This year’s general election, after all the votes counted, has a
- Sainte-Laguë index of 48.36, and a
- Gallagher index of 23.75.
This makes the (dis)proportionality worse than HUNGARY’s (my home) FPTP component (SLI = 36.96) – a component of the mixed system which allows our ruling party to get 2/3 supermajorities each time, every time, with sometimes less than 50% of the votes, and which ultimately transformed our country to an “electoral autocracy”
You guys need electoral reform desperately. And do it before someone cheats with the current rules deliberately.
(PS: I calculated the electoral indices using the python package
voting)First Past the Post, everybody:
That’s:
- Conservatives: 19.5% of seats from 22.9% of the vote
- Labour: 63.7% of seats from 35.2% of the vote
- LibDems: 10.5% of seats from 11.3% of the vote
- Reform: 0.6% of seats from 14.5% of the vote
- SNP: 1.2% of seats from 2.5% of the vote
- Others: 4% of seats from 13.6% of the vote
The two largest parties got less than 60% of the national vote but over 80% of seats. FPTP is preventing us from being what we are: a multi party democracy.
I think it’s a bad day to be criticising first past the post. Labour stole a bunch of seats from Farage with his kill-the-NHS policies, a turd who oughtn’t to be allowed to attend D-day celebrations, given that he stands against almost everything that we fought the war for. Not sorry one bit for that disproportionality.
Every day is a good day to criticise FPTP.
A proportional system would have been to Reform’s benefit, but it would also have been to the Green’s and SNP’s.
IRV would have actually been to Labour’s benefit in the two seats I randomly happened to notice. Though I’m sure there would also be some seats where it would’ve benefited the Tories.
But I think the most important thing is that belief in a better electoral system should not depend on which party world benefit. It should be about creating a more democratic outcome. And what we saw yesterday really highlighted how deeply undemocratic the UK is.
Could have had a Labour, LibDem, Green coalition with a helping of SNP with broader positive policies (actual policies, which are currently lacking from Labour) a strong mandate. Instead we have a Labour landslide on a thin voting base. Better than the last lot for sure, but this system is so in need of a reform.
And the depressing thing is that it will never change because the only parties with the power to change it benefit from the current system.
You came so close in 2011. I wonder what could have happened if Clegg had stuck to his guns and insisted on a referendum on a proportional system, to remove the “progressive no” (to borrow a term from a recent Australian constitutional referendum) argument against the reform.
The Lib Dems got so excited about being granted a referendum that they forgot to take it seriously.
AV was a terrible system and arguably worse than FPTP. It’s a more complicated system for people to vote in, and would potentially lead to even more disproportionate results.
and arguably worse than FPTP
Sorry but no. Absolutely no. The only downside is the ability to use it as an excuse not to upgrade to a proportional system in the future.
More complicated? Yeah, I guess. But not enough to actually matter. Not unless you think British people are just exceptionally stupid compared to Australians.
More disproportionate results? Impossible. They’re both single-winner systems. The key difference is that FPTP allows a plurality to win while IRV requires a majority. It might create a situation where it seems less proportionate, but that’s only because you reduce strategic voting so people are voting their true beliefs, so candidates that weren’t going to win under either system end up getting more votes under IRV. But the ultimate result is that the candidate who wins in each electorate is the one who had the most support.
“The conservatives and lib dems look pretty proportional to me. 10/10 voting system” /s
deleted by creator
The British were given the choice and voted against proportional representation. They deserve the duopoly and everything that flows from it e.g. terrible healthcare, the illegal war in Iraq, royals, pointless and expensive aircraft carriers. They chose to leave the only institution that is defending their basic freedoms. These bigoted Dunning Kruger morons cannot be told.
And yet many countries with PR still have crap governments and bad policies. You’ll never have a perfect system since you’re still expected to choose one party, but there’s a large number of policies and issues to address, and the odds are that no party gets the mix correct for most voters. It’s a one-dimensional system to implement multidimensional politics. So quibbling over the particular metric to use to allocate seats along that single dimension is missing the larger problem. Something closer to direct democracy might be better, but that requires an engaged, disciplined and educated electorate.
What an utterly moronic stance that stems totally from your complete lack of understanding of what was actually offered.
Proportional representation was never on the table, what was offered was single transferable vote, which would keep the first past the post system but add the option to transfer your vote to another candidate if your preferred candidate lost. There was never proportional representation stop with the false narrative.
