45

Because Labour gets more seats with regional representation. Even the famed Tony Blair landslide majorities were never actually a popular majority. In 2005, Labour won 55% of the seats with 35% of the vote. In 2001, Labour won 63% of the seats with 41% of the vote. In 1997, Labour won 63% of the seats with 43% of the vote. And even when Labour doesn't ...


26

There is a strategic reason, and a philosophical reason, but they are related: With something like the current range of views in the UK, it is very unlikely that Labour could ever win a majority under PR. They would need to form a coalition, and probably a 3-way coalition with the Liberals and the SNP. And while there is some political overlap between the ...


12

Something else to consider: People vote differently in different voting systems. Right now, a lot of people vote for either Labour or the Conservatives not because they actually want to vote for them, but because a vote for some smaller party would be "wasted" under FPTP. Under PR that's no longer a consideration and I predict you'd see a massive ...


9

PR is often promoted as being more representative because it results in greater plurality, i.e. a greater variety of views and parties in government. The alternative you mention, First Past the Post, tends to result in two or three parties gaining the majority of the seats and less popular ones getting nothing. An example of this is the 2015 General ...


8

Everyone who resides in the 50 states of the United States is counted, including noncitizens. U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States are also counted. From the US Census Bureau website: Who is included in the apportionment population counts? The apportionment calculation is based upon the total ...


8

This may be a ridiculous suggestion, but it's possible that not all politicians are cynical. 😉 The question's premise is that Proportional Representation would be in the Labour Party's selfish interest, and other answers have looked at whether that premise is true. But even if it was true, that might not be sufficient reason to adopt it as policy: after all,...


7

The IDEA book, has among the advantages of first past the post one that might answer your question (on majority-biased outcomes): [b.] It gives rise to single-party governments. The ‘seat bonuses’ for the largest party common under FPTP (e.g. where one party wins 45 per cent of the national vote but 55 per cent of the seats) mean that coalition ...


6

Look at places like Israel or Germany, compared to the US. From this limited sample: PR leads to some smaller fringe/extremist parties in parliament. PR keeps large center-right or center-left parties from drifting to the fringes. PR may require coalition governments which give those small fringe parties influence out of proportion to their seats.


5

While it is the case today that most European countries have a form of proportional representation, that apparently was notthe case when they first introduced democracy/elections, as described in a paper by Jonathan Rodden, which says During the period from around 1890 to 1920, most European countries dramatically expanded the franchise to include the ...


5

I think most countries do not allow expatriates to vote at all. The idea is that you are not affected by most of what the government of your home country does, so you should have little or no say about it. Think about everything that the Romanian government does which stays in Romania. I'm not sure about Romania specifically but I'll bet that includes ...


5

Duverger's Law indicates that plurality (first past the post) systems devolve into two parties per seat, while proportional systems support many parties. Because the United States has a national presidential election, this essentially forces the US into a two party system. If the US switched to a proportional system, it would make it easier for third ...


5

Assuming you are talking about the Irish General Elections that are coming up (seeing your account states you are Irish) That works as follows: The 160 members of Dáil Éireann will be elected by single transferable vote (STV) from 39 constituencies, each returning between three and five TDs (Dáil deputies). Voters complete a paper ballot, numbering ...


5

If you intend to do your utmost to ensure that this candidate does not get elected, it would be wise to rank every other candidate higher than them. It is possible to think of an STV election as a series of voting rounds as candidates are eliminated and/or win seats. If the final "voting round" is between your two least favourite candidates (that is, ...


5

Morally, I agree with the message of the other current answers that in the absence of more information on the intentions of your fellow voters, it is often worth honestly stating your full ordering of preferences for candidates under STV. However it is worth noting that because the order in which candidates are eliminated influences the final result, the ...


5

Here is a piece from Pacific Standard which quotes the following explanation: "When a candidate is perceived as adhering to a set of religious values, voters see them as moral and possessing high levels of integrity and honesty," write political scientists Scott Clifford of the University of Houston and Ben Gaskins of Lewis & Clark College. &...


5

It is not related to proportional representation. Most states for every election use first-past-the-post (FPTP). The Senate has no rules for how Senators are elected, except that it is done by popular vote. They were originally appointed by state legislatures. Senators, unlike Representatives, can be appointed when a vacancy arises (rules depend on state). ...


5

As you've identified in the question, there is a groundswell within the party in favour of proportional representation. In addition to the 100 local labour party branches that have voted to support PR, the Make Votes Matter #PledgeForPR campaign during the 2019 general election recorded the support of MPs across the country, including over 60 current Labour ...


5

Another important point is that the assumption that the 3 liberal (progressive) parties together would command a majority is flawed. The biggest problem with PR is that you tend to get many more parties running for election. For example, in the last election you would have had separate pro-Europe and anti-Europe Labour parties. You would also pick up many ...


4

Leaving aside the obvious illegitimacy and dishonesty in this course of action (which would cost some votes and more reputation) and the ability of courts in common law countries to mitigate patent fraud (unless the Crimson and Pink parties actually put forward separate legislative platforms to the voters, rivals could simply bring suit to treat them as the ...


4

This question assumes that in the US the minority and special interest parties are frozen out of the political process by the 2 major parties. However what actually happens is that the minority parties that form (at least the ones that have formed in the last 80 years) form based on specific issues. Women's rights, workers rights, black's rights, gun ...


3

Q: Since parties submit only regional lists and no national lists then where are these leveling seats chosen from? Since 2013, there are two types of leveling seats: Überhangsmandate and Ausgleichsmandate. Both are chosen from the regional lists (Landesliste), and seats assigned per state are redistributed accordingly to keep the proportions. Wikipedia has ...


3

You seem to be under the impression that list members will not be doing any case work. I don't think this is necessarily the case. In a lot of places where MMP is used, these list members will represent a state or other region, rather than the whole country. For example, in Germany, each of the list members represent a state within the country. Residents ...


3

So who is counted for representation in the US Congress? Has it always been that way and if not, how has it changed? The three-fifths compromise in the United States constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3) involved counting slaves (obviously not citizens much less voters) at three-fifths of a free person. This dates back to the founding, so it ...


3

Not only is it possible for nation states to use multiple voting systems in different legislative systems, but some are already doing it. As an example from the "A"s, Australia uses the Single Tranferable Vote (a proportional system, though not a single constituency list one) for its Senate, and instant-runoff (a single winner preferential system) for the ...


3

It might be worth noting that parts of the UK already use preferential voting systems in local governmental elections, including STV in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the supplementary vote (a somewhat reduced version of the alternative vote/instant runoff scheme) in mayoral elections and the (heavily ignored) elections for police commissioners. These ...


3

When a candidate gets a majority in the first round, there is no difference. It is also usually possible to determine that all but the top two candidates did not win, even if it is not possible to immediately determine which of the top two candidates did win in IRV (although it is often possible to make a very good guess about that point based on the ...


3

To put it simply, it's not in their best interests. First-past-the-post favors a two-party system, as it forces all other political parties to either ally with a side or sit out of government. Likewise, the debate apparatus is owned by these two parties, allowing them to shut out those that don't conform to 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. This has created a ...


3

This has actually happened. Lesotho is one of the four or so countries to use the MMP system. In the 2007 general election, the ruling party voluntarily split in two, fielding only electorate candidates in one party and instructing their followers to vote for the other party for their list vote. They obtained something like 75% of the seats for only 52% of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible