Britain, the 7th of May, and First Past the Post.

[Pua]

As many know, the (dis)United Kingdom will be having its general election on the 7th of May and we use the First Past the Post system of voting here, just as the United States. One of the main arguments for it, is that it's so simple... A laughable concept, obliterated in satire by the Daily Mash.

Of course, that's a bit of a gag, but just in case you were wondering about how close to reality that piece actually is, here are some examples found by Stuart Campbell from the peerless Wings Over Scotland: Vote Bananas, get Tractors.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm starting to realise that the biggest joke is actually in the fact that a supposedly "civilized" country would still be tied to such a hideously anti-democratic system.

We Scots already have a better parliamentary system than this, so let's hope the British general election ends up in such a mess that the desperately needed electoral reform the country needs, finally happens for 2020.

[Deleted]

IDK, I don't really understand politics that much but it kind of feels like FPTP is okay if you look at the big picture, and people don't do this tactical voting bullshit.

Like... Say a ton of people vote green, a huge increase on the past, it can kind of signal to the other parties that like, sure it's a two party system really but like "hey look, there are a ton of people who want more green stuff put into place" - even if they don't win, a bunch of their ideas might be adopted in an effort to win the votes of those people come next election.

[Deleted]

Compulsory voting and proportional representation please.

This election has got alot of potential kingmakers in it.

[Deleted]

Compulsory voting and proportional representation please.

This election has got alot of potential kingmakers in it.

Please no, no compulsory voting : (((

[Frozenbeef]

Well last time conservatives only won because a portion of labour voted lib dem which allowed conservatives to get more than labour, it's really a silly system considering labour and lib dems are much closer in terms of principles than conservatives and lib dem, basically anything other than labour/ cosneravtive are wasted votes and would usually go aaginst you :S

[Frozenbeef]

Please no, no compulsory voting : (((

I wouldn't mind if they made it easier to vote, (maybe move with the times and allow itnernet voting -.-) currently i have to go into an abandoned building summon several demons sacrifice some chickens and surrender my first born for satan before i can vote :S

[Deleted]

FPTP Is utter garbage. Honestly If I had to go with a voting system it would be something like this: (keep in mind folks I havent written out a massive plan so dont break it down like its going into effect tomorrow)

1) Mandatory Voting (stemming from Education throughout schooling).

You should be fined if you dont vote or worse, no excuse nowadays.

2) Majority Rule

The majority wins, each individual vote counts, your vote shouldnt be discarded because its not popular within an area.

3) Multiple Voting System

Lets say 3 votes per ballot, you vote for the 3 top parties you want to see, that way the chance of dissapointment is lessened and the populations will is easier felt. (if your top option doesnt get in then your second might)

---

Literally anything but FPTP would be an improvement for me.

Why mandatory voting? What is everyone's hard-on for it? I don't understand?

If people don't understand what the parties are, or politics in general and so don't want to muddy the voting pool with their vote, why should they be forced to?
If people don't agree with the entire concept of popular vote as a good way to elect a government, why should they be forced to cast a vote?

[goonstorm]

While FPTP is quite unfair to the smaller parties, we would not have a strong government without it. Personally I would not want to see more coalitions which have a higher chance of happening under other systems. Hopefully there wont be another coalition because hardly anything gets done otherwise.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't mind if they made it easier to vote, (maybe move with the times and allow itnernet voting -.-) currently i have to go into an abandoned building summon several demons sacrifice some chickens and surrender my first born for satan before i can vote :S

I don't mind how easy or not easy it is to vote, you can get postal votes after all I believe, I just feel like using popular vote is a bad way to elect a government. There's not really much of a difference between that and watery tarts handing out swords when some of the voting population have literally zero clue what is going on in politics, what everything means, and so on. Like, I don't feel like I understand politics enough to cast a vote, so any vote I made would be poorly informed. Poorly informed votes are not productive, and it's not just me. There are people out there who don't even know the names of the parties they are voting for for god's sake.

[Deleted]

Not to mention the safe seats created by FPTP. I have no desire to vote since my constituency has been conservative since it was created. Voting for another party would just waste my vote.

[Masark]

Change in Westminster wont happen until we as a people force it upon them.

And the people seem to have little interest in that, judging by the results of 4 years ago.

[Deleted]

Not to mention the safe seats created by FPTP. I have no desire to vote since my constituency has been conservative since it was created. Voting for another party would just waste my vote.

Would it though? Suppose torys get 70% of the votes each year and labour get the other 30% every single year without fail in your constituency. Then one year They only get 50%, labour get 10%, and the other 40% go to the green party. Sure, torys still win, but you really think they're going to ignore the fact that so many people are clearly after more green stuff being done? Do you really think they're not going to put through some of the green party's policies in the hope of winning those voters back?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, but if you allow people to vote for multiple people with an order of preference, you can do runoff voting until a winner is selected and nobody has to take the risk of voting for the candidate they actually want, only for a majority to vote for similar but different candidates, while a minority votes for a vastly different candidate and happen to have a few more votes than either of the similar candidates. If a strong Green and Democrat candidate both run, we might end up with a Republican president, which shouldn't need explanation as to why its bullshit.

I'm not saying that proportional representation isn't better or something, I just don't feel like FPTP is "as bad" as people make out. Is it bad? Yes. But so is every voting system. It might be "more bad" than PR or some other system, but it's not the worst thing in the entire world.

[Pua]

Pipe dream.

