RugbyRebels

Here in NL it's election time, and once more the stark difference in choice for the electorate is visible compared to my home country.

For reference - here's what a ballot paper here looks like:
https://www.maxvandaag.nl/wp-content/up ... 90x500.jpg

Now that's choice!

So what could we do in the UK to increase our choice at the ballot box?

Zhivago wrote:Here in NL it's election time, and once more the stark difference in choice for the electorate is visible compared to my home country.

For reference - here's what a ballot paper here looks like:
https://www.maxvandaag.nl/wp-content/up ... 90x500.jpg

Now that's choice!

So what could we do in the UK to increase our choice at the ballot box?

Is that really all the candidates for one parliamentary seat? My best wishes to those who get to count that ballot paper.

The idea of a wasted vote is a strong one in this country. So having dozens of candidates per seat isn't the answer. Smaller parties would be more successful (and thus more likely to form and stand) if their votes ended up with a reflection in parliament. Obviously that isn't the case and despite the UK's recent flirtation with the Lib Dems, its back to red s blue for the most part (at least in England).

A change in electoral system would bring about changes in voting patterns. A form of PR, perhaps as a second vote like it is here (I like the system here, if not the laws the government has put in place to keep themselves in power and the gerrymandering).

How though, Labour and the Conservatives both like FPP, and even the public when offered a choice went for FPP. I might like to contend the choice on AV was a weird option, and somehow the vote no option was entwined with the idea of vote no if you don't like/trust politicians, nonetheless it was a no vote and there's little to no hankering for another vote in the public at large.

Which leaves the slow bore of bringing it up over and over for another decade whilst hopefully seeing a shift in public thinking.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Here in NL it's election time, and once more the stark difference in choice for the electorate is visible compared to my home country.

For reference - here's what a ballot paper here looks like:
https://www.maxvandaag.nl/wp-content/up ... 90x500.jpg

Now that's choice!

So what could we do in the UK to increase our choice at the ballot box?

Is that really all the candidates for one parliamentary seat? My best wishes to those who get to count that ballot paper.

The idea of a wasted vote is a strong one in this country. So having dozens of candidates per seat isn't the answer. Smaller parties would be more successful (and thus more likely to form and stand) if their votes ended up with a reflection in parliament. Obviously that isn't the case and despite the UK's recent flirtation with the Lib Dems, its back to red s blue for the most part (at least in England).

Representatives are elected per electoral district, not per seat. There are 20 districts in Netherlands - for example Amsterdam gets one all to itself. In theory the list can be different per district, although often it's mostly the same, although sometimes with a few prominent local candidates added as the only difference. People vote for their candidate of preference (or if no preference then pick the top-listed candidate - which is not always the party leader), and if that candidate gets enough votes then they can jump up the list and win a seat.

Digby wrote:How though, Labour and the Conservatives both like FPP, and even the public when offered a choice went for FPP. I might like to contend the choice on AV was a weird option, and somehow the vote no option was entwined with the idea of vote no if you don't like/trust politicians, nonetheless it was a no vote and there's little to no hankering for another vote in the public at large.

Which leaves the slow bore of bringing it up over and over for another decade whilst hopefully seeing a shift in public thinking.

Labour might change its tune if it does decide that Scotland it completely lost to it.

The Independent did a report on what PR would have meant for the 2019 election. Lib Dems are the big winners.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:How though, Labour and the Conservatives both like FPP, and even the public when offered a choice went for FPP. I might like to contend the choice on AV was a weird option, and somehow the vote no option was entwined with the idea of vote no if you don't like/trust politicians, nonetheless it was a no vote and there's little to no hankering for another vote in the public at large.

Which leaves the slow bore of bringing it up over and over for another decade whilst hopefully seeing a shift in public thinking.

Labour might change its tune if it does decide that Scotland it completely lost to it.

The Independent did a report on what PR would have meant for the 2019 election. Lib Dems are the big winners.

Screenshot 2021-03-16 at 10.35.38.png

So basically if we had a fair electoral system Brexit would have never happened.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:How though, Labour and the Conservatives both like FPP, and even the public when offered a choice went for FPP. I might like to contend the choice on AV was a weird option, and somehow the vote no option was entwined with the idea of vote no if you don't like/trust politicians, nonetheless it was a no vote and there's little to no hankering for another vote in the public at large.

Which leaves the slow bore of bringing it up over and over for another decade whilst hopefully seeing a shift in public thinking.

Labour might change its tune if it does decide that Scotland it completely lost to it.

The Independent did a report on what PR would have meant for the 2019 election. Lib Dems are the big winners.

The initial outcome of Scotland leaving the union would strongly favour the Tory party (which might have some similar thinking for Labour held against their chances of reclaiming Scottish seats), but that wouldn't hold in the longer term. We're still basically Reds Vs Blues, with those on the outside wondering do they throw in their lot with maybe the Greens, whatever UKIP are now called, the Lib Dems, or do you focus more on a single issue

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:How though, Labour and the Conservatives both like FPP, and even the public when offered a choice went for FPP. I might like to contend the choice on AV was a weird option, and somehow the vote no option was entwined with the idea of vote no if you don't like/trust politicians, nonetheless it was a no vote and there's little to no hankering for another vote in the public at large.

