Labour 2019: 10.3 million votes. 32.4% vote share. Result. 220 seats and the leader resigns. Labour 2024: 9.6 million votes. 33.7% vote share. Result: 412 seats and a landslide victory. This voting system is absolutely absurd.

“But coalitions are bad” - Parties having to work together and compromise is what democracy should be.

Anyone still saying FPTP gives stable governments after the last 14 years, and since Brexit in particular, is totally deluded.

The Labour Party conference backed proportional representation. Don't let them forget this so easily, Britain.

Maybe voting turn out will be higher if everyone's vote actually counted.

In the current system there are far too many votes thrown away, being votes _against,_ rather than _for!_

There's only two countries in europe that use FPTP system, us, and Belarus.

In New Zealand we have proportional voting and it works...the UK should not just try it, but needs it.

FPTP is garbage, proportional is the way to go

Labour and conservatives aren't going to change anything it's in their interest not the public's.

A serious democracy shouldn't be handing out massive majorities with 30% or 40% of the vote. The result suits me as I hate the Tories but the system isn't fit for purpose and needs to be reformed.

Coalition governments force politicians to work across party divides. People get to vote who they want. Labour state this is the time for change so walk the talk and change it. PR now!

If we had PR instead of FPTP people wouldn't necessarily have voted the way they did. So directly transposing the results of a FPTP system nto a PR result doesn't give an accurate picture of how a PR result would have turned out. But I do understand the point being made.

14% of the vote and 0.6% of the seats is CRAZY

Tory's and Labour love FPTP, it gives them absolute power when their side wins, and as we all know: power corrupts.

So FPTP helps stable governing? You could have fooled me, UK.

A solution to this would be Single Transferable Voting. Get the direct representation of a FPTP while still having an elected official you share values with like proportional representation.

Every vote counts, so let's bring proportional representation since UK and Belarus are the only countries in Europe that don't use it

We enjoy PR for the Holyrood elections up here in scotland. would be nice to have it UK wide

We definitely need change to PR asap.

Reform UK. 14.5% of the vote. 1% of representation.

Sickening state of UK politics I can see why many don't bother voting.

Having the title “what the result would be with RP” and a thumbnail showing a larger vote share for Reform vs only covering how results would not be like this, and that people would approach voting to begin with, just at the end is misleading.

we have the essentially the same system in Canada, and it sucks. the liberal party won the last two elections without even getting the popular vote.

What the UK would look like if it was an actual democracy.

Multi-party coalitions are good though because they make it more likely for laws to be passed that are popular with the public

PR would be better, but using numbers from yesterday to prove any point on PR is pointless. Voters knew PR wasn’t a thing yesterday, so many vote tactically. For example - you live in a constituency where you want to vote Labour but you know Labour won’t win. You want the Tories out and Lib Dems are the next best option, so you vote Lib Dem. With PR, that same person would have voted Labour and not bothered thinking about it.

_Personally, I like the idea of Single Transferable Vote._

Why wasn't Scotland mentioned, but Northern Ireland was? As well as other countries. It has been using PR since devolution.

In Switzerland, we have proportional representation for most things which leads to a very diverse political landscape. Despite this, our elections are somewhat local. The system is a bit complicated, but people seem satisfied, the country is stable and there's no major party deciding everything. We don't even have a "government" and an "opposition" like most countries, but instead everyone works together, as per our national motto written inside the parliament building: "omnes pro uno, unus pro omnibus". With our system, you also don't get a rapid change of government after an election, because the changes are much smaller and nobody has a majority anyway. The party that does the least amount of constructive work and instead focuses on trying to be an "opposition" to anything is actually our conservative party which is also the largest party by number of voters. But they can't really do much on their own as long as nobody else agrees with them. With the same behaviour of voters but a UK-style system, Switzerland would be a radical conservative hellhole instead of what it is now. What also helps is that we get to vote on things several times a year rather than just vote for people who then decide everything. There is a downside to this system though: Things tend to just take forever because so many people get to say something. But that's a price I'm willing to pay for all the advantages. Other countries also have a constant back and forth when it comes to policies, because one side wins, four years later the other one takes over and pulls in the other direction...

Coalition requires cooperation with other parties to make a solution. The people benefit. And people are "giving it a go", as you put it - in Scotland.

channel 4 comments are wild

First past the post in not any form of Democracy. It makes a mockery of it.

Strangely, the most representative government we've had under FPTP was the 2010 coalition, where they had 59% of the vote and 56% of the seats between them. Nearly every other election in the past 40 years has been Labour or the Tories holding a majority of seats with only 30-45% of the vote. FPTP is a total joke.

Absolutely fucked system. At least use the French dual rounds system or the Australian preferential voting system

We use PR in Ireland and are very happy with it. If you don't get option 1, then you are more likely to get optio 2 or 3 so most people are satisfied as they get at least someone representing them in some way. Here the vote is also transferable so every vote is counted and every vote counts. Also, coalitions are essentially a negotiation and so you don't get the vile factionalism you get in the UK and US. I disagree with the American gentleman's opinion that you get an overproliferation of smaller parties, it does happen from time to time but as the larger parties will only enter into coalition with certain partners, these smaller parties get whittled down to only ones that are acceptable to the electorate and can work well with more established stable parties. All it all its a good system, much fairer, much more representative and much more satisfying for the electorate.

