The two party system is finished

ayse

But it still needs to be reflected in the elections. PR would be a reasonable solution. The New Zealand system seems to work quite well.

No system is perfect either but FPTP seems the least democratic.

I agree ayse.

Before the purists jump on me, I am using proportional representation to describe systems which give more proportional representation than FPTP.

We have PR. There are negatives because small parties often have undue influence. There are some truly awful extreme small parties around and they often have the balance of power playing one large party off against the other.

I now believe in compulsory voting after being against it for many years.

Proportional Representation does what it says. It allocates power in proportion to the support of the public. If 25% of voters support right wing politics then however distasteful it may be they should have 25% of members. If 55% of Scottish people support independence parties then 55% of members should be SNP/Green/Alba. Too frequently in Westminster elections parties with 30-40% of support get overwhelming majorities. Whether led by Thatcher or Starmer. The early years of the Scottish Parliament (not assembly) had parties working together in coalition, until the Conservatives under Baroness Davidson brought in Westminster mores into the chamber, turning it into a bearpit.

I’m not keen on the European type of government with coalitions of opposing factions horse trading. No thanks.

In the 2011 referendum, I voted for the Alternative Vote system where voters rank parties in order of preference. I was outvoted.

It works like this:

If more than half the voters have the same favourite candidate, that person becomes the MP. If nobody gets half, the numbers provide instructions for what happens next.

The counters remove whoever came last and look at the ballot papers with that candidate as their favourite. Rather than throwing away these votes, they move each vote to the voter’s second favourite candidate. This process is repeated until one candidate has half of the votes and becomes the MP.

I can't recall if it was YouGov or MoreInCommon who did polling on this last year but it showed that if we had AV, the LibDems would do well as they are most people’s second choice. Reform would do badly as, other than Reform voters, few like Reform. Most rank Reform their least favourite party.

If you look at polling data from 2024, few MPs won their seats with more than 50% the vote, even party leaders. Starmer won only 48.9%, Sunak 47.5%, (Badenoch only 35.6%), Davey 51.1%, Farage 46.2%, Denyer 56.6%, Ramsay 41.7% So only Davey for the Lib Dems and Denyer for the Greens would have won their seat outright.

In a seat, where there are many candidates, AV could tip the balance. In Clacton, for example, almost 12,000 people voted for candidates other than Farage and the runner up, previous incumbent Giles Watling. On the basis that Reform are few people’s second choice, Watling would have picked up the reallocated votes and retained the seat.

nanna8

I now believe in compulsory voting after being against it for many years.

If they didn’t want to vote, they would just spoil the paper

Shinamae

nanna8

I now believe in compulsory voting after being against it for many years.

If they didn’t want to vote, they would just spoil the paper

Surprisingly enough, very few do. I am genuinely amazed at this. I have worked at different polling stations over the years. I suppose if they bother to turn up to avoid being fined they might as well vote.

Thats a fascinating analysis Silverbrook thank you. Especially the "Results" for Reform because of the lack of "second choice" support.

I'm undecided. In theory its hard not to support some form of PR becuase it gives more people a chance to vote for a party closest to their views,

but in practice the "horse trading" does lead in some cases to a small extreme party holding a balance and effectively calling the shots.

It can also result in a very unstable government where its difficult to get things done if things are very close.

Whatever it’s perceived unfairness I think FPTP in each constituency is the best way.
I hope that this government doesn’t put me off voting Labour in the future, it hasn’t inspired me so far, but really the other choices to me are so limited.
I wouldn’t vote Lib Dem as they have such a pro trans following who seem to have a lot of input into the Party.
So do Greens.
I can see all the political parties by their words and actions driving voters into the arms of Reform.

PoliticsNerd You said:
"The far and hard-right, in whom I assume previous posters place their confidence were, in the guise of far-right Andrew Lawrence and far-right Alison Pearson,"

As you posted this under a copied quote of mine, I do hope you are not suggesting that I place my confidence in the far right because that really could not be farther from the truth.

PN makes these vague accusations on many threads, never identifies who they are talking about.

Ilovecheese

PoliticsNerd You said:
"The far and hard-right, in whom I assume previous posters place their confidence were, in the guise of far-right Andrew Lawrence and far-right Alison Pearson,"

As you posted this under a copied quote of mine, I do hope you are not suggesting that I place my confidence in the far right because that really could not be farther from the truth.

I addressed the full quote of your post in the first paragraph to provide a clear and direct answer.

This set the foundation for a more complex argument. In the subsequent paragraphs, I developed my opinion, provided supporting details, and explored related points. This meant I could expand my thinking while ensuring readers know the main answer to the quote is given right from the beginning.

So we have clarified that it wasn't ilovecheese so who is it then?

Heathermomo

Proportional Representation does what it says. It allocates power in proportion to the support of the public. If 25% of voters support right wing politics then however distasteful it may be they should have 25% of members. If 55% of Scottish people support independence parties then 55% of members should be SNP/Green/Alba. Too frequently in Westminster elections parties with 30-40% of support get overwhelming majorities. Whether led by Thatcher or Starmer. The early years of the Scottish Parliament (not assembly) had parties working together in coalition, until the Conservatives under Baroness Davidson brought in Westminster mores into the chamber, turning it into a bearpit.

I'm sure you won't need me to set out all the flaws in the Scottish system, not least that it is only proportionally representative regionally, not nationally. The huge flaw that Salmond tried (failed, but remains open for others to manipulate). The successful Green candidates were voted in in the reserve list so served no constituents but had the greatest influence of any party on the government (they had 2 MSPs!) and proved incredibly detrimental to Scotland. The minority propped up the majority and all the other parties (and all those who voted for them had far, far less proportionate representation. If the Greens had not had so much influence l would have granted it was a better system than FPTP, but seeing first hand the damage done and having zero representation proportionately for many years, the system was clearly abused

Assembly tongue in cheek, it's an auld joke sorts out the Scots from the knots 😉