Which leaves the slow bore of bringing it up over and over for another decade whilst hopefully seeing a shift in public thinking.

Labour might change its tune if it does decide that Scotland it completely lost to it.

The Independent did a report on what PR would have meant for the 2019 election. Lib Dems are the big winners.

Screenshot 2021-03-16 at 10.35.38.png

So basically if we had a fair electoral system Brexit would have never happened.

Actually it probably would still have happened.

The 2015 election saw Cameron win a small but workable Conservative majority, albeit he had issues with his right wing anti_EU faction. UKIP were marginal at best - except for votes cast.
Obviously, there are a lot of different ways of delivering PR. A BBC report suggests that the Conservative would have won 70 less seats than they did, making them the largest party but a minority government. However, UKIP would have won 83 seats. SO in all likelihood the referendum would still have happened (the Lib Dems would have had more MPs but not enough to be the only coalition partners of the Conservatives and I think Cameron would have struggled to get his party to work with the Liberals if UKIP could have given them a majority).

The referendum would have been what it was, so arguably Brexit would still have happened.

BUT:

Boris would have been unlikely to win an outright majority in 2019. SO potentially there would have been a softer Brexit deal and less posturing than we have had.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Labour might change its tune if it does decide that Scotland it completely lost to it.

The Independent did a report on what PR would have meant for the 2019 election. Lib Dems are the big winners.

Screenshot 2021-03-16 at 10.35.38.png

So basically if we had a fair electoral system Brexit would have never happened.

Actually it probably would still have happened.

The 2015 election saw Cameron win a small but workable Conservative majority, albeit he had issues with his right wing anti_EU faction. UKIP were marginal at best - except for votes cast.
Obviously, there are a lot of different ways of delivering PR. A BBC report suggests that the Conservative would have won 70 less seats than they did, making them the largest party but a minority government. However, UKIP would have won 83 seats. SO in all likelihood the referendum would still have happened (the Lib Dems would have had more MPs but not enough to be the only coalition partners of the Conservatives and I think Cameron would have struggled to get his party to work with the Liberals if UKIP could have given them a majority).

The referendum would have been what it was, so arguably Brexit would still have happened.

BUT:

Boris would have been unlikely to win an outright majority in 2019. SO potentially there would have been a softer Brexit deal and less posturing than we have had.

Cameron famously told his EU counterparts that he only promised the referendum because he was expecting another hung parliament which would mean he wouldn't have to actually follow through because he'd be joined to the hip with the lib dems again.

This calculator is useful:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/lat ... section-14

It also shows that with AV the Tories would have had an even larger majority. Goes to show what a false choice the AV referendum was.

Also interesting reading:
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/12 ... s-resumed/

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
So basically if we had a fair electoral system Brexit would have never happened.

Actually it probably would still have happened.

The 2015 election saw Cameron win a small but workable Conservative majority, albeit he had issues with his right wing anti_EU faction. UKIP were marginal at best - except for votes cast.
Obviously, there are a lot of different ways of delivering PR. A BBC report suggests that the Conservative would have won 70 less seats than they did, making them the largest party but a minority government. However, UKIP would have won 83 seats. SO in all likelihood the referendum would still have happened (the Lib Dems would have had more MPs but not enough to be the only coalition partners of the Conservatives and I think Cameron would have struggled to get his party to work with the Liberals if UKIP could have given them a majority).

The referendum would have been what it was, so arguably Brexit would still have happened.

BUT:

Boris would have been unlikely to win an outright majority in 2019. SO potentially there would have been a softer Brexit deal and less posturing than we have had.

Cameron famously told his EU counterparts that he only promised the referendum because he was expecting another hung parliament which would mean he wouldn't have to actually follow through because he'd be joined to the hip with the lib dems again.

This calculator is useful:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/lat ... section-14

It also shows that with AV the Tories would have had an even larger majority. Goes to show what a false choice the AV referendum was.

Also interesting reading:
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/12 ... s-resumed/

I’ve read that as well. The likely result, I think our sources are using different methods of PR, is much the same then with either a bigger Conservative majority or a coalition with UKIP. The result is the same in my opinion and as much as we might detest the idea of Brexit, there was a strong vote for UKIP that had been growing for some time. I’m not convinced that the referendum was unavoidable in 2016 and after years of views hardening and EU bashing by pretty much everyone, the result probably would still have been the same.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Actually it probably would still have happened.

The 2015 election saw Cameron win a small but workable Conservative majority, albeit he had issues with his right wing anti_EU faction. UKIP were marginal at best - except for votes cast.
Obviously, there are a lot of different ways of delivering PR. A BBC report suggests that the Conservative would have won 70 less seats than they did, making them the largest party but a minority government. However, UKIP would have won 83 seats. SO in all likelihood the referendum would still have happened (the Lib Dems would have had more MPs but not enough to be the only coalition partners of the Conservatives and I think Cameron would have struggled to get his party to work with the Liberals if UKIP could have given them a majority).

The referendum would have been what it was, so arguably Brexit would still have happened.

BUT:

Boris would have been unlikely to win an outright majority in 2019. SO potentially there would have been a softer Brexit deal and less posturing than we have had.

Cameron famously told his EU counterparts that he only promised the referendum because he was expecting another hung parliament which would mean he wouldn't have to actually follow through because he'd be joined to the hip with the lib dems again.

This calculator is useful:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/lat ... section-14

It also shows that with AV the Tories would have had an even larger majority. Goes to show what a false choice the AV referendum was.

Also interesting reading:
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/12 ... s-resumed/

I’ve read that as well. The likely result, I think our sources are using different methods of PR, is much the same then with either a bigger Conservative majority or a coalition with UKIP. The result is the same in my opinion and as much as we might detest the idea of Brexit, there was a strong vote for UKIP that had been growing for some time. I’m not convinced that the referendum was unavoidable in 2016 and after years of views hardening and EU bashing by pretty much everyone, the result probably would still have been the same.

Yeah, it was coming. If we hadn't had the referendum when we did then we'd have gone through the last EU budget with story after story of how much it was costing the UK (whilst e're so slightly ignoring the benefits far outweigh the costs on an economic basis), and if the momentum hadn't proved too great then we might have for instance been part of the EU vaccine rollout, and again the momentum for a referendum would have been huge. At some point it was going to prove untenable not to hold one, given the lack of understanding, given the coverage, given the rousing call of nationalism

Perhaps, and only perhaps, had Cameron resolved to split the Tory party apart it was avoidable, and he might well have needed to be able to deliver on that fracturing of one of the oldest political movements going which would have been no easy feat even if he'd wanted to do it, and he really wouldn't have wanted to do it.

I be amused by the idea we can change the result of a referendum without consulting anyone, but did the London Mayoral referendum mention anything about FPP or some more proportional system?

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Cameron famously told his EU counterparts that he only promised the referendum because he was expecting another hung parliament which would mean he wouldn't have to actually follow through because he'd be joined to the hip with the lib dems again.

This calculator is useful:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/lat ... section-14

It also shows that with AV the Tories would have had an even larger majority. Goes to show what a false choice the AV referendum was.

Also interesting reading:
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/12 ... s-resumed/

I’ve read that as well. The likely result, I think our sources are using different methods of PR, is much the same then with either a bigger Conservative majority or a coalition with UKIP. The result is the same in my opinion and as much as we might detest the idea of Brexit, there was a strong vote for UKIP that had been growing for some time. I’m not convinced that the referendum was unavoidable in 2016 and after years of views hardening and EU bashing by pretty much everyone, the result probably would still have been the same.

Yeah, it was coming. If we hadn't had the referendum when we did then we'd have gone through the last EU budget with story after story of how much it was costing the UK (whilst e're so slightly ignoring the benefits far outweigh the costs on an economic basis), and if the momentum hadn't proved too great then we might have for instance been part of the EU vaccine rollout, and again the momentum for a referendum would have been huge. At some point it was going to prove untenable not to hold one, given the lack of understanding, given the coverage, given the rousing call of nationalism

Perhaps, and only perhaps, had Cameron resolved to split the Tory party apart it was avoidable, and he might well have needed to be able to deliver on that fracturing of one of the oldest political movements going which would have been no easy feat even if he'd wanted to do it, and he really wouldn't have wanted to do it.

Under PR Cameron would have had 37% of the seats in 2015. Coalition with UKIP gives 49% (50% with the DUP too) which would have given him a slim mandate for the referendum, but it could well have gome ahead.

In 2017, under PR, a Con/Ukip/DUP alliance would have had only 45% of the seats vs Lab/SNP/Lib/Green with 52%. So Brexit may well have happened but a second referendum would probably also have come to pass and certainly a much softer Brexit (if at all).

if is a tricky game, also I really would't care to venture how people would've voted had the cotes been counted differently

Digby wrote:if is a tricky game, also I really would't care to venture how people would've voted had the cotes been counted differently

If is indeed a tricky game, but you were happily playing it when I arrived .

We can't know how people would have voted under different circumstances but it's reasonable to assume the electoral outcome would have been more representative of public opinion under PR. Hence we would have had a very split parliament on the subject of Brexit rather than the unwarranted majority for hard Brexit we got in 2019. So it would be much more likely that a second referendum might have come about and if Brexit had gone ahead, a much softer one.

So although PR might not have saved us from Brexit, it would have saved us from this catastrophic hard Brexit.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:if is a tricky game, also I really would't care to venture how people would've voted had the cotes been counted differently

If is indeed a tricky game, but you were happily playing it when I arrived .

We can't know how people would have voted under different circumstances but it's reasonable to assume the electoral outcome would have been more representative of public opinion under PR. Hence we would have had a very split parliament on the subject of Brexit rather than the unwarranted majority for hard Brexit we got in 2019. So it would be much more likely that a second referendum might have come about and if Brexit had gone ahead, a much softer one.

So although PR might not have saved us from Brexit, it would have saved us from this catastrophic hard Brexit.

That wasn't much of an if. The campaign to leave was a growing force, and I can't think of much that's happened in the last few years that would have disinclined people to seek Brexit as a simple nationalistic response.