They hope to pay on “it is us, or Reform” which is party before country and could backfire and massively damage the country.
True. I don’t think it’s a popular message with the public. Clearly people in Gorton and Denton thought “actually we don’t have to vote for Labour as the only alternative to Reform; we can vote for the Greens instead”.
It didn’t work of the Democrats either. It should of because how awful Trump is and Kamala seamed good, but how good she would be wasn’t the focus. But their system is even worse than ours.
True. I think voters want to see politicians who embody values that voters like. The pitch of “vote for us just because we’re not quite as bad as the other guys”, without stating appealing values of your own, doesn’t really inspire anybody
Yep. Compounding it, the far right throw in trolling social media that there is no point voting. That those opposing the far right are just as bad in some way. That there is no less bad option to vote, so don’t bother.
Frankly, I blame those who didn’t vote Harris or Clinton almost as those voted Trump. Hold your nose and vote less bad, AND push for a better system. The UK’s FPTP is deeply broken, but it’s dysfunction is nothing compared with the US’s duopoly.
Yes the voting systems of both the UK and US are broken because they’re unrepresentative. Hillary Clinton in 2016 got about 3 million more votes than Trump did. In many countries that would have made her the president. But the anti-democratic electoral college system in the US meant that Trump was made president instead.
Electoral college isn’t ideal, but the two party system is worse. It’s just red vs blue. My team vs your team. It’s false. Far better as in much of Europe, a sea of parties, coming and going, constantly compromising. That’s a better reflection of real politics.
I think the German system looks pretty good. Their voting system leads to a much more representative legislature. Another example when looking at proportional representation is the Netherlands, but their system seems to lead to lots of lengthy coalition negotiations and squabbling before they form a government.
Germany, for much of the last 20 years, has had a coalition government between the big centre-right and big centre-left blocs. E.g. in the 2005 election, 69.4% of voters backed either the Union or SPD, who together made up the subsequent coalition government. Compare that to the UK where we have a Labour government who, whether you like them or not, were only voted for by 33.7% of voters.
Yes the same issue has brought about Conservative governments. In 2015 the Tories got only 36.8% of the vote but this gave them 50.8% of the seats.
I’d like score/rank voting based mixed member
I will admit that I don’t know the details of the different kinds of proportional voting. As long as a system would result in a House of Commons that more accurately and proportionately reflects voters, I think that would be a good thing
True. I don’t think it’s a popular message with the public. Clearly people in Gorton and Denton thought “actually we don’t have to vote for Labour as the only alternative to Reform; we can vote for the Greens instead”.
It didn’t work of the Democrats either. It should of because how awful Trump is and Kamala seamed good, but how good she would be wasn’t the focus. But their system is even worse than ours.
True. I think voters want to see politicians who embody values that voters like. The pitch of “vote for us just because we’re not quite as bad as the other guys”, without stating appealing values of your own, doesn’t really inspire anybody
Yep. Compounding it, the far right throw in trolling social media that there is no point voting. That those opposing the far right are just as bad in some way. That there is no less bad option to vote, so don’t bother.
Frankly, I blame those who didn’t vote Harris or Clinton almost as those voted Trump. Hold your nose and vote less bad, AND push for a better system. The UK’s FPTP is deeply broken, but it’s dysfunction is nothing compared with the US’s duopoly.
Yes the voting systems of both the UK and US are broken because they’re unrepresentative. Hillary Clinton in 2016 got about 3 million more votes than Trump did. In many countries that would have made her the president. But the anti-democratic electoral college system in the US meant that Trump was made president instead.
Electoral college isn’t ideal, but the two party system is worse. It’s just red vs blue. My team vs your team. It’s false. Far better as in much of Europe, a sea of parties, coming and going, constantly compromising. That’s a better reflection of real politics.
I think the German system looks pretty good. Their voting system leads to a much more representative legislature. Another example when looking at proportional representation is the Netherlands, but their system seems to lead to lots of lengthy coalition negotiations and squabbling before they form a government.
Germany, for much of the last 20 years, has had a coalition government between the big centre-right and big centre-left blocs. E.g. in the 2005 election, 69.4% of voters backed either the Union or SPD, who together made up the subsequent coalition government. Compare that to the UK where we have a Labour government who, whether you like them or not, were only voted for by 33.7% of voters.
More often it is Conservatives, also on about a third of the vote, and that has deeply broken the country, but I take your point.
I’d like score/rank voting based mixed member.
Yes the same issue has brought about Conservative governments. In 2015 the Tories got only 36.8% of the vote but this gave them 50.8% of the seats.
I will admit that I don’t know the details of the different kinds of proportional voting. As long as a system would result in a House of Commons that more accurately and proportionately reflects voters, I think that would be a good thing