Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History

[bilateralrope]

Direct Youtube link

After seeing how big the difference is between the number of people voting for a party, and the number of seats it got in parliament, I'm not comfortable calling First Past the Post a democratic system any more.

[ZOmegaZ]

Were you previously?

[Irbis]

Funny that, when I argued the exact same point after UK elections here, a lot of people were offended that the system was called fundamentally broken. Math showing it was worst election in history is nice to highlight that, but really, it was visible on election day. And I say it despite supporting SNP and hating UKIP (parties that were the most/least over/under-represented). Situation where 14% of voters gets (lucky) single seat out of 650 is indefensible.

[Tribble]

Funny that, when I argued the exact same point after UK elections here, a lot of people were offended that the system was called fundamentally broken. Math showing it was worst election in history is nice to highlight that, but really, it was visible on election day. And I say it despite supporting SNP and hating UKIP (parties that were the most/least over/under-represented). Situation where 14% of voters gets (lucky) single seat out of 650 is indefensible.

Well, that's exactly the kind of system that the British decided to keep, so they kinda reaped what they sowed. Wasn't there a referendum a couple of years back over switching to a different voting system?

[Coop D'etat]

Funny that, when I argued the exact same point after UK elections here, a lot of people were offended that the system was called fundamentally broken. Math showing it was worst election in history is nice to highlight that, but really, it was visible on election day. And I say it despite supporting SNP and hating UKIP (parties that were the most/least over/under-represented). Situation where 14% of voters gets (lucky) single seat out of 650 is indefensible.

Well, that's exactly the kind of system that the British decided to keep, so they kinda reaped what they sowed. Wasn't there a referendum a couple of years back over switching to a different voting system?

Yes, just 4 years ago.

So on that basis, the recent UK election was quite democratic as it was conducted according to a system that 68% of voters decided to keep. One could even argue that it is anti-democratic to be against FPTP in UK as it appears the status quo as far as electoral systems has super-majority support.

[Simon_Jester]

First-past-the-post makes sense if you're thinking regionally, with the idea that your representatives in the legislature are supposed to uphold the interests of your particular patch of land. Choosing a representative who is supported by a plurality of voters in that patch of land is an appropriate way to go about that.

The problem comes when politics is dominated by issues that divide the population along trnas-regional lines: race, class, opinion on national issues. Then, it starts seeming a lot less appealing.

This is sort of like how in the US the "small states, big states" justification for why our House and Senate work as they do... well. It really was quite compelling in 1787 and addressed some real concerns without which most of the colonies would probably never have approved the Constitution. But nowadays it seems utterly irrelevant because the interest blocs have shuffled repeatedly until Wyoming is aligned with Texas and Rhode Island with California.

[edaw1982]

So you're kinda screwed because it almost always seems to wind up Two-Big-Dogs.
Whether it's Republicans or Democrats or National or Labour, it's down to 'Well I agree with Blue on A issue and Red with Y issue but they disagree with Blue on A issue but they also have Z issue that I disagree with, b-but'

[Hillary]

So on that basis, the recent UK election was quite democratic as it was conducted according to a system that 68% of voters decided to keep. One could even argue that it is anti-democratic to be against FPTP in UK as it appears the status quo as far as electoral systems has super-majority support.

68% of those who voted, rather than 68% of voters - turnout was 42%. A nitpick perhaps, but indicative of how badly the campaign was fought. About the only amusing thing to have come out of it is that UKIP voters were much more likely than the norm to have voted to keep FPTP.

There is a perception here that coalitions result in weak govt, which is fundamentally why it lost. Labour, in particular, campaigned strongly against voting reform. The Tories less so. Which is kind of ironic in the light of this year's election.

[madd0ct0r]

So on that basis, the recent UK election was quite democratic as it was conducted according to a system that 68% of voters decided to keep. One could even argue that it is anti-democratic to be against FPTP in UK as it appears the status quo as far as electoral systems has super-majority support.

68% of those who voted, rather than 68% of voters - turnout was 42%. A nitpick perhaps, but indicative of how badly the campaign was fought. About the only amusing thing to have come out of it is that UKIP voters were much more likely than the norm to have voted to keep FPTP.

