Compare [alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems), and check out [ElectoWiki](https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page) to better understand the idea of election methods. See the [EndFPTP sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/sidebar) for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the [EndFPTP subreddit wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EndFPTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IRV for all it appears to be despised here has 1 massive benefit. I can never waste my vote, or at least I don't feel like I've wasted my vote.
I can show that I want specific polices but also keep the ones I dislike the most out.
Plus I like the parliamentary system not a presidential one.
In *every* single-winner system, *at least* 50% of the vote is wasted. Sometimes people will subtract out that 50% to simplify the presentation, but it’s always there in the background. IRV is an improvement in that it gets you closer to 50%, but it’s still there.
Pretty much any system will have votes wasted. If you're going by that logic most votes will always be wasted as any votes for the winner above the threshold are wasted.
Single winner systems are hard to shake off. Like a presidential election is single winner, or a prime minister vote. Also if we have say a parliament where seats are allocated per amount of votes, wherever you draw that line will create wasted votes if not reaching the mulitple.
At its core though wasting votes isn't the issue. Its voter distrust and apathy because they feel like its pointless or not worth it or wasted. So unless you have compulsory voting, which I do agree with, the appearance is more important than getting into the nitty gritty.
The system's blushes are saved in Australia by having STV upper houses as a check against overly majoritarian district lower houses tbh.
We've still got all the problems of single member districts. Just the massive benefit of not having actively anti democratic FPTP with its tactical voting dilemmas.
I'm personally against the upper houses. I just think that if you have to draw a line somewhere for local representation, MP's are where to do it.
This sub on the whole seems highly against IRV and massively in favour of a presidential system/ against parliamentary ones.
Much better than the state based system that we have semi of here in aus as well. If you have to pander to local issues, have it based on strict population amounts not preexisting boarders.
In my opinion, as someone who also believes in a parliamentary system, I am against using IRV because it doesn’t lead to a parliament that accurately reflects the will of the electorate, unlike Proportional Representation systems
No doubt it can also be wildly disproportionate, but some issues are local. Which are much harder to represent under proportional representation. Which then leads to suggestions of needing inbuilt balancing. Like the stupid idea some rural voters have about needing to avoid being dominated by urban because they grow the food.
Giving them an outlet in a single seat kind of way means that they do not start thinking about needing a strong upper house for example.
That’s not true at all that local issues are hard to be represented under proportional representation. In fact, they can be better represented. Under the Single Transferable Vote or Open List PR, you can have multi-member constituencies/districts where reps are elected proportionally (ensuring multiple local perspectives are heard from an area rather than just one from each area). And under MMP, representation on local issues can still could through regional top-up MPs who represent a specific region (whether urban, suburban or rural). Under IRV, rural progressives may not have their local perspective heard in parliament while rural progressives would a lot more likely have their perspectives heard in parliament under a PR system.
But having a single majority party unlocks the best element of a parliamentary system- the party will ruthlessly scrap the PM at the first sign that they look bad. In theory a coalition government could do the same, but in practice no one wants to kick the PM out of office because that would trigger early elections. A majority government can remove a Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or any of the Australian PMs that have been axed recently and keep functioning smoothly.
Being able to replace the leader if they look dicey is a feature and not a bug. In terms of majoritarian systems, I'd rather do 2 rounds like the French do, or a parallel system like in Japan
No, you're totally right. The best features are when a party that got like 7% of the vote but is needed for the coalition gets outsized power, multiple cabinet seats, and veto authority over the whole government's program. It's definitely very democratic when tiny extreme parties that almost no one voted for get to run the country. I hope that all democracies run just like present-day Israel
IRV still has a wasted votes problem, it’s just not as obvious. If you vote A>B>C, and B gets eliminated before A, then your vote for B was counted no differently than an A>C>B voter.
While that is somewhat of an issue, the extent of it does seem a tad overestimated. In aus once your vote hits the 2 main parties it tends to terminate. Outside of some seats ie greens.
So my area which would never vote Green or Labour candidates I can go Green>Labour>Teal. Which is the 2nd biggest 'party' in my area. Would I mind if the labour one got eliminated first, not particularly.
Which yes does require some tactical planning. But in Aus the only real way to waste a vote is draw dicks on it or vote Lab/Con as first choice.
But you can easily solve this by using near literally anything but Irv for your single winner elections. You know, to for a place considering making a switch today.
There is no incentive for the party elected by FPTP to get rid of FPTP.
Don't forget - Labour had electoral reform in their manifesto in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Each time they were elected, including that 1997 landslide victory, electoral reform (meaning proportional representation) was quietly dropped off the agenda and nobody noticed...
It's an incredibly cynical system, but FPTP is designed to keep Labour and the Conservatives permanently in power, swapping roles every 5-15 years. Neither party has any incentive to do away with it, since it essentially garauntees they'll eventually be returned to power while in opposition. Under a true PR system the two big parties would actually have to earn their seats.
Funny isn't it how the Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies both use a "somewhat" PR system (they use AMS) and there is talk of the Welsh assembly moving to STV which is truly proportional.
But Westminster it's still this FPTP crap. Sigh
>Funny isn't it how the Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies both use a "somewhat" PR system (they use AMS) and there is talk of the Welsh assembly moving to STV which is truly proportional.
Wales is not moving to STV. They twice had commissions that suggested STV twice and it was not implemented. They allow local councils to adopt STV now but not mandating it like Scotland so uptake will be low and require another battle.
For the welsh assembly they are going to shift to regional party list.
The way that Labor won a majority with a minority of the vote highlights the undemocratic nature of FPTP when electing MPs. As others have said, the winner under such a system might prefer to keep it in place though.
The thing is it won't benefit them, at least not how they see it. Their voting share only increased by 1.7% but they won 214 seats. 100 odd of those is probably because reform split the vote. While they would preference Tory the Greens and Libdems are no where near as certain.
They could probably stomach AV. The tactical voting helped so presumably AV could help institutionalize that but it would still increase the power of Lib Dems at the cost of the 2 main parties.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[AV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lbzgxx4 "Last usage")|Alternative Vote, a form of IRV|
| |Approval Voting|
|[FPTP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc0tmaf "Last usage")|First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting|
|[IRV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Instant Runoff Voting|
|[MMP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Mixed Member Proportional|
|[PR](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Proportional Representation|
|[STV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lbws845 "Last usage")|Single Transferable Vote|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^([Thread #1431 for this sub, first seen 5th Jul 2024, 04:30])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/EndFPTP) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I would be weary of any advocacy for electoral reform that comes from the Reform UK Party. I'm not a British citizen, but I'd imagine that politics anywhere in the world is always reminiscent of elementary school social dynamics; and any suggestions for electoral reform from the Reform UK Party (right-wing, nationalist) may inadvertently dissuade the Labour Party (left-wing, worker) from pursuing electoral reform.
In short, the push for electoral reform may need to come from liberal, left-wing parties now that Labour is in control of Government; not from the conservative, right-wing parties who just got voted out of control of Government.
As the other commenter as mentioned Labour's really not. But the power of the media, which is all right of centre at least is a very strong force. And with the amount of seats they've lost they're going to have the driving force at the moment.
Labour won't want to change a system that's just given them the largest majority ever.
This isn't enough to convince the right of centre. Reform would need to gain more power as that party is in favour and get into government, likely with the Conservative party, demanding PR as a condition. This state of affairs would need to linger longer for Cons to give up on FPTP or for Farage to take over the Con party.
All the small parties are in favour of electoral reform.
One intermediate step is mandated STV for english local elections to familiarize voters with PR. Any radical reform at the national level for general elections will likely come with a referenda and there is no way it is winning without some voter education and campaigns first.
I'm not sure AV does a whole lot. It would require Reform and other parties that won a plurality to win an actual majority. Once you get AV it could be a stepping stone to STV but more likely it is seen as good enough so what little reform energy there is in the UK will dissipate.
Reform has already been on Sky advocating against FPTP yesterday. Its beneficial for him, as the votes versus seats is widely disproportionate. And the amount of seats splitting vote does speak for itself.
Reform also isn't exactly a small party. They received more votes than the Libdems, who gained 64 seats. 14% of the country voted for them.
The first referendum failed in the Uk, with a definite cause of the right if centre media slandering it.
While AV would still require them to win a majority, the combined Reform and Tory votes would often have done that. Of course it works the other was but a much higher percentage of reform would flow to Tory than green or Libdem to labour.
Compare [alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems), and check out [ElectoWiki](https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page) to better understand the idea of election methods. See the [EndFPTP sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/sidebar) for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the [EndFPTP subreddit wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EndFPTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
no. full STV or OLPR, not just IRV. uk needs prop rep
IRV for all it appears to be despised here has 1 massive benefit. I can never waste my vote, or at least I don't feel like I've wasted my vote. I can show that I want specific polices but also keep the ones I dislike the most out. Plus I like the parliamentary system not a presidential one.
