First Past the Post vs. Proportional Representation | #AdeAsks

We improve social mobility by teaching key skills through after school debate programmes for schools in the UK.

Subscribe to our channel and

[debatemateUK]

Who here would introduce Proportional Representation to the UK?

[UtterQueerNightmare]

Thank you for this. I was really struggling to write an essay for my Politics course and this video literally took me from sobbing to speed-typing.

[TheMunchpie]

London has a population of 8.9 million and rising fast, home counties(counties just outside London) also have a population of approximately 5.7 million on top of this....Now compare this to the population of Wales, North Ireland and Scotland which together has approximately the population of 8.5 million with lower growth and are far larger area than the aforementioned ... now you can see where the highest concentration of the electorate are in the UK of GB and NI.... if we have full untethered proportional representation, the largest parties will target south England and make policy making in these areas central to their this may cause countries such as Wales, North Ireland and Scotland losing leverage on policy that also benefits FPTP does have a Iot of flaws though, as i'm in favour of a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation that we see in Germany's Bundestag as this would allow parties with smaller shares of the population vote to gain more seats elsewhere, the issue Caroline Lucas raises towards the end.(apologies for not sourcing some of these stats but they're mainly from google).

[marioluigi]

I think probably the best way to improve the current system is to keep it as it is for the House of Commons, but make the House of Lords elected NOT based on constituency or local/regional representation, but based on political views alone. So all the Lords lay out their political views and it gets published by the government and Lords are categorised nicely so you can read through them and watch their videos clips at home in order to make a choice based on who is closest aligned to your viewpoint

This way even if your House of Commons vote always gets discounted for your local constituency because you're voting for an unpopular party in your local area, at least on a national level you still count and the Lord who you voted for is more empowered by your vote and thus gets a greater number of individual votes in the House of Lords. The House of Lords, being the upper chamber takes priority in case of a deadlock and the House of Commons can only delay legislation for say, a year.

As for the prime minister, he can come from either house, so long as he commands enough support in the house. Usually this would be a prime minister from the House of Lords because it's the upper chamber and a majority of political viewpoint representation is democratically more legitimate than minority rule from the House of Commons (as it is today). There would be a vote of confidence at the start of the first parliamentary session to establish his position as PM in the House of Lords, so that he knows he'll be able to rule effectively even if he is surrounded by a bunch of Lords who are just independents and not party-aligned to him.

So... the majority leader in the House of Lords will be PM, rather than the majority leader in the House of Commons. However if the Lord with the most support does not have enough support to command a majority in the House of Lords because of the problem with proportional representation, but he WOULD have enough support because of first past the post in the lower house, then he can just be a prime minister in the lower house again and freely switch to that house (or indeed switch the other way around). So he can easily replace the majority leader in the other house if the party agrees.

In the case of a House of Commons prime minister, the House of Lords will have a responsibility to act as a vehicle to support the government and not to hinder it. So the ability to block legislation for only a year then goes back to the House of Lords (as it is today), and after this time the prime minister can simply push through the legislation even without agreement from the House of Lords. That way they don't hinder government rule for too long

I think this system is an improvement because it builds on the system that is already established by making it more democratic, and does not try to revolutionise everything by simply throwing out the existing system altogether as if it were worthless (which it isn't), or as if other countries have better systems for the UK to copy (which they don't). Other countries have their own problems with their systems and these should not be important to the UK because the political mindsets of politicians is completely different. Systems were coalitions are the norm simply don't work for the UK and should therefore not be attempted.

[madinabibi]

This is such a helpful vid! I love your vids!

[Armed-Forever]

this is why the US system is beautiful, you can vote 1 way locally and another nationally in the potus election, elections for DAs too is beautiful no more bs cps

[michaelellis]

This whole thing is unfair and stinks. How do we change to PR?

[rsr_s]

i still dont understand fully. So in this instance, the conservative have the majority of seats, however in a constituency could have a labour leader in charge?

[tobeytransport]

A french style two round system could be a compromise while we decide which system to pick? It is a half way House really.

[WhnPgsFl]

wow! quick yet informative, keep the good work

[vere]

You are rigth. The argument the first past the post is more effective than proportinal representation is stupid. If you want effective leadership, you may choose one party rule (dictatorship) without any elections at all. I'd rather choose instable, but democratic goverment with the need of forming coalitions, rather than stable, but without the option to change it.

[thomaspickford]

Hold on…. What about the negatives of a proportional representation system?

[rubyanneprice]

thank you so much was struggling with my essay :)

[marhier]

The UK _had_ a referendum on this a few years ago, hardly anyone voted on it, so nothing changed.
We had our chance.

[Cam_cops]

Oversimplified one sided presentation. Not a balanced argument for the MANY other downsides to proportional voting system; large cities tyrannising rural areas, congestive tribal voting that further divides classes and ages, encouraging national leaders to either abandon low or high populated areas (depending on the demographics of the time) as well as many other downsides. When the UK held a referendum on this very ISSUE of whether we should keep FPTP or opt for the proportional vote, the UK voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP not because of historical tradition, but because proportional voting is a more dangerous and divisive alternative that does not encourage community involvement or unity with those around us but relies on the fractured and ever changing momentum of mob rule.

[AndyJMacLeod]

Proportional Representation doesn’t work. Remember the behind the scenes wrangling between the Lib Dems and the Tories before they agreed to form a coalition government? Well, it’s worse with PR. It may appear “fair” on the surface but it leads to impotent government and dirty (behind the scenes) politics... And when you think about it, the FPTP system resolves into a PR style coalition when there is no overall majority. Let’s keep the Status Quo until someone comes-up with a better idea.