this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
63 points (95.7% liked)

UK Politics

3073 readers
129 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A projection of how the election results would look if we used Additional Member System (AMS), like in Scotland and Wales.

Party AMS FPTP Seat change
Labour 236 411 +175
LibDems 77 71 -6
Green 42 4 -38
SNP 18 9 -9
Plaid Cymru 4 4 0
Reform 94 5 -89
Conservative 157 121 -36
Northern Ireland 18 18 0
Other 4 6 +2
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/voting-systems/

I don't even know how STV would work for electing MPs. That's for electing groups of people?

AV to rank the candidates would make sense, unless I completely misunderstand STV.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You'd merge constituencies together and have multiple representation. For example: 5 neighbours become one region and elect 5 people.

An additional benefit is that people have a choice of representative to go to when wanting to consult "their MP". None of this "I want to talk about the homelessness problem in my area but my MP is a Tory" issue.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So let me understand the proposal. We merge MP regions so each Labour/Tory candidate is running against their respective Labour/Tory candidate in another region in addition to the opposition in their opponent's in their existing constituency?

I assume the purpose of this system is it allows an independent to capture votes from multiple areas, so fringe groups will get minor representation instead of the least popular candidate from the major parties?

[Edit] And if you only have a candidate in your area for your favourite party doesn't tow the line and is marginally racist, you can vote for another candidate for that party that fits your taste?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 3 months ago

I think you've got it. Yes.

It's called multi-member constituencies and we used to do it before 1950 but only in some areas. We even did a small number under STV, but it never became the universal norm. We just divided those constituencies down to single member o es to make everything the same.

What I'm saying is that we moved the wrong way. We should have normalised everything by moving everything to multi-member and retained STV (not the other systems on that page).

The biggest argument against is that in rural areas the size of a single constituency could become very large. For example: would Wales large parts of Wales fall entirely into a handful of constituencies, or the north west of Scotland? On the other hand, it would simplify things in urban areas.