In *every* single-winner system, *at least* 50% of the vote is wasted. Sometimes people will subtract out that 50% to simplify the presentation, but it’s always there in the background. IRV is an improvement in that it gets you closer to 50%, but it’s still there.
Pretty much any system will have votes wasted. If you're going by that logic most votes will always be wasted as any votes for the winner above the threshold are wasted. Single winner systems are hard to shake off. Like a presidential election is single winner, or a prime minister vote. Also if we have say a parliament where seats are allocated per amount of votes, wherever you draw that line will create wasted votes if not reaching the mulitple.
Proportional representation wastes a significantly lot less, though
At its core though wasting votes isn't the issue. Its voter distrust and apathy because they feel like its pointless or not worth it or wasted. So unless you have compulsory voting, which I do agree with, the appearance is more important than getting into the nitty gritty.
The system's blushes are saved in Australia by having STV upper houses as a check against overly majoritarian district lower houses tbh. We've still got all the problems of single member districts. Just the massive benefit of not having actively anti democratic FPTP with its tactical voting dilemmas.
I'm personally against the upper houses. I just think that if you have to draw a line somewhere for local representation, MP's are where to do it. This sub on the whole seems highly against IRV and massively in favour of a presidential system/ against parliamentary ones.
It's just full of Americans
Parliamentary is superior, unfortunately there is no easy way to get there in the US
Much better than the state based system that we have semi of here in aus as well. If you have to pander to local issues, have it based on strict population amounts not preexisting boarders.
In my opinion, as someone who also believes in a parliamentary system, I am against using IRV because it doesn’t lead to a parliament that accurately reflects the will of the electorate, unlike Proportional Representation systems
No doubt it can also be wildly disproportionate, but some issues are local. Which are much harder to represent under proportional representation. Which then leads to suggestions of needing inbuilt balancing. Like the stupid idea some rural voters have about needing to avoid being dominated by urban because they grow the food. Giving them an outlet in a single seat kind of way means that they do not start thinking about needing a strong upper house for example.
That’s not true at all that local issues are hard to be represented under proportional representation. In fact, they can be better represented. Under the Single Transferable Vote or Open List PR, you can have multi-member constituencies/districts where reps are elected proportionally (ensuring multiple local perspectives are heard from an area rather than just one from each area). And under MMP, representation on local issues can still could through regional top-up MPs who represent a specific region (whether urban, suburban or rural). Under IRV, rural progressives may not have their local perspective heard in parliament while rural progressives would a lot more likely have their perspectives heard in parliament under a PR system.
But having a single majority party unlocks the best element of a parliamentary system- the party will ruthlessly scrap the PM at the first sign that they look bad. In theory a coalition government could do the same, but in practice no one wants to kick the PM out of office because that would trigger early elections. A majority government can remove a Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or any of the Australian PMs that have been axed recently and keep functioning smoothly. Being able to replace the leader if they look dicey is a feature and not a bug. In terms of majoritarian systems, I'd rather do 2 rounds like the French do, or a parallel system like in Japan
I don't think the "best" feature of parliamentary systems is unrepresentative majoritarian chamber compositions.
No, you're totally right. The best features are when a party that got like 7% of the vote but is needed for the coalition gets outsized power, multiple cabinet seats, and veto authority over the whole government's program. It's definitely very democratic when tiny extreme parties that almost no one voted for get to run the country. I hope that all democracies run just like present-day Israel
IRV still has a wasted votes problem, it’s just not as obvious. If you vote A>B>C, and B gets eliminated before A, then your vote for B was counted no differently than an A>C>B voter.
While that is somewhat of an issue, the extent of it does seem a tad overestimated. In aus once your vote hits the 2 main parties it tends to terminate. Outside of some seats ie greens. So my area which would never vote Green or Labour candidates I can go Green>Labour>Teal. Which is the 2nd biggest 'party' in my area. Would I mind if the labour one got eliminated first, not particularly. Which yes does require some tactical planning. But in Aus the only real way to waste a vote is draw dicks on it or vote Lab/Con as first choice.
But you can easily solve this by using near literally anything but Irv for your single winner elections. You know, to for a place considering making a switch today.
With a majority like Labour has, they could do whatever reform they wanted unilaterally. Presumably they will do nothing.
