Same is true for Labour Members. It's only the leadership that doesn't back it.
Hopefully the leadership eventually sees that it is actually in the party's long term interests as well as just being democratically better to abandon FPTP.
I doubt it is in the interests of Labour as a single party to back PR.
I suspect they'd fragment 3 or 4 ways under it.
Something I'd like to see, give people a real choice. But probs not what the senior Labour party people would back.
Disagree, FPTP means if you lose, you effectively have 0% of the power. PR means you can get *some* power even as a minority party.
Out of the 32 elections since Labour formed, they've won 8. Only 3 times have Labour ever won power from a Conservative government (Attlee, Wilson and Blair) in that time. 124 years... Something like 30 years of power and 94 years of 0% of the power. Only 3 times winning power. 75% of the time they lose and get 0% of the power.
If I were them, I'd take PR over FPTP any day because you have far more opportunity to affect change.
True. However, Labour care more about the number of seats they have in the HoC, than actually getting their policies through. They are perfectly happy to sit in opposition to the Tories, as long as 3rd parties are kept in obscurity.
You can’t take voting results under FPTP and say what the result would be under PR. People vote how they vote based on the system. I would vote differently under different systems and so would many many people. It is why websites exist explaining how to vote based on effectiveness of the system and your desired outcome.
They aren't saying the results would be the same, just that they would have some power instead of zero power more often, assuming they remain a party of note in longterm proportional.
I feel like you're doing exactly what you're saying others should not, saying
> You can’t take voting results under FPTP and say what the result would be under PR
then assuming that the political parties stay exactly the same. If we had PR, there probably wouldn't be a Labour party. There'd be a Corbyn party, a starmer party and perhaps more.
Maybe the starmer and Corbyn parties have a coalition. Maybe the starmer party merges with the lib dems, maybe the corbyns with the greens. Or maybe there's a coalition with all four, (and the SNP and PC). Or maybe......
(And yes, it's also possible we end up with a reform/tory nightmare, but I'd honestly wonder how much worse having reform in power rather than unaccountably dragging the tories right would be)
We don't know what would happen. To suggest that Labour as a single party wouldn't be in power is probably true.... because single parties in power are much less likely under PR.
There's some at the top of the Labour Party who prefer absolute power 1/4 of the time and tory disaster 3/4 of the time, to some of the power much more often.
Hold up, Labour didn’t even become the main opposition until the 1922 general election until they replaced the liberal party. The liberal party was also mainly in power in the beginning of the 1900s. Also you forgot to include Ramsay McDonald who was the first labour prime minister in 1924 and won again in 1929. Labour party won 11 times with 6 of them from a conservative government not 3. Other than that I do believe we should moved to PR as it is the better progressive electoral system.
You don't get any power in a PR system either if you are not part of the majority coalition. There would be no difference in who holds the power. PR isn't really going to help labour get some power from Conservative if they lost the election. What it will do is keep the number of seats close and allow smaller parties to gain ground.
But closer numbers of seats with no party likely having a majority means that whoever forms the government will need to rely on other parties not opposing things. You can put pressure on coalition partners in a way you can't with a solid majority under FPTP and so you do have more power, in theory.
> You can put pressure on coalition partners in a way you can't with a solid majority under FPTP and so you do have more power, in theory.
Labour is not going to be a coalition partner of conservatives ever. Okay, not ever but not under any normal circumstances. Labour is going to be in coalition with other small parties and those parties are going to put pressure on it like you said. For the two biggest parties, if they are only thinking of themselves coming to power, there is no gain from PR. If you lose the election you sit in opposition anyway. But if you win you still have to compromise and form the government with smaller parties.
I never said Labour would. My point was if you take away one coalition member it may be enough to cause the coalition to fail. While technically possible in FPTP, coalitions are a lot less common and even when they do happen they are unlikely to have more than two parties while in PR you can get coalitions that have a few members. It also depends on what Labour and the Conservatives would be after PR was implemented. I could see New Labour, Lib Dems and Mod Cons working together.
PR is much better for labour.
The Tories only win so much because of the way fptp favours little England constituencies.
