The room wanted change more firmly than it trusted the machinery on offer. Yes won with 168 votes to No’s 101, yet the argument the floor rated highest on that side conceded: “I would need to see other proposals.” The verdict was decisive; the confidence behind it was conditional.
Yes made its strongest case in terms of fairness and distorted power. The most-respected Yes voice said political competition should reward “persuasion rather than geographical accident”, while another Labour voter called a large majority on a third of the vote “completely imbalanced”. But several supporters immediately reached for safeguards: STV, preferential voting, or even technology for deciding individual issues rather than simply endorsing a party list.
No did not defend first-past-the-post with much enthusiasm either. Its most-respected case began, “I used to be for this,” before arguing that PR might not work in the UK; the sharper objection was that “minor parties who have the swing votes get more power”. Coalition bargaining, frozen councils, weaker constituency links and the spectre of Italy all featured, alongside a preference from one voter for STV as the practical answer to split votes.
That left the two sides talking past each other. Yes treated representation as the central democratic test; No treated governability, accountability and the identity of the local MP as the tests that mattered. The national backdrop — a fragmented electorate and a Commons majority secured on a minority of votes — plainly gave the fairness argument force, but the page never settled which form of PR would earn the mandate.
The chamber rejected the status quo before it agreed on its successor. That is a mandate for reform, not a blank cheque for any particular version of it.
22 Opinions
Not a fan of FPTP, as it has somewhat glaring flaws, but I'd sooner the devil I know than an unknown system that doesn't seem popular in its own right.
Having seen the greens get such a disproportionate amount of influence and power from standing in a tiny number of seats and the voting games people play in general proportional representation in Scotland I have come to hate it as a system.
Im challenged with this because obviously 100% democratic but first past the post will never give us a majority government ...but maybe thats not a bad thing...maybe it is
This is superficially attractive, siren voices on left talking about fairness etc. It’s not fair. 1st UK had a referendum promoted by the forked tongue Nick Clegg, who sulked & disrupted the coalition when he lost; 2nd we lost a link with independent local constituency MPs through Party management. 3rd it embeds block voting. 4th firm government not possible as everything has to be a compromise. 5th it gives extreme parties veto powers; 6th back room deals; 7th can’t sack MPs
Yes, but we need to define what kind of PR as some people will be arguing the pros and cons of different ones., and some will be setting up straw men. STV is good for me but would like to explore others. FPTP is just ridiculous.
PR is not the solution to the current voting system. The single transferable vote system allows voters to select candidates they like in order of preference. This solves the situation of split votes over similar parties. Allows the most popular candidate to win.
PR initially appears to be “fair”. But comes with significant disadvantages - difficult to form majority government so becomes a coalition of compromise, instability & small factions holding balance of power, forcing legislation that otherwise would fall (think Cons & Libs coalition) - fallouts leading to new elections (see Italy). Voters would not choose local representative. MP’s would be listed in rank of party popularity, then farmed out until quota exhausted!
No because look at the last council elections. Many councils went into shared power with many parties and seem frozen as a result.
I favour proportional representation because political competition should reward persuasion rather than geographical accident. A party can command substantial national support yet gain little leverage, while a small shift in a handful of constituencies can produce an enormous change in power. Government should reflect the breadth of opinion that produced it, rather than the quirks of where that opinion happens to be concentrated.
A good constituency MP is a great benefit to an area, but clearly there needs to be a greater decree of fairness in the voting system. Labour winning 400+ seats on a third of the vote is completely imbalanced (and I voted Labour).