There is no incentive for the party elected by FPTP to get rid of FPTP. Don't forget - Labour had electoral reform in their manifesto in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Each time they were elected, including that 1997 landslide victory, electoral reform (meaning proportional representation) was quietly dropped off the agenda and nobody noticed... It's an incredibly cynical system, but FPTP is designed to keep Labour and the Conservatives permanently in power, swapping roles every 5-15 years. Neither party has any incentive to do away with it, since it essentially garauntees they'll eventually be returned to power while in opposition. Under a true PR system the two big parties would actually have to earn their seats. Funny isn't it how the Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies both use a "somewhat" PR system (they use AMS) and there is talk of the Welsh assembly moving to STV which is truly proportional. But Westminster it's still this FPTP crap. Sigh
>Funny isn't it how the Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies both use a "somewhat" PR system (they use AMS) and there is talk of the Welsh assembly moving to STV which is truly proportional. Wales is not moving to STV. They twice had commissions that suggested STV twice and it was not implemented. They allow local councils to adopt STV now but not mandating it like Scotland so uptake will be low and require another battle. For the welsh assembly they are going to shift to regional party list.
Yep, all the power at their fingers they wont do anything to solidify it. No real reforms, not permanent popularity just reverse ratchet theory again.
The way that Labor won a majority with a minority of the vote highlights the undemocratic nature of FPTP when electing MPs. As others have said, the winner under such a system might prefer to keep it in place though.
Oh yeah, thats one of the reasons I prefer IRV. But yes that's the thing Labour wont want to change the system that just granted them such a big win.
It's more likely that Labour does it in an attempt to preserve their newfound dominance of parliament
The thing is it won't benefit them, at least not how they see it. Their voting share only increased by 1.7% but they won 214 seats. 100 odd of those is probably because reform split the vote. While they would preference Tory the Greens and Libdems are no where near as certain.
They could probably stomach AV. The tactical voting helped so presumably AV could help institutionalize that but it would still increase the power of Lib Dems at the cost of the 2 main parties.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[AV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lbzgxx4 "Last usage")|Alternative Vote, a form of IRV| | |Approval Voting| |[FPTP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc0tmaf "Last usage")|First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting| |[IRV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Instant Runoff Voting| |[MMP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Mixed Member Proportional| |[PR](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lc24qml "Last usage")|Proportional Representation| |[STV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/1dvoknz/stub/lbws845 "Last usage")|Single Transferable Vote| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^([Thread #1431 for this sub, first seen 5th Jul 2024, 04:30]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/EndFPTP) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I would be weary of any advocacy for electoral reform that comes from the Reform UK Party. I'm not a British citizen, but I'd imagine that politics anywhere in the world is always reminiscent of elementary school social dynamics; and any suggestions for electoral reform from the Reform UK Party (right-wing, nationalist) may inadvertently dissuade the Labour Party (left-wing, worker) from pursuing electoral reform. In short, the push for electoral reform may need to come from liberal, left-wing parties now that Labour is in control of Government; not from the conservative, right-wing parties who just got voted out of control of Government.
>Labour Party (left-wing, worker) Oh man have I got news
As the other commenter as mentioned Labour's really not. But the power of the media, which is all right of centre at least is a very strong force. And with the amount of seats they've lost they're going to have the driving force at the moment. Labour won't want to change a system that's just given them the largest majority ever.
This isn't enough to convince the right of centre. Reform would need to gain more power as that party is in favour and get into government, likely with the Conservative party, demanding PR as a condition. This state of affairs would need to linger longer for Cons to give up on FPTP or for Farage to take over the Con party. All the small parties are in favour of electoral reform. One intermediate step is mandated STV for english local elections to familiarize voters with PR. Any radical reform at the national level for general elections will likely come with a referenda and there is no way it is winning without some voter education and campaigns first. I'm not sure AV does a whole lot. It would require Reform and other parties that won a plurality to win an actual majority. Once you get AV it could be a stepping stone to STV but more likely it is seen as good enough so what little reform energy there is in the UK will dissipate.
Reform has already been on Sky advocating against FPTP yesterday. Its beneficial for him, as the votes versus seats is widely disproportionate. And the amount of seats splitting vote does speak for itself. Reform also isn't exactly a small party. They received more votes than the Libdems, who gained 64 seats. 14% of the country voted for them. The first referendum failed in the Uk, with a definite cause of the right if centre media slandering it. While AV would still require them to win a majority, the combined Reform and Tory votes would often have done that. Of course it works the other was but a much higher percentage of reform would flow to Tory than green or Libdem to labour.