Priti Patel wants more first-past-the-post elections

[Journeyman]

A major downside of FPTP for a long time in General Elections is parts of the UK not getting governments that have been voted for. For example, this what I had posted in one of the Brexit threads a long time ago explains the major flaw with FPTP General Elections since 1979 with the following voting patterns and results for Scotland (and similar to my original neck of the woods of the West Midlands, minus SNP as they don't stand candidates outwith Scotland):

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)

1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was my former one of Glasgow North East from Speaker to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)

2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP

2019 - Mainly SNP (increased to 48 constituencies, including the unseating of the Lib Dem leader at the time Jo Swinson. Her lips moved with every lie she told which explains how Swinson lost her seat), got Conservatives


No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, but this topic would be better in a different thread rather than here.

With proportional representation, at least the results would closely reflect the voting patterns, and regions would actually get the government that has been voted for.

Your comments on "New Labour" are absolute nonsense, and Scotland does not vote "overwhelmingly" SNP - they've recently taken 90% of the seats on about 40% of the vote, some on single-digit majorities, so they're quite happy to exploit the failings of FPTP when it suits them.

 

[Domh245]

FPTP is by far the worst voting system where the choice is more than a binary one.

It's a pretty good system if you're a member of the largest minority voting block(s) and able to steamroll through your own legislative agendas!

 

[Smidster]

Any change would be an improvement on FPTP but is never going to happen,

By most measures FPTP is simply a horrible voting system as it maximises the number of wasted votes and while you can say it is more likely to lead to majority Government that isn't always great if you have a platform that is implemented despite only being positively supported by say 35 - 40% of voters. It also creates a perverse system where people may have incentive to vote for a party they least hate rather than the one they would actually like to win.

I would tend to go for some sort of transferable system (the one in Ireland isn't bad) where you at least ensure that 50%+1 of the electorate expresses a preference for that candidate over a rival. Can also see the benefit in a top-up process although do quite like the link that we have back to constituents.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A major downside of FPTP for a long time in General Elections is parts of the UK not getting governments that have been voted for. For example, this what I had posted in one of the Brexit threads a long time ago explains the major flaw with FPTP General Elections since 1979 with the following voting patterns and results for Scotland (and similar to my original neck of the woods of the West Midlands, minus SNP as they don't stand candidates outwith Scotland):

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives

1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)

1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)

2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was my former one of Glasgow North East from Speaker to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)

2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP

2019 - Mainly SNP (increased to 48 constituencies, including the unseating of the Lib Dem leader at the time Jo Swinson. Her lips moved with every lie she told which explains how Swinson lost her seat), got Conservatives


No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, but this topic would be better in a different thread rather than here.

With proportional representation, at least the results would closely reflect the voting patterns, and regions would actually get the government that has been voted for.

While I dislike FPTP and would strongly like to see PR, you can't blame FPTP for the fact that some parts of the country vote a different way from the country as a whole. That will almost always happen, no matter what the electoral system, and is part of democracy. As far as your comments about New Labour are concerned: In 1997, 2001 and 2005 a plurality in Scotland voted for the party that was branding itself as New Labour - and that's what they got for the UK Government. It's nonsense to suggest that Scotland didn't get the Government that they voted for.

 

[Journeyman]

As far as your comments about New Labour are concerned: In 1997, 2001 and 2005 a plurality in Scotland voted for the party that was branding itself as New Labour - and that's what they got for the UK Government. It's nonsense to suggest that Scotland didn't get the Government that they voted for.

This buys straight into the SNP's "Scotland doesn't get what it wants" grievance narrative, but they quite happily take 90% of the seats on 40% of the vote, conveniently ignoring all of those who think there are other things to think about besides independence.