Instant Runoff was on the table in the 2011 referendum. Very similar to STV, but generally STV is what’s referred to in a multi-winner situation. Australia uses STV in the Senate, as does the Irish Dáil. IRV is what Australia uses in the House of Representatives, and a few areas of the US, like Maine. STV actually is a proportional (or at least quasi-proportional) system, unlike IRV.
But you’re right that unfortunately proportional representation has never been on the table in the UK. I don’t agree with the guy’s more recent takes on comedy and “free speech”, but I have great respect for the fact that this is something John Cleese has been on about since 1987. And again in 1998. And most recently in 2018.
The reason a lot of people voted against it was that there was a concern that if it was implemented the government would consider themselves to have taken action and would just shut down any talk about proportional representation by arguing that we already had it. Even though we wouldn’t have.
The theory was that by not voting for the weak source option the idea of proportional representation could be floated at a later date, and to be honest I actually agree with the analysis.
Not an unreasonable concern, to be honest. In politics there is often a balance to be struck between “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good”, and “not allowing a weak compromise option that’s just not good enough to pass because it’s ever so slightly better than the status quo”.
We use IRV for our House of Representatives, which is by far the more politically significant chamber, and it sucks. Our most recent federal election saw just 4 Greens MPs elected after an absolute record performance for them (their previous best was 1). That’s 2.7% of seats from their over 12% of first-preference votes (not to mention votes for closely-aligned minor parties like Animal Justice Party). Labor (yes…we spell it the American way in this one specific context, for some reason) got 51.3% of seats from 32.6% of the first preference votes.
But on the other hand, it is better than FPTP. Enormously better. Those 4 Greens seats would probably be 0 with FPTP, because who would vote for them? They first got into Parliament thanks to receiving preferences, and many of the new seats they won in 2022 were dangerously tight. I know even as an ardent Greens supporter, I would never have voted for the Greens under FPTP, because I’d be terrified of increasing the chance that the conservative LNP won instead of Labor.
If I were voting in the UK in a referendum like the 2011 one, I don’t know how I would vote. Probably yes, but the threat of stalling any progress to an even better system is strong enough it’s hard to blame people who vote no on that grounds.
The British were given the choice and voted against proportional representation. They deserve the duopoly and everything that flows from that e.g. terrible healthcare, the illegal war in Iraq,
And time travelling powers apparently 🤣🤣😂.
🤡
What’s wrong with Pointless? It beats the shit out of most game shows.
Pointless is a fucking great premise for a game.
But whoever they poll to determine the points makes me sometimes feel utterly insane watching the show. When they don’t know obscure Australian towns as well as me, that’s one thing, and not very surprising. But when major Disney Renaissance films, or some other thing that to me is part of the most fundamental 21st century culture, scores in the low 20s, it makes it very hard to relate to the show.
If the polling was done by an audience more representative of the general population in terms of age, instead of clearly skewing very old, it would be greatly to the show’s benefit.
Let’s hope polling standards maintain their upwards trajectory.
It’s a Tory wipeout in Wales!
CON: 0 (-12)
Love to see it.
Reform didn’t gain many seats but came 3rd in total votes
about 1/7th of the total, or about 1/5th of Labour, Tory, and LDs combined.
Did the areas with a high Reform vote, have a higher vote turnout?
lawrence fox wasn’t running but he was still a loser last night
And every night.
Ree Smog is out! I repeat, Ree Smog is out!
Yes, despite many leftists decrying Labour’s centreward shift, I think this is a good result. This result was helped by that shift in no small part.
Starmer is very well spoken and his morning after speech does well to inspire confidence.
This is clearly a great result, but I think that given the popular vote, that it’s important to accept that this election was anti-tory, not pro-labour.
Labour have five years to make a substantial tangible change in people’s lives or we may very well find ourselves back where we left off or even worse.
Countdown to Smog reappearing as a Reform candidate?
Top hat wanker! Truss lost too, this is amazing.
Oh good, so now Truss can now piss off too the US and moan about the apparent conspiracy that was against her all she likes, and it won’t inconvenience her constituents anymore.
And of course no one in the US will really care, because will have no idea who the hell she is.
Is she that head of lettuce who killed the queen?
Yeah. She has convinced herself that her complete failure is a result of a grand conspiracy. This conspiracy requires some of the most uncharitable and profit driven people in the world, to be bleeding heart liberals, which is why no one believes it.