Change in Westminster wont happen until we as a people force it upon them. And considering how pathetic our countries are when it comes to standing up for ourselves I severely doubt this will change anytime soon. The general election should be fun though, you get to choose between several parties that no one would ever vote for. I see people mocking the US system, but my god ours is just as bad, difference is we lie about it.

If Scotland utterly rejects both Labour and the Conservatives, in favour of the SNP (like it looks), it'll cause huge repercussions.

IDK, I don't really understand politics that much but it kind of feels like FPTP is okay if you look at the big picture, and people don't do this tactical voting bullshit.

Like... Say a ton of people vote green, a huge increase on the past, it can kind of signal to the other parties that like, sure it's a two party system really but like "hey look, there are a ton of people who want more green stuff put into place" - even if they don't win, a bunch of their ideas might be adopted in an effort to win the votes of those people come next election.

Except FPTP will never encourage people to vote who they actually want to vote for. The whole "a vote for them is a wasted vote" is true, because it's an explicit result of FPTP itself. This video explains it quite nicely, actually:

Well last time conservatives only won because a portion of labour voted lib dem which allowed conservatives to get more than labour, it's really a silly system considering labour and lib dems are much closer in terms of principles than conservatives and lib dem, basically anything other than labour/ cosneravtive are wasted votes and would usually go aaginst you :S

That's called the "spoiler effect".

I wouldn't mind if they made it easier to vote, (maybe move with the times and allow itnernet voting -.-) currently i have to go into an abandoned building summon several demons sacrifice some chickens and surrender my first born for satan before i can vote :S

I completely agree. Voting is far harder than it needs to be in the United Kingdom, considering we can get goodness knows how many texts to pick the X-Factor winner.

Why mandatory voting? What is everyone's hard-on for it? I don't understand?

If people don't understand what the parties are, or politics in general and so don't want to muddy the voting pool with their vote, why should they be forced to?
If people don't agree with the entire concept of popular vote as a good way to elect a government, why should they be forced to cast a vote?

I'm not a fan of compulsory voting either. I tend to agree with Russel Brand when he implies that the malaise is caused by both the system, and the fact that political debate hardly matters to the overwhelming majority of people. If politicians do nothing but talk about the economy, inflation, interest rates and tax bands, people will never be interested; especially if they can't actually vote for who they want because of FPTP. If our politicians were more accountable, however, and were talking about things that actually would impact on the people in a country, voting interest would go up.

While FPTP is quite unfair to the smaller parties, we would not have a strong government without it. Personally I would not want to see more coalitions which have a higher chance of happening under other systems. Hopefully there wont be another coalition because hardly anything gets done otherwise.

Untrue. We're told it's the case, but the reality is that coalitions work just fine in countries where adversarial practices don't predominate. Scotland is a prime example.

And the people seem to have little interest in that, judging by the results of 4 years ago.

That's not a good argument, given that the referendum was held extremely quietly, and was dominated by a "don't do this" campaign thanks to right-wing media.

[Deleted]

Except FPTP will never encourage people to vote who they actually want to vote for. The whole "a vote for them is a wasted vote" is true, because it's an explicit result of FPTP itself.

Well, yeah. But like, it's kind of a stupid cyclical thing yo, like, it sucks less if people stop tactically voting, but then they're like "well, because of tactical voting it sucks and I have to tactically vote" and it's like, yo y'all can just stop doing it and one of the reasons it sucks will go away in part

[Deleted]

Single transferable vote seems like the best system to me.

[Vetis]

You cant claim to have a working democracy if half the population isnt voting. Its a fundemental failure in education, engagement and acknowledgement of your basic rights, its a thorough joke.

We should beable to educate people effectively in politics so they do understand their vote, that alone will ensure that the apathy of "I dont want to vote" dissapears.

the only way that would work is add a none of the above option and this mean everyone listed loses their positions and cannot re-run. Why vote for one group of millionaires who dont give a shit over another, one group of in the pocket politicians protecting their retirement on non exec boards of businesses over the other?

[Deleted]

Think of it like Satan, but he decided to move Hell to the voting booth.

Things worse than FPTP:
Torture
Having all of your bones ripped out of your body
Genocide
An extinction event

So yeah, it's not the worst, but it's pretty bad.

The worst part about it though is that there are obviously better systems and that we haven't moved to them.

Haha, well, yeah, but I mean more like with voting you're comparing two types of torture, like, do you want me to hammer nails though every joint in your body untill you die, or do you want me to lock you inside a brass bull. Both suck, one maybe sucks more than the other, but why can't we just do away with the whole voting system and switch to something that's not torture.

[Nadiru]

FPTP sucks, but it would suck a lot less if people voted in every election available to them instead of the Presidentials and sometimes the Congressionals.

[Deleted]

Because voting is critical to democracy and should not be given up.

But is it such a great idea? Like, the whole democratic process just feels really gamey and just a big thing of "who can push the people who don't understand anything into voting for them the best" and like, if that's all it is, then why is it such a good way to run a country?

[Nadiru]

But is it such a great idea? Like, the whole democratic process just feels really gamey and just a big thing of "who can push the people who don't understand anything into voting for them the best" and like, if that's all it is, then why is it such a good way to run a country?

Because the things which push people who don't understand anything into voting changes over time. This alone gives democracies a serious advantage to change dynamically compared to other types of governance. The downside is that democracies rarely, if ever, have a clear and unified voice. There are always dissenters who are able to voice their grievances, and as a result, the political landscape looks muddied and difficult to understand.