What people don’t take into account is that the parties would fight the election very differently under a proportional representation system, therefore it’s not really fair to compare what the result would have looked like.

Getting PR through parliament would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas 🎄

Remember, the votes cast would be DIFFERENT if people knew it was a PR system. It makes almost no sense to translate current voting patterns into being counted in a PR-like way. The arguments for PR are many. The fact that Britain and USA have the systems we do, is just an utter embarrassment.

Yes, but if we had PR then people would have voted differently.

the thing with ranked choice is, most of the time, you are putting your favourite candidate first, then you are just treating the rest of the candidates as an excercise of "who do i hate the least". a compromise between proportional representation (ranked choice) and stable government (first past the post) would be using a ranked choice system that only allows you to rank your top 2 or top 3 candidates.

We could have a ranked demerit vote system, the party with the least demerits wins.

Why was this re-uploaded?

Imagine 93 constituencies having Reform MPs inflicted upon them.

Splintering is easily avoided in PR with a small vote threshold.

We had a referendum on an alterative vote in 2011 and no won by almost 68% I'd rather see a system like Australia where it is a legal requirement to vote. You can still spoil your ballot if you want in protest but turnout should be in the 80-90% to get true democracy otherwise you only see the will of 40% of the people.

Thank you for making this video

How can you have a true representation when voting isn't mandated in the UK - 44% of the voting public didn't bother. Look at other models and look at mandatory voting it works here 🇦🇺

Abolishing first past the post would disrupt the concept that your local mp represents your area and you can write letters to them etc. enables how democracy works on a personal level. The only way to keep the local area (grass roots) politics in elections would be to have 2-3 seats per constituency. And then you can vote for a party multiple times, or 2-3 parties

As someone from the Netherlands where we have proportional representation with a very low threshold to get seats (a party needs just 1 complete seat worth of votes, i.e. 1/150 = 0.67% of the vote share to get in) let me give you my opinions: Would I ever want to switch away from proportional representation? Absolutely not, whilst I disagree with the results we're getting, and in recent decades coalition formation has become difficult, having such an antiquated and unrepresentatice system as the UK or US would be far far worse. Do I think our system is perfect? Not at all. But I think in large part the issues lie with the idea that you need to form a coalition. I think the whole point of a representative legislature should be that due to the differing opinions, you'll get differing majorities on different issues. The legislature should be the ones giving orders to the executive, who merely execute what the majority wants. No backdoor deals, no trading support for one policy to get support on another, just parties honestly voting on things that they stand for. At most finding compromises if there's too much division and finding a middle ground. Is the low threshold an issue? No, we've always had small parties, but only in recent years has it gotten difficult to form coalitions. There's two things that make it harder to fork a coalition nowadays: one is that there aren't any large parties anymore, instead we have a bunch of mid-sized parties. It used to be that two parties could probably form a coalition, at most three, but now we often need a minimum of four parties to form a coalition. The other issue is the rise of the far right, which, at least until the most recent elections, all the moderates refused to work together with, thus takikg up a chunk of seats that was already not eligible for coalition. Now they have finally broken from that, but they're not allowing the far-right Wilders to become prime minister, which also meant that none of the other parties' leaders were allowed to be in return, so now they've chosen somebody who's never really been politically active but has esperiencevleading immigration offices or something (most of us Dutchies had never heard of him before), so interesting times. But yeah, all this wouldn't even be an issue if we stepped away from this idea that we need a coalition, and instead we'd opt for variable minorities of the legislature.

Single Transferable Vote is better than pure PR as you have local MPs and direct individual accountability.

People don't just vote nationally, the person you elect is your local representative. You're not just picking the tram, but the player you want to deal with your local issues. Proportional representation doesn't solve that problem, as fairer a system it is.

CAN WE recall a referendum on PR in 2011 (UK). 68% of those voted said ,'No.' In a large population, 68% to 32% is an overwhelming statistical bias. Personally I like PR, but there we have it. In 2011 the population said a resounding no.

More important than share mismatch, is that many people are not able to express where they believe in in the first place: they feel left-out because their voice is never heard.

Brits like their regional representation, so the simple solution is: cut England in 20 large regions of 30 electoral, with proportional representation per region. At the same time, reduce the number of representatives per region to 15, so parliament size halves (20x15=300)

lol, Tories winning with the same system for 14 years: *crickets Labour wins: 🤯

14 years the tories had no issue with FPTP but suddenly labour win and it's an issue....

I'm used to KZfaq videos made by KZfaqrs who will set up a premise or promise in the title then you have to sit through about 80% of the vid to get to the meat. This video showed us what UK election result if we had proportional representation would look like in the first 6 seconds. Thank you Channel 4. ❤❤

The coverage of proportional representation in the wake of the Labour Landslide victory by campaigners and by news has been shocking when in years prior, they've been pretty adamant on the other side. Remember David Cameron and his statement that Proportional Representation or the Alternate Vote was "Crazy and undemocratic"? The opinion on this topic will continue to flip back and forth until everyone is unhappy.