Apparently a bunch of venture capitalists, economists and fellow politicians decided that, rather than making vast sums of money under her “brilliant” scheme, it was instead better to crash the economy just despite her.
I figure satire articles probably aren’t allowed in the general community, but hopefully it’s ok in the megathread? This was brilliant.
https://theshovel.com.au/2024/07/05/australia-loses-shortest-time-to-5-pms-ashes/
You can post satirical news in !newsthump@feddit.uk
They even brought in Rudd for a second go, which didn’t seem to be within the spirit of the game if I’m honest, but that’s Australia for you.
Is a particularly biting bit of satire on the way we usually hear about sports reporting.
Italy: hold my beer
The parties’ share of the vote and other statistics (source: The Daily Telegraph)
The fuck happened in Leicester East that it’s the sole Con gain in the country?
Their last two Labour MPs not only were kicked out in scandal, but also ran in this election splitting the vote. It looks like the Lib Dems also got a significant vote share which has helped the Tories.
Makes sense. Thanks
Starting the day and seeing Rees snob, grant schnapps and penny mordor are out.
Feels like a good start to the day
Oh and Liz snubbed
So looking forward to the next five years…
Looking at how Reform and Lib Dems made significant gains in vote share you have to wonder if its still worth Labour chasing after the right wing vote that Reform achieved. I just do not see the where the voters who voted Reform actually believe Starmer on the key issues that Reform campaigned on, immigration, anti “woke”, and Brexit. I cannot see Labour ever gaining the lead on those issues over someone like Farage who will always position himself to the right of whatever Labour or the Tories campaign on. I cant even see Labour being trusted at the voting booth on these right wing issues over a rebuilt Tory party. Its a fools errand to try.
The Lib Dem vote share, as with Reform, boosted by previous Tory voters but Lib Dems campaigned on almost the opposite of Reform (with some tactical, local, NIMBYism) and achieved way more seats on a lower overall percentage vote than Reform. If you are going to pick a direction to go in, wouldn’t it make more sense to move towards the Lib Dems position to shore up in time for the next election?
Labour did worse total percentage of the vote than 2017, its more that the Tories collapsed losing about 20% of their vote that caused this swing in seats. The Tories will rally next time around and a lot of the seats look winnable for them with only a small local swing. The current stance of Labour simply isn’t popular enough to be a vote winner against a rebuilt Tory party.
As an Australian, I have to once again apologise on behalf of my nation for the turd in a tuxedo that is Rupert Murdoch.
Thank you. But we don’t blame regular Aussies. You’re good with us.
Yes, but I think you’re overstating how right wing Labour pitched it. There were no claims to be anti woke. I think it was a pretty firmly centrist pitch. It’s the Conservatives who are going to panic and try to out-nutcase Farage. Labour are going to try and be responsible and fix the broken ship. It’s just whether they can do it fast enough for people to notice a big improvement in the cost of living vs wages problem.
Are you forgetting Starmers statements around women only spaces as it seems like it.
Farages entire point of existence is to drag the overton window to the right, which he succeed yet again, particularly around Brexit.
The other big concession Starmer made, this time because of the Tories, was not to raise taxes, which was also incredibly dumb. As was honouring triple lock.
My biggest issue with Starmer making claims like these is that he will stick to them. Someone like Boris is too lazy and an out and out liar so has no problem dropping things. Starmers big pitch to be different is that he will stick with what he says.
By sticking to what he said around terfs issues, Brexit, taxes, he really fucks his options in these areas, and for what? As you and I have both said, toil not out crazy Farage or be trusted by people who these are important issues for, so it’s a massively stupid thing to do.
You make very good points.
Anyone got that link that recalculates the results of the GE by different voting systems? For example if we had a form of PR how would this election turned out? I swear it was posted here a few days ago.
Direct proportional representation is easy enough. Just look at the number of votes each party got, and assign that percentage to their overall parliamentary representation. That roughly gives you the answer.
IRV is more interesting, but more complicated. It relies on some assumptions (e.g. Green, SNP, LibDem, Labour all preference each other 100%, Conservatives & Reform preference each other 100%) and takes a lot of effort to do on a seat-by-seat basis. And of course it all assumes ceteris paribus, when in actuality people would vote differently if the voting system were different.
