thus weaken the country.

People keep repeating this, as though it is a fact. How, exactly, would consensus politics weaken the country?

Germany is the strongest country in Europe, by quite some considerable distance, and they have PR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we had PR, most of the time it would result in a hung parliament and thus weaken the country.

I like hung parliaments. Government by consensus and coalition gives a much better long-term view and is common in mainland Europe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

People keep repeating this, as though it is a fact. How, exactly, would consensus politics weaken the country?

Germany is the strongest country in Europe, by quite some considerable distance, and they have PR.

Agreed. And conversely, the USA has roughly the same electoral system as we do for congressional elections - combined with an almost complete absence of consensus-based politics, and look what a mess that has produced!

 

[Dave1987]

I very much like hung parliaments. Means nothing extremist gets through. Means the governing party needs to try and work with the opposition to attempt to get some of their MPs to vote with the Government. Why isn't there to like about hung parliaments? It PR gives more hung parliaments than FPTP then bring it on!

 

[Senex]

I very much like hung parliaments. Means nothing extremist gets through. Means the governing party needs to try and work with the opposition to attempt to get some of their MPs to vote with the Government. Why isn't there to like about hung parliaments? It PR gives more hung parliaments than FPTP then bring it on!

And because more gets done by consensus it might be possible to avoid the British model of having a change of the party in government meaning that time and money are spent on undoing much of what the previous government has done.

 

[D365]

Nope. But we shot ourselves in the foot in 2011.

 

[najaB]

Nope. But we shot ourselves in the foot in 2011.

If by 'we' you mean our elected representatives then I agree.

 

[PhilipRhayader]

And because more gets done by consensus it might be possible to avoid the British model of having a change of the party in government meaning that time and money are spent on undoing much of what the previous government has done.

As I'm on the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party (and have been since 1968) it might come as a surprise that I quite agree with that view and for that reason.

I'm reasonably happy with FPTP for Parliamentary seats as I'm not sure about any satisfactory alternative. I would certainly like to see the second chamber representative of votes cast rather than birth or bribes to political parties.

 

[najaB]

I would certainly like to see the second chamber representative of votes cast rather than birth or bribes to political parties.

I'm rather fond of the non-elected nature of the second house. In theory it means that there's a lot less partisan politricks going on.

 

[A Challenge]

I'm rather fond of the non-elected nature of the second house. In theory it means that there's a lot less partisan politricks going on.

I've edited your post in the quote, hope you don't mind!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

One key reason for having FPTP is to ensure that we don't have a hung parliament, although it hasn't worked this time.

If we had PR, most of the time it would result in a hung parliament and thus weaken the country.

Not fair comment at all. The only country for which such a statement might be true is Italy where consensus is difficult to reach and even more difficult to sustain, hence their record of changes of government without fresh elections. And yet despite this their economy still ranks highly.

Then look at Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, three of our closest neighbours and arguably the three continental countries (ie not Ireland) with whom we have the most in common. All use PR and nearly always have coalition governments. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

Persisting with FPTP merely prolongs the status quo in this country rather than allowing new parties/ideas to be properly represented where it counts: in Parliament. Unfortunately too many people buy the line that compromise in politics is a bad thing and any politician that changes their mind about something is portrayed as weak. Yet how many of us change/adjust our view on various political matters over time? Should we perhaps be forced to choose a party at age 18 and have to vote for that party until we die? Yet that seems to be the expectation of our politicians. The national printed media have a lot to answer for in that respect.

 

[najaB]

I've edited your post in the quote, hope you don't mind!

Sadly, my signature line applies to that post.

But, more seriously, the best system of democratic government (in my opinion at least) would be selection by lottery. No parties, no politics, just a random 1300 people (two from each constituency) chosen at random and given the job of running the country for five years.

That way nothing will get decided and the Civil Service can get on with running the country without having everything messed up by a change of party every five or ten years.

 

[Howardh]

I think hung Parliaments should be compulsory (but not this one, obviously)!

Look what happened when we had a strong and stable Government in April......

 

[bnm]

Sadly, my signature line applies to that post.

But, more seriously, the best system of democratic government (in my opinion at least) would be selection by lottery. No parties, no politics, just a random 1300 people (two from each constituency) chosen at random and given the job of running the country for five years.

That way nothing will get decided and the Civil Service can get on with running the country without having everything messed up by a change of party every five or ten years.

Yes. Sortition.

The worst thing about politics is it attracts people who want to be politicians.

 

[Bevan Price]

Sadly, my signature line applies to that post.

But, more seriously, the best system of democratic government (in my opinion at least) would be selection by lottery. No parties, no politics, just a random 1300 people (two from each constituency) chosen at random and given the job of running the country for five years.

That way nothing will get decided and the Civil Service can get on with running the country without having everything messed up by a change of party every five or ten years.

God help us if the civil service had unlimited control. Look at some of the messses they have created. Parts seem to be like a self-perpetuating cosy little club, with top jobs depending on "conforming to tradition", "do not upset the established order", etc., - and possibly helps your progress if you went to "the right school" then Oxbridge.

 

[bb21]

FPTP is not fair to everyone, but it is simple to understand.

There is no absolute fairness. I remember a few years ago a mathematics professor from Sheffield gave a talk at my department on the fairness of electoral systems, and it could be shown that depending on how you construct your argument and define "fairness", you can always find a better voting system, even just among the current most popular few. This can also be proven mathematically. I can't remember the details of the talk now but it was quite an eye-opener at the time.

I am inclined to favour proportional representation, even if that means giving certain extremist voices a small platform, but am well aware of the associated problems.

 

[Butts]

I wonder if the SNP are in favour of PR for Westminster Elections ?

To be fair I suspect they are , despite being huge beneficiaries of FPTP in the last two !!

People may be suprised that not all Conservatives (including me) are in favour of FPTP and would prefer PR for Westminster Elections.

Why not use the Scottish Parliamentary System - it may not be perfect but is a step forward at least ?

 

[tony_mac]

I can't remember the details of the talk now but it was quite an eye-opener at the time.

Arrow's theorem?
There is no consistent and fair voting system that is not a dictatorship.

Our parliamentary system was never designed to represent the will of the population at large - even 100 years ago only a relatively small minority were allowed to vote.

 

[Bletchleyite]

God help us if the civil service had unlimited control. Look at some of the messses they have created. Parts seem to be like a self-perpetuating cosy little club, with top jobs depending on "conforming to tradition", "do not upset the established order", etc., - and possibly helps your progress if you went to "the right school" then Oxbridge.

Depends on which bit, but *some* of it is the best argument for tendering/privatisation imaginable.

 

[Cantab26]

Is FPTP a good system, on that basis? Is it fair? Is it modern and fit for our needs?

It is a question of priorities.

The problem I have with most proposals for electoral reform is that they put the cart before the horse. People say "we should use voting system X and it has these benefits" whereas we should first establish the objectives desired and then choose a system that best meets those objectives.

For example, if the principal aim is to elect representatives with strong links to specific geographic areas, First Past the Post is extremely good. By comparison, if we want a House of Commons selected in proportion to national vote share then a single national constituency with 650 seats should be used, but you then lose the geographic link.

In that sense, the answer is that First Past the Post is good at certain things and not good at others. It is neither good nor bad in absolute terms.

 

[Tetchytyke]

FPTP is not fair to everyone, but it is simple to understand.

There is no absolute fairness.

No, and there can never be any absolute fairness. The big weakness of any PR/AV style voting system is that you can end up with a "coalition of losers" who can dominate the winning party. It doesn't always follow that the most popular party is the one that can lead a coalition Government.

FPTP works where there is a binary choice and a uniform spread of electorate. FPTP was designed in a time when your choice was Tory or Whig and only people with money had the vote. And it was effective for that time.

The problem with FPTP is that the choice is not binary and we do not have a uniform spread of electorate. It is not a new problem. The 1983 election result puts it most starkly. Labour got 8,400,000 votes, whilst SDP/Liberal got a mere 800,000 fewer votes than Labour. However Labour won 209 seats, the SDP/Liberals only getting 23. It is a sign of a broken system where 10% more votes translates into 900% more seats.

 

[Groningen]

You have this system for centuries. Now do not complain if it does not goes the Conservative way. That number of 75 voters can only calculated afterwards. Next elections the figure maybe higher. Give credit where credit is due. You let it look as if those 75 voters do not matter. Swing in Kensington; who is to blaim for that? In 2015 the Conservative had 7.300 more votes than Labour and had 52,3 % of the votes. In 2010 even 7.600 votes. It was Conservative since 1974.

 

[Steveoh]

Then look at Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, three of our closest neighbours and arguably the three continental countries (ie not Ireland) with whom we have the most in common. All use PR and nearly always have coalition governments. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

I'm not sure Belgium is such a good example. There was an election on 13 June 2010. The government wasn't sworn in until 6 December 2011!

I support PR but we do need to be careful what we wish for.

 

[bramling]

Prompted by this on Twitter:



Image attached in the tweet reads:

General Election 2017

The Conservatives could have had a working majority if 75 people had voted differently.

The Conservatives needed to win five more seats for a working majority of 322. (There are 650 seats, but only 642 voting MPs when we exclude Sinn Fein and the Speaker.)

The Conservatives could have taken:

• Kensington (margin 20) if 11 voters had switched from Labour
• Perth and North Perthshire (margin 21) if 11 voters had switched from SNP • Dudley North (margin 22) if 12 voters had switched from Labour
• Newcastle-under-Lyme (margin 30) if 16 voters had switched from Labour • Crewe and Nantwich (margin 48) if 25 voters had switched from Labour



Is FPTP a good system, on that basis? Is it fair? Is it modern and fit for our needs?

Vote now, yes or no - and feel free to submit any alternatives below.

The poll is anonymous.

It's not ideal, but personally I'd rather keep it. Generally speaking it delivers a clear-cut result (albeit with exceptions!) and in general the results delivered do seem to reflect the overall mood of the country. It also allows a link with constituencies, and prevents small parties getting too much influence. I'd hate to see, for example, the SNP getting an influence in UK-wide politics.

The Conservatives won't change it, and under normal circumstances neither would Labour - the FPTP system is simply too beneficial to these two parties.

 

[Domh245]

It's not ideal, but personally I'd rather keep it. Generally speaking it delivers a clear-cut result (albeit with exceptions!) and in general the results delivered do seem to reflect the overall mood of the country. It also allows a link with constituencies, and prevents small parties getting too much influence. I'd hate to see, for example, the SNP getting an influence in UK-wide politics.

The Conservatives won't change it, and under normal circumstances neither would Labour - the FPTP system is simply too beneficial to these two parties.

Other than the fact that the SNAP are vastly overrepresented by FPTP

 

[Tetchytyke]

Other than the fact that the SNP are vastly overrepresented by FPTP

Only at the moment, because for now the SNP have taken over from Labour as one of the two main parties in Scotland. Labour are, for now, the "third party" in Scotland, and it shows: they got a mere 59,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives, but only half as many seats.

The Conservatives won't change it, and under normal circumstances neither would Labour - the FPTP system is simply too beneficial to these two parties.

FPTP stopped Labour from being destroyed by the SDP in 1983, and so Labour naturally will be reluctant to change things too much.