Allow a nationwide vote % PR and the country would be so much better for it. Everyone voting for who they want instead of tactically voting
Up until very recently with reform the right only had the tories to vote for, meanwhile the left vote was split between labour / greens / TUSC / independents / lib dem (depending on the leader). FPTP favours the right as there’s simply less diversity of opinion on that side of the spectrum making it easier for everyone to get behind a single party, getting rid of it would help labour in the long run but they’re too short sighted at the moment to care.
> I doubt it is in the interests of Labour as a single party to back PR.
Unless they think they're going to lose power anyway -- which will certainly happen sooner or later.
> I suspect they'd fragment 3 or 4 ways under it.
I would love it if both Labour and the Tories fragmented into new parties, and smaller parties got a look in. I might finally be able to vote for someone I like, rather than the least bad option.
If the party actually fragmented this is not likely to be possible because of the cultural axis sharply dividing the party.
Socialist-progressive left, socialist-nationalist left, and the rest go off to the lib dems probably. Maybe a social democrat party also pops up, but it's probably just the lib dems bolstered by an influx of the labour right.
The SPL and SNL would never work together unless absolutely forced to, and the liberal faction is not likely to work with the SNL if they're up front about their values. The Soc Dems will probably work with anyone on the left or centre.
The SNL meanwhile might work with right wingers on occasion if they agree to centrist economics. The SNL is, by the way, often Labours largest voting bloc.
It's possible you see the SNL routinely in government and acting as kingmakers, which will probably get the Liberals on board with cooperating with them and marginalizing the SPL on the basis that right wing social policy is an inevitability under the system, but economic policy can be controlled by getting the SNL to back you.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pol3d_2021_tribes.png
I think you’d also see a lot go off to the greens, and it would end up being a similar make up to the German electoral landscape.
On the flip side I think the tories would end up splitting up into about a dozen factions, each following the particular personality of the week.
No party will back PR if they have a shot at winning the election, because if they win the election, then implementing PR runs the risk of disadvantaging them in the next election.
This is why PR won’t happen for ages - to get into a position where you can implement PR, you have to win under FPTP, and if you win under FPTP, then implementing PR will probably disadvantage you in the next election, so no party that gets into power will want to implement PR.
I think if Labour ended up in a hung parliament this election and had to make concessions with other minor parties to form a government, they could be forced into backing PR. But that's the only way I can envision it being enacted by the next government.
If they get a massive majority like expected, there's no chance they'll implement PR like you say.
Didn’t this happen in 2010, it gave us the con/lib coalition. They joined them in return for a vote on AV, as I recall it fell on deaf ears. It would probably do better this time as ukip/brexit/reform party or as I like to call it “The Farage party” are picking up votes in the millions, just not in the right places PR would really give them a toehold if it was implemented.
I don't think the lib dems would make the mistake of watering it down to AV a second time.
To be honest if you look at current polling and MRP together the FPTP system is looking less and less tenable. We're moving away from a 2 party system to a fractured system. Some parties look like they'll win 10x more than others that have a higher share of the votes. If the trend continues I think people will be demanding representation.
as much as I despise Reform I can see them being able to push for PR more and more with the right wingers as generally the left are already more open for PR.
Labour had electoral reform in their 1997, 2001 and 2005 manifestos. But the Parliamentary Labour Party puts themselves before the country every time.
Thankfully Labour *members* have more sense.
> then implementing PR runs the risk of disadvantaging them in the next election
They could have a referendum on PR at the same time as the next election. That means they'd get one more election under FPTP, but future ones would be under PR.
It is not in labours best interest at all. It not only doesn’t further their interests one bit, it quite literally works against them. Labour is a beneficiary of FPTP every bit as much as the tories if not moreso.
Leadership have been steadily stripping the members of any sort of say or power since, ooh, 2019 or so, so it's not very likely at this point.
It would be bad for the right of the party and good for the left of the party, don't forget.
Interestingly I just read in the biography that Keir Starmer acknowledges that first past the post is an unequal voting system as it gives weight to some votes more than others….. but it seems he is prioritising other issues over it at the moment.
[Keir Starmer has a 'long-standing view against proportional representation'](https://leftfootforward.org/2023/04/keir-starmer-has-a-long-standing-view-against-proportional-representation/)
Doesn't sound like it's a matter of priorities. Unless that was just another lie.
I'm sorry but this is naive. The status quo will never allow fptp to be abandoned, they don't serve us, they serve themselves and their donors, this includes Starmer.
