In a six party system, it's essential to change to proportional representation. Otherwise you can have a landslide majority, while 80% of the population hate you and would never trust you to run a pigsty.
Reposted from
Election Maps UK
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 28% (=)
LAB: 20% (-2)
CON: 20% (=)
LDM: 14% (=)
GRN: 13% (+3)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @findoutnow.bsky.social, 23 Apr.
Changes w/ 16 Apr.
RFM: 28% (=)
LAB: 20% (-2)
CON: 20% (=)
LDM: 14% (=)
GRN: 13% (+3)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @findoutnow.bsky.social, 23 Apr.
Changes w/ 16 Apr.
Comments
Proposal:
Loudly predict what FPTP will bring at next election.
If Reform win is predicted and happens, use this to motivate Tories to back AV at following election.
In proportional voting, one votes for parties, not people.
The Australian preferential system (= AV) is optimal for electing PEOPLE as representatives.
But actually they are voting for a single representative for a single seat.
I'm talking about what they are doing, not what they are thinking.
Labour know people don't really vote for people which is why they didn't care about imposing random people on constituencies all over the country
If the answer is that representatives are permitted to legally leave their party and join any other party, then the voters are voting for the individual person.
They only _think_ they are voting for a party!
The way people think they vote for parties means the party has a huge amount of control over candidates though
So your individual Labour MP will mostly do what they're told
But the parliament can change the prime minister after the election.
So that way of thinking is also incorrect.
Voters vote only for one representative person.
After the election, anything goes!
I said "two or more candidates".
I meant "three or more candidates".
Also I should mention that preferential (i.e. AV) voting is optimal in that it gives the same result as tactical voting.
A vote is transferred to next preference if 1st pref does not win.
Same for 2nd, 3rd pref etc.