HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: CGP Grey

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

54028 ratings | 4100006 views
Help support videos like this: https://www.patreon.com/cgpgrey **CGPGrey T-Shirts for sale!**: http://www.cgpgrey.com/t-shirt Watch the full series of Politics in the Animal Kingdom here: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/ If you would like to help me make more videos please join the discussion on: Google+: http://plus.google.com/115415241633901418932/posts Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/cgpgrey Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Greys-Blog/193301110697381 Or suggest ideas and vote on other peoples' ideas on my channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (4136)
KatzenProductions (9 days ago)
"The Queen Lioness is displeased" I would be to, can you imagine getting fucked repeatedly by the same gorilla and leopard every year when you're getting shouted at by your husband on how you "betrayed" him? *There is something appealing about the snake fellow...the way he can fit himself in a few certain places...*
Hannah G (10 days ago)
Really helpful - thank you!
smile444 (11 days ago)
well it is possible for a newcomer to win. Trump proved that
hogus bogus (12 days ago)
i think perhaps we can try a new form of government; not one, but 3 forms of executive government. -economic -military -judicial and one head of state if it is constitutional monarchy. this may work because: -there is less to gain from being in government, making candidates more honest -each candidate is more specialized does anyone think this might work
sherelle francis (13 days ago)
This is how my country of T&T inevitably end up running our country. What a shame, what a shame. Love all ur videos tho, with u all the way in 2019
Xtreme Team (13 days ago)
I just think it's funny that both king and queen lion are male lions not that there's anything wrong with being gay that is
Mikee 1234444 (16 days ago)
Bernie decides to enter the race
SuperSuperdude88 (16 days ago)
Fuck! So what's the answer!
Jamaica News Hub (16 days ago)
That is exactly what happened in my country between 1944 and 1962. We had 12 parties and several independent candidates contesting elections and now we only have two parties that hold seats.
Darwin42 (25 days ago)
Any other British Colombians mad as hell right now?
Robert Jarman (21 days ago)
I also add that FPTP was never approved in it's own right by a public vote and BC used to have a ranked system and also once had multi member ridings. It was abolished without a referendum. Plus, most of the problems with proportional representation would be solved in most modern constitutions which talk about things like how democratic a political party has to be (party oligarchy and insiders), nuclear options in case stable coalitions can't be formed, regional representation and rural representation, draft maps of constituencies and independent electoral agencies to draw those maps, and similar. BC ludicrously has basically none of that enshrined in constitutional law and almost none of that in statute with the exception of the electoral districts drawn.
roddo (29 days ago)
I remember my teacher explaining this in class. Truly eye opening.
RASEL Pervez (30 days ago)
The QUEEN abdicated and the king stayed and set the vote GET UR PRIORITIES AND GENDER DIFFERENCE IN ORDER
John Sparrow (1 month ago)
FPTP is best because it makes representatives accountable to a specific group of people and not just the country as a whole
Robert Jarman (21 days ago)
+Skyval Ream And you can combine the two of them, a single president and a parliament (and senate if you wish). France has a two round system that avoids FPTP, although the parliamentary elections have a small (although rarely used) quirk about some third party and independent candidates in the second round where basically everyone will get a majority and if they don't, a second round will be held between the top two, and same goes for the president.
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
What do you mean? There are a lot of methods that are still single-winner other than FPTP. And even a lot of proportional representatives still use smallish districts.
Bardo (1 month ago)
I’d honestly prefer STV or AV to FPTP any time because I hate the spoiler effect because I’m a centrist and I feel I’m pressured into not voting for who I like.