Labour would have even fewer seats, since all the people voting to keep the tories out would have been able to vote with their principles

If every tory voted reform, would reform have even more seats than labour has now?

The problem is what PR system to adopt. Belgium wouldn't have a high satisfaction rating with their system as it rarely produces stable government or, crucially, consensus. So the discussion has to be very much more sophisticated than FPTP is rubbish. How we structure PR must now be the focus.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

But lets not forget we had a referendum on this not that long ago and it was rejected. ... God knows why, probably scaremongering

Thresholds are one way to address the over proliferation of parties. A number of countries seem relatively satisfied with a 5% threshold.

I can see the logic voting share percentage reflects percentage of seats, but the problem you will have is where do you position the MPs around the country as you wont be voting from constituency which is more of a straightforward thing in a post the post system there seems pros and cons to both

So my vote didn’t count so what’s the point?

A dangerously misleading extrapolation of the result that does not take into account all of the tactical voting that occurred last night. Had PR been the established system going into the GE then people would have voted in a completely different manner. Taking the result from one electoral system and doing a 1:1 transfer into another only serves to skew the eventual result. Please, don't do this again.

I mean the issue is are you sure the campaign qould run in the same manner if PR existed? Its a big if.

Use the STAR system but use a ranked pairs method for the top 4 scoring candidates.

I’d rather have my government squabble for months until a government that is representative of the majority of the electorate is formed than just one party doing whatever it wants despite only having a third of the vote. It’s absolutely ridiculous and anyone who argues against that is against democracy.

one small issue, STV isn't a proportional representation voting system, it just allows people to vote for more fringe candidates without wasting their vote

Funny, here in Brazil we have PR but there's a movement (mostly in the Right) to change to district representation (which I understood as being the same as FPTP).

Love to see Reform try to actually fill the seats with their AI generated candidates

first pass keeps the votes more representive for people with brains, and it shows for reform voters, lots of them but none of them are smart😂

“None of the above” should be a ballot option

This is only if we assume no one did any tactical voting at all this election

Reform got hit HARD

When the UK was part of the EU, the EU elections had a PR system; and Nigel Farage was constantly telling us how unfair that was. Now that Reform UK is competing in the UK FPTP elections, Nigel Farage is telling us the system he supported was unfair all along. Voters are the problem, and then politicians; not the system.

How do we get this to change to PR?

This assumes that everyone would have voted as they did in this GE, if we had PR, which is rather delusional as one of the key objectives this time around was to vote the tories out, which arguably led to a high level of tactical voting. Hence the rise in the number of LD seats.

The only other country that does it this way is Belarus....let that sink in

but my party won? it's clearly a fair system

Did they explain how the alternate system would actually work?

In Romania we have proportional representation system and we hate it because only the head of the electoral list is advertised, the no. 2,3,4 and so on are unknown to public but under this system they enter the parliament

The popular vote is all that matters, no real democracy has a right to burn ur vote if ur party comes in 2nd 3rd or 4th. That’s exactly why we have had the same 2 parties for over 💯 years! It’s not really a democracy, it’s the illusion that’s very predictable and very controllable. You can’t vote for the leader directly, you can’t vote for the party directly, you can vote for a candidate in ur area and if ur surrounded by enough life time voters then ur vote is scrapped and counts for nothing! Barriers to entry are everywhere on purpose. It’s a democracy that Putin is jealous of, atleast it can pretend to be legitimate and still keep a 50/50 prediction rate 😂

The fact that people still voted tory, and voted reform is worrying

The problem with our system is that too many people vote for their favourite party instead of the most representative candidate for their constituency

The first-past-the-post system would only really be representative if a majority of constituents could control their MP's conduct, i.e. through electronic voting before important votes in the House (or all votes)

If anything, if there was a proportional voting system Reform would’ve gained even MORE votes because the only reason it didn’t is because people are strategically voting for the next “best” (and I use that term loosely here) option which were the tories. Our election system has suppressed Reform big time.

we already had a referendum on changing this and it was rejected so all the gammon screaming for a referendum can not say we can't have another EU referendum 😅

The thing is, if we had a PR system, the vote share probably wouldn't have looked like this.

Right, let's get on with catching up with our neighbours.

The british equivalent of the Nazi party having 93 seats is the best argument against PR i have ever seen

Thank god we don’t have PR

a bit misleading. tehre are many forms of PR. not all systems use an exact translation of vote totals.

But under pr voting you can still vote for 1 person or if you like two from the same party. Your second choice will get carry over from the first person hitting the quota for being elected to the seat. Hopes that helps should pr voting comes in.

I like the theoretical voting of an AV+ system. The main house is voted in on an AV or STV, with the 2nd house being PR from a list of all registered political parties.

In Nz we have mmp which distributes seats better, but you end up with a king maker when the two main parties need a coalition partner to govern. Meaning a small party leader can end up deciding who ends up winning. Only really works with a landslide victory where a party can govern alone.

very informative and easily explained