Is Britain's political system fit for purpose? Britain has a first past the post electoral...

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! 😀

BlueVeins · 22-25

Really, ranked-choice is the only sensible answer for any country.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

Unelected Head of State
Unelected Head of Government (well, elected by a few who paid for the privilege)
Ministers appointed by the above, without any democratic scrutiny
Upper house appointed or by or inherited privilege
Lower house elected by the most undemocratic system FPTP

And the lower house doesn't normally have any practical relevance, being completely dominated by the the executive, except in the recent situation of ineffectual leadership .

So, NO, not fit for purpose

SW-User

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

100% agree with you

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

[quote]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.[/quote]

In the U.S., there have been proposals for choice or ranked voting, so that as a voter's first choice is eliminated, their vote can still count if no candidate received 50% plus one as voters' first preference.

But weird results can still take place, such as a candidate with 16% of the vote ultimately winning even if one candidate topped 43%.

[quote]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'[/quote]

Third option is to move. 😉

Or, to be more technical, register at another place of residency.

More U.S. university students attending college out of syaye could do this if state governments didn't make it so difficult,

SW-User

The whole nonsense now of no Brexit party in existing tory seats and the remain alliance just shows how utterly out of date & broken the UK election system is. It's simply not fit for a 21st century election.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SW-User

FPP has some advantages even for the smaller parties just ask the DUP.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment