Is Britain's political system fit for purpose?

Britain has a first past the post electoral system in which people vote in constituencies of about 85,000 people to elect MPs and the government. This means that the total number of votes won by a party is less important that your spefic concentration of support. Winning a constituency by 35,000 votes has the same effect as winning a constituency by one.

In a two party system, this would matter less but Britain of course is massively divided and has a multi party system. Only labour and Conservative will have the power to form a government but several other parties are competing for seats and for votes.

Sooooo... tactical voting really matters. Some constituencies are safe for a party but what do you do in a marginal constituency where your favourite party can't win? Do you vote for a lesser evil or do you 'waste your vote' l. If I lived in a Conservative Lib Dem marginal then it would be a huge dilemma. I hate the Lib Dems but I hate the Conservatives more and I don't want a hard Brexit.

So many dynamics are at play because people will be considering lots of different policies as well as the all important Brexit question.

I think people should be free to vote for their first choice party and that we need a proportional representation system.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MartinII · 70-79, M

I agree with your analysis. No one system is inherently better than another, in my opinion. It depends what you want to achieve - a majority government which commands general, albeit reluctant, acquiescence, or all opinions reflected proportionately in Parliament, with the inevitable resultant horse trading. An interesting historical example is the large majorities won by Mrs Thatcher in 1983 and 1987, in large part because the SDP and then the Alliance split the anti-Conservative vote. Lots of people deeply regretted the outcome, of course, but I don’t remember many questioning its validity.

You don’t mention the option of constituency based elections decided by single transferable vote rather than first past the post. I think that has something to commend it.

By the way, we have at least one thing in common politically. We both hate the Lib Dems! 😀

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII I certainly remembering questioning the validity of Thatcher's "absolute" majority with 30% of the votes .
It is what made me realise how undemocratic the United Kingdom is.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail More like 35% I think. I don’t agree that it was undemocratic - there was no other combination of parties that could have formed a government that would have commanded consent - but it was certainly questionable.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII 30 or 35 , it's not a mandate for absolute rule, is it?

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail Not absolute rule, obviously. That’s impossible in a Parliamentary system. But generally, clear majorities are accepted as legitimate, whatever the share of the vote. Like Thatcher, Blair never achieved 40% of the votes. Labour achieved over 50% in 1951 and lost. These things happen in a constituency based system, and while they seem odd, I don’t think they are unfair. It’s also important to remember that in a different voting system people’s voting behaviour would be different.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII so, you can "win" with 40% and lose with over 50%.
And everyone is OK with that??

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail It’s a matter of historical fact that when a party has won a clear majority of seats, its government has almost always been generally accepted as legitimate, whatever the vote percentages have been.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII so, if it's a historical fact, you think it is acceptable?

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail Yes.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII 🤦‍♂️

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

So all past dictatorships were acceptable because they are historical facts?
Some people resist change but you are extreme!

MartinII · 70-79, M

No, past democratically elected governments were acceptable because they were democratically elected.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII my point is that ( for example ) Thatcher's government wass NOT democratically elected

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail You have made your point ad nauseam. And my point, which I have made ditto, is that you are wrong.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII No, you haven't managed to make that point at all.
I think I never met anyone so mistaken as you

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Brianthesnail Listen! I have made my point about seventeen times. You don’t have to agree with it, but unless you have any arguments you should shut up, Meanwhile, spend your time imagining that under your ideal system Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister this evening. 😃😃

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@MartinII I didn't follow the UK election that closely. But are you saying that Corbyn was the people's choice ?