As one example, here’s the seat of Tatton:
Under IRV, with the above assumptions, Labour’s Ryan Jude would have won with 26,005 votes to Conservative Esther McVey’s 25,904. But tweak those assumptions just slightly (give 90% of LibDem votes to Labour, 10% to Conservatives) and it could go the other way (26,365 CON to 25,544 LAB). There are dozens or scores of seats where these sorts of interesting hypotheticals can be asked and analysed. IRV is actually, in my opinion, the next-worst voting system after FPTP (if you exclude weird and rarely-used ones like approval voting, range voting, etc.), but it’s one of the most interesting to do analysis with.
STV is an utterly impossible comparison to make, because it relies on multi-seat electorates, which would probably be done by merging existing electorates into groups of 3–8. STV is a more generalised case of IRV so if you decided on how to do those merges, then you can get even more interesting analysis. As one example, if we imagine a merged electorate involving West Ham, East Ham, Ilford North, Ilford South, Leyton & Wanstead, and Stratford & Bow. Some assumptions are necessary to make this work, my assumption is that anyone whose party name says “workers” or “socialist” preferences Green and then Labour, while those mentioning religion preference Conservative, and if I don’t know, I’m giving them to LibDems then Labour. I’m also assuming all voters for a named party vote as a block, preferencing the same candidate 1st, 2nd, etc., while independents get the votes as they were actually given. This is somewhat realistic because ballot paper design can be set up to encourage this in an STV context (see how Australia does it with “above the line” voting in the Senate, for an example). I’ve merged the minor parties named “workers” or “socialist” into a single party.
A detailed explanation of my calculation is contained here.
In our merged hypothetical under STV, they win 3.03 quotas on first preference, Conservative wins 0.88, Reform 0.41, LibDem 0.28, Green 0.78. So Labour immediately win 3 seats, before 0.03 quotas are distributed lower down in their party. After numerous more rounds (my attached spreadsheet simplifies multiple rounds that by eye would obviously not result in a new quota being reached being merged down into 1), the LibDems win a quota. I’ve decided to distribute their excess 50/50 to Green and Conservative, since Labour has already been eliminated. To be frank, after that I’m not sure what to do. LibDems having been eliminated, the 3 remaining independents can’t go to them as was my initial plan (the basic thinking being independents are probably more centrist, but LibDems and Labour being eliminated already. I’ve decided to give them 50/50 to Conservative and Green, but the reality could be so, so much more complex. After one of those is eliminated, Conservatives get a quota. One final independent distributed to Conservatives/Green and the Greens win the last quota.
This is Labour heartland and in FPTP Labour won all 6 of these seats. My calculation ends up with 3 Labour, 1 LibDem, 1 Conservative, and 1 Green.
MMP ends up with basically the same overall result as direct proportional, but can be interesting in terms of independents & very minor parties and resulting overhang seats.
Given, many systems require more than just marking one box. While, even those that do not, would drastically change how people choose their vote.
I am unsure any such site can give a realistic result from available data?
Edit:
If we just assume proportional based on % of vote yesterday.
Tor 22.9% Lab 35.2% LDe 11.3% Ref 14.5% SNP 2.5% Oth 13.6%
It is bloody hard to see how either party could form a viable 50% Lab LD SNP and a few independents would take it over 50. But honestly, it is hard to imagine that working with the politicians voted yesterday. Tory Ref would need all independents. So less likely to work.
But as I said. Voters would go to the polls with very different ideas about how to vote.
Tory Ref would need all independents
“Other” is not all independents. 6.8% of the vote share was Green, and 0.8% is between Workers Party and Social Democratic Party who, based purely on the names, I cannot possibly imagine would ever back the Conservatives. Unless LibDems were to support that coalition (which, after the 2010 Government I cannot imagine they’d be super keen on), there is no path to a Tory Government from these results under a proportional system. Labour can form a Government with just LibDem, SNP, and Green parties.
Exactly, total up left(ish) votes and you get about 54% ✊️
An independent (SNP) and unionist (Labour) party would be hard-pressed to form a government.
But again the whole idea of the votes being identicle under a vastyyly different system
Honestly the big question would be how government is formed. With seat numbers matching % of vote. under our current system. Labour could run a weak gov by depending on greens snp and others never supporting a tor ref vonc.
But with centre right lab, it is likely only ld and lab would be garmented to support most policy votes. Others, often refusing because it’s not left enough and not right enough at the same time.
Unfortunately, while the right has clasped over this election. The right has a long history of unity to fight the left.
the left much the opposite in fighting the right.