There is a perception here that coalitions result in weak govt, which is fundamentally why it lost. Labour, in particular, campaigned strongly against voting reform. The Tories less so. Which is kind of ironic in the light of this year's election.

Also the referendum gave a binary choice between the status quo and one type of alternitive, which not everyone liked,.

[bilateralrope]

Were you previously?

I'll admit, I was paying more attention to which parties won than how badly the outcome represented the voters.

First-past-the-post makes sense if you're thinking regionally, with the idea that your representatives in the legislature are supposed to uphold the interests of your particular patch of land. Choosing a representative who is supported by a plurality of voters in that patch of land is an appropriate way to go about that.

Is FPP better at representing the interests of the people in a patch of land than a proportional vote system in the real world ?

Because gerrymandering seems a problem for regional representation if the area affected by an issue is split into multiple constituencies.

This is sort of like how in the US the "small states, big states" justification for why our House and Senate work as they do... well. It really was quite compelling in 1787 and addressed some real concerns without which most of the colonies would probably never have approved the Constitution. But nowadays it seems utterly irrelevant because the interest blocs have shuffled repeatedly until Wyoming is aligned with Texas and Rhode Island with California.

How much has the logistics of running an election with the technology they had affect the choice of voting system in the past ?

For example, I can see preferential voting systems being a nightmare to run without computers. Though MMP seems possible to manage.

[Vaporous]

So on that basis, the recent UK election was quite democratic as it was conducted according to a system that 68% of voters decided to keep. One could even argue that it is anti-democratic to be against FPTP in UK as it appears the status quo as far as electoral systems has super-majority support.

Is democratic behavior behavior democracies like, or behavior which preserves democracies?

or

If people democratically choose an undemocratic system, does the undemocratic system become more democratic?

[Simon_Jester]

Because gerrymandering seems a problem for regional representation if the area affected by an issue is split into multiple constituencies.

This was less of an issue in the distant past. Most legislative districts were larger because population densities were lower. And at the same time, limited communications and transport meant that for purposes of defining "regional interests," a "region" was smaller. Thus, less subdivision.

How much has the logistics of running an election with the technology they had affect the choice of voting system in the past ?

For example, I can see preferential voting systems being a nightmare to run without computers. Though MMP seems possible to manage.

Agreed.

[bilateralrope]

So on that basis, the recent UK election was quite democratic as it was conducted according to a system that 68% of voters decided to keep. One could even argue that it is anti-democratic to be against FPTP in UK as it appears the status quo as far as electoral systems has super-majority support.

Is democratic behavior behavior democracies like, or behavior which preserves democracies?

Behaviour which preserves democracies.

or

If people democratically choose an undemocratic system, does the undemocratic system become more democratic?

If democratically choosing an undemocratic system was somehow 'more democratic', then you could create a scenario where a dictatorship was more democratic because that's what the people had wanted at the time. Even if they now regret it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Worst in history? How many millions of people died because of this?

[Darth Nostril]

Worst in the history of 'democratic' elections in the UK.
If you're incapable of getting that from the context perhaps you should just fuck off.
Hundreds are dead from having their benefits cut off; either from suicide because they no longer have any financial support nor access to mental health care; or because they can no longer afford the vital medication they need. The death toll is rising and now the Conservatards have a majority rule from just 37% of the vote to continue inflicting their Thatcherite fuckwittery for another five years.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Hundreds are dead from having their benefits cut off; either from suicide because they no longer have any financial support nor access to mental health care; or because they can no longer afford the vital medication they need.

Do you have support for that claim?

[Zaune]

Not the most impartial commentators in the world, but they cite reliable sources.

[NoXion]

This link might also be of interest. Also the DWP are acting like they have something to hide.

[Welf]

First-past-the-post makes sense if you're thinking regionally, with the idea that your representatives in the legislature are supposed to uphold the interests of your particular patch of land. Choosing a representative who is supported by a plurality of voters in that patch of land is an appropriate way to go about that.

Isn't the point of the video that they election doesn't represent regions? In less than half the UK constituencies the MP was voted by an absolute majority, meaning that most MPs actually represent a minority of voters.