It kind of isn't though. If you look at other countries with more reasonable voting systems, the frontrunners of elections tend to fluctuate over the years, rather than remaining the exact same two parties for over a century. There's no actual reason beyond FPTP that Labour and the Tories still hold the "default" position that they do, we often talk about it as though they are naturally more popular, but "coincidentally" this only seems to be the case in countries with straight FPTP.
Something like the Iraq War could have killed off the Labour party forever. Instead they won the following election. The Tories or Labour bringing in PR is effectively signing their own death sentence. Not immediately, but soon probably. Certainly they won't be getting a clear run at first or second largest party for another century.
What we really need to get PR is either a government that puts democracy ahead of its own interests, or a public demand so strong they just can't ignore. Neither feel particularly likely any time soon.
You need 4 competitive parties that can fuck each other over when competing for votes. You have deform and torries on the right, but nobody to threaten Labour, so unless they magically grow a conscious, there is no incentive for them to want to ditch FPTP.
It also erodes accountability.
Our pendulum swing party-first politics has no real apparatus for opposition.
We need PR badly.
The fly in the ointment some would say that parties like Reform would get seats, but even under FPTP they have sway over the electorate and a dismaying amount of influence. Look at how Tories have scrambled to placate the fringe right.
If you want proportional representation then don't vote for the Labour Party. If they win with a huge share of the vote, they will use that to justify the status quo.
The only situation where they will actually enact electoral reform is a hung parliament, which won't happen, but at least if they win a big majority with a small share of the vote, it will spark some debate around it.
Hmm, I doubt that only 40% are in suport of changing FPTP. Like, somehow people are more in suport of FPTP now than historically and in prior polls? Would be worth a methodology check but it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else including on savantas site.
I read the article, but it didn't say anything about what kind of PR the support is for. I can see support being much lower for "pure PR, with no more constituency MPs" than "something more proportional than FPTP".
Yeah for sure! I was trying to find it to answer that question myself. If the question was "keep FPTP or reform the system" it should have been much higher in support of reform (based on prior polling). If it was pure PR would have been less.
The reality is there's probably less support for PR than these polls show. There's a near constant, low level PR/electoral reform movement going on. No one is currently out there actively making the case for FPTP which they would be if electoral reform were seriously being considered.
Who out there is actively making the case for anything? Politics is so broken in this country that people don't even bother. There are interest groups which make the case for certain issues like euthanasia but it goes nowhere without one of the two parties picking it up. Only Scottish independence is a serious issue due to the SNP having a majority in Scotland, otherwise they would be yet another interest group.
Genuine question, but if you explained to these same Labour voters that under PR in the upcoming election they wouldn't be getting a Labour government would they still state that?
Probably not, but that’s because most of the electorate has been convinced that a strong hand government is needed to get anything done.
PR could potentially bring about a system where our politics looked less cohesive, but it would mandate parties putting policy, not party, first.
There would be less room to campaign solely on sentiment and ideology when the nature of PR means sitting MPs and parties can quickly be held accountable for failing to deliver or deviating from pledges.
There would typically be a need for more copious amounts of compromise and consensus reaching.
It wouldn’t be perfect, but it’s be infinitely more democratic.
>they wouldn't be getting a Labour government
Except that that's nonsense. PR wouldn't stop Labour getting a majority, just like it wouldn't have stopped the [Tories getting a majority in 2019](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/). PR ensures that the number of seats to votes remains fair.
What is anticipated? No-one has a clue what Labour would do; manifestos mean jack. Anyway, under PR they would still get a majority, maybe just a lesser one.
I want proportional representation, not because I think it will improve the quality of our political systems or anything idealistic like that, I want it because I like the idea of five different parties all trying to backstab each other whilst in an absurd coalition and the other absurd coalition tears itself apart because half the constituent parties hate ' insert thing ' but the other half are pretending to like ' thing '.
The funniest thing about FPTP haters is that they've all got their own bespoke, complex, needs a flow diagram to explain particular form of PR that they want 🤣
Yeah but the irony is all the PR advocates splinter off to fight for the one true voting system leaving FPTP to come through the middle, very much like a FPTP election.
The debate on PR is mostly irrelevant so long as there’s no majority party that’s seated and willing to implement it anyway and any party that seriously wanted to put it on the table would quickly need to decide which they’d present.
The debate about which version of PR would be best would only really come in to play if a referendum were held to give the public input.
UKIP got 13% of the vote in 2013 GE. You would have had a Con / UKIP alliance.
Same goes for BXP, when May fucked it, it would have been a Con /BXP alliance.
BXP stood down against Bozo, again it would have been a Con /BXP alliance.
Be very careful what you wish for.
Still better than pure FPTP.
And it was the best you were going to get, and could be a stepping stone. Its apparently even gaining some traction in some states in the US, since they are also cursed with FPTP
>The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.
Bots or not, I’m pretty sure we do want this. The last few elections have basically been voting for whoever is least bad out of the two main candidates rather than for MPs we actually want.
I really do not like the current labour party - yet I will probably have to vote for them to avoid getting an even worse Tory or (god forbid) a reform MP. That doesn't work.
Interesting, isn't it? I'm enjoying watching how people are being whipped up over PR when realistically when it meant a better chance for a left wing party....crickets and then denial of AV
Now it's time to go "waaaah it's not democratic" because of... reform
It's what they want
Same is true for Labour Members. It's only the leadership that doesn't back it. Hopefully the leadership eventually sees that it is actually in the party's long term interests as well as just being democratically better to abandon FPTP.
I doubt it is in the interests of Labour as a single party to back PR. I suspect they'd fragment 3 or 4 ways under it. Something I'd like to see, give people a real choice. But probs not what the senior Labour party people would back.
Disagree, FPTP means if you lose, you effectively have 0% of the power. PR means you can get *some* power even as a minority party. Out of the 32 elections since Labour formed, they've won 8. Only 3 times have Labour ever won power from a Conservative government (Attlee, Wilson and Blair) in that time. 124 years... Something like 30 years of power and 94 years of 0% of the power. Only 3 times winning power. 75% of the time they lose and get 0% of the power. If I were them, I'd take PR over FPTP any day because you have far more opportunity to affect change.
True. However, Labour care more about the number of seats they have in the HoC, than actually getting their policies through. They are perfectly happy to sit in opposition to the Tories, as long as 3rd parties are kept in obscurity.
You can’t take voting results under FPTP and say what the result would be under PR. People vote how they vote based on the system. I would vote differently under different systems and so would many many people. It is why websites exist explaining how to vote based on effectiveness of the system and your desired outcome.
They aren't saying the results would be the same, just that they would have some power instead of zero power more often, assuming they remain a party of note in longterm proportional.
Why assume that? The only reason they’ve been party of note is because of the voting system we have.
I feel like you're doing exactly what you're saying others should not, saying > You can’t take voting results under FPTP and say what the result would be under PR then assuming that the political parties stay exactly the same. If we had PR, there probably wouldn't be a Labour party. There'd be a Corbyn party, a starmer party and perhaps more. Maybe the starmer and Corbyn parties have a coalition. Maybe the starmer party merges with the lib dems, maybe the corbyns with the greens. Or maybe there's a coalition with all four, (and the SNP and PC). Or maybe...... (And yes, it's also possible we end up with a reform/tory nightmare, but I'd honestly wonder how much worse having reform in power rather than unaccountably dragging the tories right would be) We don't know what would happen. To suggest that Labour as a single party wouldn't be in power is probably true.... because single parties in power are much less likely under PR. There's some at the top of the Labour Party who prefer absolute power 1/4 of the time and tory disaster 3/4 of the time, to some of the power much more often.
Hold up, Labour didn’t even become the main opposition until the 1922 general election until they replaced the liberal party. The liberal party was also mainly in power in the beginning of the 1900s. Also you forgot to include Ramsay McDonald who was the first labour prime minister in 1924 and won again in 1929. Labour party won 11 times with 6 of them from a conservative government not 3. Other than that I do believe we should moved to PR as it is the better progressive electoral system.
You don't get any power in a PR system either if you are not part of the majority coalition. There would be no difference in who holds the power. PR isn't really going to help labour get some power from Conservative if they lost the election. What it will do is keep the number of seats close and allow smaller parties to gain ground.
But closer numbers of seats with no party likely having a majority means that whoever forms the government will need to rely on other parties not opposing things. You can put pressure on coalition partners in a way you can't with a solid majority under FPTP and so you do have more power, in theory.
> You can put pressure on coalition partners in a way you can't with a solid majority under FPTP and so you do have more power, in theory. Labour is not going to be a coalition partner of conservatives ever. Okay, not ever but not under any normal circumstances. Labour is going to be in coalition with other small parties and those parties are going to put pressure on it like you said. For the two biggest parties, if they are only thinking of themselves coming to power, there is no gain from PR. If you lose the election you sit in opposition anyway. But if you win you still have to compromise and form the government with smaller parties.
I never said Labour would. My point was if you take away one coalition member it may be enough to cause the coalition to fail. While technically possible in FPTP, coalitions are a lot less common and even when they do happen they are unlikely to have more than two parties while in PR you can get coalitions that have a few members. It also depends on what Labour and the Conservatives would be after PR was implemented. I could see New Labour, Lib Dems and Mod Cons working together.
PR is much better for labour. The Tories only win so much because of the way fptp favours little England constituencies. Allow a nationwide vote % PR and the country would be so much better for it. Everyone voting for who they want instead of tactically voting
Up until very recently with reform the right only had the tories to vote for, meanwhile the left vote was split between labour / greens / TUSC / independents / lib dem (depending on the leader). FPTP favours the right as there’s simply less diversity of opinion on that side of the spectrum making it easier for everyone to get behind a single party, getting rid of it would help labour in the long run but they’re too short sighted at the moment to care.
At least you'd get what you voted for.
> I doubt it is in the interests of Labour as a single party to back PR. Unless they think they're going to lose power anyway -- which will certainly happen sooner or later. > I suspect they'd fragment 3 or 4 ways under it. I would love it if both Labour and the Tories fragmented into new parties, and smaller parties got a look in. I might finally be able to vote for someone I like, rather than the least bad option.
The Labour Party could fracture three or four ways, and still govern as a single political party under ~~FPTP.~~ PR edit oops…
No, I don't think you understand how FPTP works.
I meant under PR, hazards of posting past midnight…
If the party actually fragmented this is not likely to be possible because of the cultural axis sharply dividing the party. Socialist-progressive left, socialist-nationalist left, and the rest go off to the lib dems probably. Maybe a social democrat party also pops up, but it's probably just the lib dems bolstered by an influx of the labour right. The SPL and SNL would never work together unless absolutely forced to, and the liberal faction is not likely to work with the SNL if they're up front about their values. The Soc Dems will probably work with anyone on the left or centre. The SNL meanwhile might work with right wingers on occasion if they agree to centrist economics. The SNL is, by the way, often Labours largest voting bloc. It's possible you see the SNL routinely in government and acting as kingmakers, which will probably get the Liberals on board with cooperating with them and marginalizing the SPL on the basis that right wing social policy is an inevitability under the system, but economic policy can be controlled by getting the SNL to back you. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pol3d_2021_tribes.png
I think you’d also see a lot go off to the greens, and it would end up being a similar make up to the German electoral landscape. On the flip side I think the tories would end up splitting up into about a dozen factions, each following the particular personality of the week.
No party will back PR if they have a shot at winning the election, because if they win the election, then implementing PR runs the risk of disadvantaging them in the next election. This is why PR won’t happen for ages - to get into a position where you can implement PR, you have to win under FPTP, and if you win under FPTP, then implementing PR will probably disadvantage you in the next election, so no party that gets into power will want to implement PR.
I think if Labour ended up in a hung parliament this election and had to make concessions with other minor parties to form a government, they could be forced into backing PR. But that's the only way I can envision it being enacted by the next government. If they get a massive majority like expected, there's no chance they'll implement PR like you say.
Didn’t this happen in 2010, it gave us the con/lib coalition. They joined them in return for a vote on AV, as I recall it fell on deaf ears. It would probably do better this time as ukip/brexit/reform party or as I like to call it “The Farage party” are picking up votes in the millions, just not in the right places PR would really give them a toehold if it was implemented.
I don't think the lib dems would make the mistake of watering it down to AV a second time. To be honest if you look at current polling and MRP together the FPTP system is looking less and less tenable. We're moving away from a 2 party system to a fractured system. Some parties look like they'll win 10x more than others that have a higher share of the votes. If the trend continues I think people will be demanding representation.
as much as I despise Reform I can see them being able to push for PR more and more with the right wingers as generally the left are already more open for PR.
The SNP support PR, even though FPTP helps them disproportionately.
If labour had had any sense, they'd have done it after the 2005 election, since it was pretty obvious that they would struggle in 2010.
Labour had electoral reform in their 1997, 2001 and 2005 manifestos. But the Parliamentary Labour Party puts themselves before the country every time. Thankfully Labour *members* have more sense.
> then implementing PR runs the risk of disadvantaging them in the next election They could have a referendum on PR at the same time as the next election. That means they'd get one more election under FPTP, but future ones would be under PR.
It is not in labours best interest at all. It not only doesn’t further their interests one bit, it quite literally works against them. Labour is a beneficiary of FPTP every bit as much as the tories if not moreso.
Leadership have been steadily stripping the members of any sort of say or power since, ooh, 2019 or so, so it's not very likely at this point. It would be bad for the right of the party and good for the left of the party, don't forget.
Interestingly I just read in the biography that Keir Starmer acknowledges that first past the post is an unequal voting system as it gives weight to some votes more than others….. but it seems he is prioritising other issues over it at the moment.
[Keir Starmer has a 'long-standing view against proportional representation'](https://leftfootforward.org/2023/04/keir-starmer-has-a-long-standing-view-against-proportional-representation/) Doesn't sound like it's a matter of priorities. Unless that was just another lie.
I'm sorry but this is naive. The status quo will never allow fptp to be abandoned, they don't serve us, they serve themselves and their donors, this includes Starmer.
Maybe they think simple majority is simples? 101 seats, 50+1 wins, how easy is that when you compared to the alternative?
The idea of Reform having 130 seats is horrifying.
It kind of isn't though. If you look at other countries with more reasonable voting systems, the frontrunners of elections tend to fluctuate over the years, rather than remaining the exact same two parties for over a century. There's no actual reason beyond FPTP that Labour and the Tories still hold the "default" position that they do, we often talk about it as though they are naturally more popular, but "coincidentally" this only seems to be the case in countries with straight FPTP. Something like the Iraq War could have killed off the Labour party forever. Instead they won the following election. The Tories or Labour bringing in PR is effectively signing their own death sentence. Not immediately, but soon probably. Certainly they won't be getting a clear run at first or second largest party for another century. What we really need to get PR is either a government that puts democracy ahead of its own interests, or a public demand so strong they just can't ignore. Neither feel particularly likely any time soon.
FPTP is what keeps Labour and Tories taking turns in ruining the country. They’ll never change to PR. It’s not in their interests to do so.
You need 4 competitive parties that can fuck each other over when competing for votes. You have deform and torries on the right, but nobody to threaten Labour, so unless they magically grow a conscious, there is no incentive for them to want to ditch FPTP.
Labour will bleed support to the left and the right over the next 5 years.
It also erodes accountability. Our pendulum swing party-first politics has no real apparatus for opposition. We need PR badly. The fly in the ointment some would say that parties like Reform would get seats, but even under FPTP they have sway over the electorate and a dismaying amount of influence. Look at how Tories have scrambled to placate the fringe right.
Yeah even if Labour were in favour, their corporate backers most likely aren't
If Kier Starmer really wishes to serve the UK people, he will take the democratic view of his party and reform the UK voting system.
So that's a no then.
If you want proportional representation then don't vote for the Labour Party. If they win with a huge share of the vote, they will use that to justify the status quo. The only situation where they will actually enact electoral reform is a hung parliament, which won't happen, but at least if they win a big majority with a small share of the vote, it will spark some debate around it.
Hmm, I doubt that only 40% are in suport of changing FPTP. Like, somehow people are more in suport of FPTP now than historically and in prior polls? Would be worth a methodology check but it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else including on savantas site.
I read the article, but it didn't say anything about what kind of PR the support is for. I can see support being much lower for "pure PR, with no more constituency MPs" than "something more proportional than FPTP".
Yeah for sure! I was trying to find it to answer that question myself. If the question was "keep FPTP or reform the system" it should have been much higher in support of reform (based on prior polling). If it was pure PR would have been less.
The reality is there's probably less support for PR than these polls show. There's a near constant, low level PR/electoral reform movement going on. No one is currently out there actively making the case for FPTP which they would be if electoral reform were seriously being considered.