An independent (SNP) and unionist (Labour) party would be hard-pressed to form a government.
Would they? Outside of the question of independence, the two parties agree on more than not, don’t they? If they alternative is no functioning government, couldn’t you see Labour giving some minor concession to the SNP (like maybe allowing Holyrood to have power over one or two of the things that was recently denied by the Supreme Court) in exchange for the SNP’s support in Confidence?
the big question would be how government is formed
I’m not really sure what you mean. (It doesn’t help that the rest of that paragraph is ridden by typos to the point of being unintelligible. Sorry.) Government would be formed the same way they do it in Germany or New Zealand or any of the many other countries with proportional systems. They would find a way to reach a majority by agreeing on whatever compromises are palatable to both sides. In a hypothetical where the SNP had way more seats, Labour might have to agree to a second independence referendum. If they really needed Green support they might agree to pass strong climate legislation. They might have to give the LibDems a couple of significant cabinet positions. Proportional systems force politicians to actually do politics and pass legislation that is supported by a majority of people, instead of giving a single party a majority of seats based on a minority of people supporting them.
Would they?
SNPs manifesto included it as a key point. So actual coalition government. Well look at how lib dems got hit over student fees. SNP voters would feel the same having voted for an independence party.
Hence why labour have faced the question at all past elections where a win os less probable amd denied they would form such a coalition.
But as said. A confodence amd supply agreement where snp agree to non confidence votes. Is probable on such situs.
Your final sentence is painfully true.
Jacob Rees Mogg suggesting Conservatives were demolished because they weren’t far right enough. Interviewer says “don’t you think maybe it’s because you let down the centre?” And Mogg is like “no way. Maggy Thatcher is based.”
😬
I mean, I hate him, but he’s right. Reform are basically the newest farage far right party, so the rabid nazis of britain aren’t satisfied with the bullshit the tories are serving up.
EDIT : they got fed up of still seeing ethnic minorities after brexit, and don’t want to vote for an ethnic minority for prime minister. It’s disgusting.
Except apart from the proud ex BNP the motives for voting Reform seem to come from a scared impotent scarcity helplessness. It’s a “all these immigrants taking my stuff and my opportunities and there isn’t enough to go round” - if they’re paid properly and the NHS works the far right is less appealing. 🤞
I hope you’re right
Historically, people turn to the far right when things are going terribly wrong. The conservatives ran the country into the ground and legitimised everything the far right stood for, then were upset that people started voting far right. I say it was unsurprising. Why not vote Reform if you’re a rabid racist and your usual party are about the same policywise but have a boring British Asian leader instead of a white laddish thug of a politician?
If things get significantly better for folks, there’s less motivation to vote in desperation.
But would he win more electorates by pandering to the further right, or by giving the middle a reason to be enthusiastic about them?
https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/results
Conservative
total votes 6,814,650
Reform UK
total votes 4,102,109
share change +12.3
Liberal Democrat
total votes 3,499,969
share change +0.6
Cons lost their votes to the nazis more often than the Lib Dems.
I left britain years ago when brexit happened, that country is stupid, and I wish the people that still live there the best of luck.
I also would like to remind them that I wasted much air trying to convince them that voting LD wasn’t a waste of time, but for some reason, 4 million of them can be convinced to vote for a third party, but only if it’s racist enough, and not civil liberties oriented enough.
Starmer didn’t win this election, the tories lost it due to a split vote.
Labour
total votes 9,686,329
share 33.7%
share change +1.6
This doesn’t look like the extremely winning party that run an extremely successful campaign. It looks like a bunch of chancers that got lucky flipping seats due to split voter base of nazis.
I’m not even optimistic that center left starmer is going to do anything all that impressive to be honest. I hope I’m wrong, I think Biden is doing great and getting no credit. Best of luck to him and to Britain, I hope things get better in that country.
My favourite quote: ‘Rees-Mogg congratulated the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, on “what seems to be a historic victory”, adding, as his final thought, “from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success. So thank you very much everybody, and good night.”’
I can only read this as him admitting publicly that he and the Tories are a complete disaster.
all the socdem use of rose as a symbol makes it only better
Just seen Count Binface arrive for the count, shit just got real.
Truss is out! Defeated by Labour candidate Terry Jermy by only 630 votes.
The fact it was even close is ridiculous. She’s the most terrible MP and PM we’ve ever had and yet she got a large number of people to vote for her.
There’s something in the water over there.
One of the safest Tory seats