 

[biko]

I can't imagine why anyone would want more FPTP elections. From a foreign point of view, it is the most ridiculous method after of course the way the American president is elected. The only 'benefit' that FPTP has, is the bonding between MPs and an area, so every area is represented. But the German or Scottish systems do that as well, combining it with a far more democratic list system. I have PR over here and it has of course negative sides (too many parties at the moment, most MPs come from cities), but it is far more democratic than having parties with millions of votes but no seats.

 

[Horizon22]

We need less FPTP, not more. I genuinely think this might be a silver bullet to political discourse and action in this country. My personal favourite is AMS due to the constituency element as opposed to pure STV, although I am happy with the latter.

People complain about the disconnect with politicians and that can't help when people a) feel they have to vote "tactically" and b) realise votes doesn't actually mean seats.

FPTP is by far the best voting system. Having worked in poling station, people just don’t understand voting systems other than ‘you vote for the person you want to win’. PR means messy coalitions between parties after the vote whereas FPTP is clear and much more decisive.

I too have worked in polling stations (with PR and one without). It is very clear on the polling paper and their are examples within the booth and I saw no noticeable increase in questions.

The only benefit I've heard espoused is "strong government with a clear majority" yet 2010 saw no major party win, and 2017 a minority government. So twice in the decade this too was proven to be a myth. Scotland essentially being its own bloc with SNP has broken FPTP.

 

[MP33]

I feel that there should be what exists in some American States a blank space on the ballot paper to write in your choice of candidate.

In the last New Hampshire Primaries enough Republican voters thought that the way Michael Goldberg the Democratic candidate carried on he should join the Republican Party that he got enough to be awarded one vote by the electoral college.

 

[317 forever]

Regarding post #59, I have to challenge the notion from some General Elections about Scotland not getting the government they voted for. In 1997, 2001 & 2005 they knew that Labour stood as "new Labour" and did therefore get the government they voted for. Then since 2015 they voted for a local Scottish party who they knew had no candidates outside Scotland and were therefore never going to be the UK-wide government anyway.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding post #59, I have to challenge the notion from some General Elections about Scotland not getting the government they voted for. In 1997, 2001 & 2005 they knew that Labour stood as "new Labour" and did therefore get the government they voted for. Then since 2015 they voted for a local Scottish party who they knew had no candidates outside Scotland and were therefore never going to be the UK-wide government anyway.

Also worth pointing out that in 2011 the Scottish Assembly elections resulted in a majority SNP Government, although the SNP only got 45% of the constituency vote and 44% of the list vote. The 2016 elections resulted in an SNP Government supported by the Greens, although the SNP+Green combined vote share was 47% in the constituency vote and also 47% of the list vote. In other words, ever since at least 2011, Scotland has had a Scottish Government that the majority of Scots did not vote for! (I don't know if that's also true before 2011 - don't have the time to check right now).

This 'we haven't got the Government we voted for therefore we need independence' thing really doesn't stand up to analysis.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Regarding post #59, I have to challenge the notion from some General Elections about Scotland not getting the government they voted for. In 1997, 2001 & 2005 they knew that Labour stood as "new Labour" and did therefore get the government they voted for. Then since 2015 they voted for a local Scottish party who they knew had no candidates outside Scotland and were therefore never going to be the UK-wide government anyway.

You could also make the argument that despite the long reign of Thatcher, the English weren't actually that committed to Thatcherism. The late Peter Jenkins's book, Mrs Thatcher's Revolution does a fantastic job in explaining much of Thatcher's success was down to Labour's chronic failures. I saw an interesting statistic in another book that said a majority of voters would prefer a "socialist" to a "Thatcherite" society as late as 1988. Which again, suggests the inadequacy of Labour was what drove England's Tory vote in the 80s. Therefore, I tend not to listen to people like Nicola Sturgeon whose journey to independence was, according to her, out of her belief that Thatcher's control in Scotland was wrong because "Scots did not vote for her". Maybe they didn't, but just below the surface, I think it could be said much of the English would have preferred, like the Scots, preferred a different set of economic policies.