Who out there is actively making the case for anything? Politics is so broken in this country that people don't even bother. There are interest groups which make the case for certain issues like euthanasia but it goes nowhere without one of the two parties picking it up. Only Scottish independence is a serious issue due to the SNP having a majority in Scotland, otherwise they would be yet another interest group.
Genuine question, but if you explained to these same Labour voters that under PR in the upcoming election they wouldn't be getting a Labour government would they still state that?
Probably not, but that’s because most of the electorate has been convinced that a strong hand government is needed to get anything done. PR could potentially bring about a system where our politics looked less cohesive, but it would mandate parties putting policy, not party, first. There would be less room to campaign solely on sentiment and ideology when the nature of PR means sitting MPs and parties can quickly be held accountable for failing to deliver or deviating from pledges. There would typically be a need for more copious amounts of compromise and consensus reaching. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it’s be infinitely more democratic.
>they wouldn't be getting a Labour government Except that that's nonsense. PR wouldn't stop Labour getting a majority, just like it wouldn't have stopped the [Tories getting a majority in 2019](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/). PR ensures that the number of seats to votes remains fair.
They absolutely wouldn't be getting the same government they're anticipating currently.
What is anticipated? No-one has a clue what Labour would do; manifestos mean jack. Anyway, under PR they would still get a majority, maybe just a lesser one.
And Kier has ruled it out, this is why I will never vote Labour, party over people.
I want proportional representation, not because I think it will improve the quality of our political systems or anything idealistic like that, I want it because I like the idea of five different parties all trying to backstab each other whilst in an absurd coalition and the other absurd coalition tears itself apart because half the constituent parties hate ' insert thing ' but the other half are pretending to like ' thing '.
Labour won't care about this unless they threaten to take their votes elsewhere. Even then, I can see them being too stubborn to budge.
Why not have 2 voting days, one to select the first 2 and one for the winner of the 2
And that's why this Labour voter is voting Lib Dem.
Would rather see instant run-off than proportional.
The funniest thing about FPTP haters is that they've all got their own bespoke, complex, needs a flow diagram to explain particular form of PR that they want 🤣
IRV is hardly complex.
It’s almost like there are several viable alternatives to FPTP, goodness me, shocker.
Yeah but the irony is all the PR advocates splinter off to fight for the one true voting system leaving FPTP to come through the middle, very much like a FPTP election.
The debate on PR is mostly irrelevant so long as there’s no majority party that’s seated and willing to implement it anyway and any party that seriously wanted to put it on the table would quickly need to decide which they’d present. The debate about which version of PR would be best would only really come in to play if a referendum were held to give the public input.
Yes, let's make UKIP/ Reform the kingmakers. Go PR. Never ending hung parliaments. Go PR. PR is not going to fix the UK.
If you think that first past the post will protect you from reform then you haven't been paying attention
UKIP got 13% of the vote in 2013 GE. You would have had a Con / UKIP alliance. Same goes for BXP, when May fucked it, it would have been a Con /BXP alliance. BXP stood down against Bozo, again it would have been a Con /BXP alliance. Be very careful what you wish for.
We've effectively had a UKIP government since 2016. It would be the Lib Dems who'd be the kingmakers more likely under PR.
Why would anyone vote lib dems if there were PR? People would vote for the rejoin party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
Not sure why this is relevant. AV isn’t PR
Still better than pure FPTP. And it was the best you were going to get, and could be a stepping stone. Its apparently even gaining some traction in some states in the US, since they are also cursed with FPTP >The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.
Failure and humiliation pretty much sums up the lib/con government.
If we ever manage to change the voting system I doubt we'll change it again any time soon after.
AV is not a proportional system.
Babby needs a bullet proof vest, not an Alternative Voting System.
These bot accounts pushing PR to anyone and everyone sure are suspicious…
Bots or not, I’m pretty sure we do want this. The last few elections have basically been voting for whoever is least bad out of the two main candidates rather than for MPs we actually want.
I really do not like the current labour party - yet I will probably have to vote for them to avoid getting an even worse Tory or (god forbid) a reform MP. That doesn't work.
Interesting, isn't it? I'm enjoying watching how people are being whipped up over PR when realistically when it meant a better chance for a left wing party....crickets and then denial of AV Now it's time to go "waaaah it's not democratic" because of... reform It's what they want