Owl Raider (1 month ago)
The problem with this video is that it assumes the other way is flawless. Having many different choices, while increasing representation on paper(not necessarily in practice) means that no party has a majority so they have to form a coalition. This in turn means that regardless of how many parties there are they will typically split into 2 groups(typically left and right), with a few parties like the greens going with whoever is bigger. Thus in the end you still end up with a 2 party system of sorts, but with an added step of legalized political extortion which gives the small parties way over-exaggerated power because each small party can become the linchpin between a coalition successfully forming or not. The extortion doesn't end there, as each party can leave the coalition at any time, so if a small party gets too annoyed with how the coalition is being ruled they can always threaten to leave it and thus dissolve it resulting in forced elections outside the typical 3/4/5/whatever year cycle. So you end up with this weird system where the ruling party(the largest member of the coalition) is actually the party with the least amount of power, even within its own coalition, as they have to constantly take each minor party's wants into account just to keep the coalition standing. As someone living in a country with a multiple party system(and I don't mean just 4-6 parties, more like 20+ that keep forming, reforming, changing, etc) I tell you that this system is just as bad as the 2 party system. Each system has some unique strengths and weaknesses which suite some countries better than others but overall both share many of the same faults. In the end it's not a problem with the system but with democracy itself as no matter how you try to rig the system the vocal minority will always have power over the silent majority.
Robert Jarman (21 days ago)
+Owl Raider France is an example where a new party could come out of not existing a year ago to winning the presidency. There are only a few main parties in France and they ally into coordinated groups anyway. The Republicans, UAI, the MoDem, the REM together control 84%, where the former two are very closely allied and the latter two are also very closely allied. Add in the previous ruling party, the SP and a close ally, France Insoumise, and you're over 92%. Just six parties, of which there are just three main groups, control that many seats despite not having FPTP. Australia is a similar story as well with ranked ballots for the House of Representatives, although the Senate, with STV, does have the power to effectively block legislation and even supply which forces negotiations but not in a way that the coalition might ever collapse. The prime minister won't collapse because of the said coalition, but they will decline. Australia's individual party leaders are notoriously weak but for irrelevant differences, mainly because the party leaders are chosen by the caucus where in most parties it's either chosen by a group of delegates chosen by local chapters of the party, plus any particularly special delegates (in labour parties this would be from trade unions for example) or by a direct primary consisting of the general membership). I'm not sure how the idea of 10-20 range would precisely fit, because if you had say a 300 member parliament but there were maybe 30 seats controlled by an array of 9 parties but you had just perhaps 3-5 main parties which control 270 seats, that wouldn't really be a significant issue. I also should add another caveat. Most countries with proportional elections, even list proportional, do not use nationwide lists. Dividing a country into regions of say 10 members per constituency means that you would need at least 10% of the vote to win using hare quota, or at least come as close as possible to 10% so as to have the possibility of winning by means of the largest remainder, so you probably aren't winning with less than 8% or so. And this also assumes that the executive is mostly chosen by the parliamentary coalitions, which isn't always true. Some countries like the US have the president irrelevant to the representation in the congress. And other countries have a president with political influence (themselves usually chosen in a direct election with a top two runoff if nobody gets a majority), and depending on the precise relationship between the president, prime minister, and parliament, may normally appoint a bureaucrat to the position of prime minister with a cabinet mostly non partisan. Obama had only a small number of actual politicians appointed to his cabinet and cabinet level agencies, most were bureaucrats of some kind. This could be made an official part of executive relations and the rules for who is allowed to become prime minister and part of the cabinet. For example, if you wanted something like this, you could require that the president propose a person who is not a member of a party, hasn't been for a long time, and has some kind of bureaucratic or professional qualification to the parliament who is confirmed by that parliament by a majority vote, and if they say no, the president can do the same up to twice more with two new candidates, and if that fails, then the parliament gets one or two last shots to try it for themselves, and if that fails a new election is held, and the prime minister can only be replaced by a majority vote against and a majority vote in favour of someone else, with the president having the option to dissolve the legislature and hold a new election if they vote a no confidence vote and the requirement to dissolve after several short lived prime ministers. This would only work though if the parliament is assertive on other subject matters and statutes, and the president is strongly limited on other factors because a failure limit the other powers a president of this type correctly can lead to an authoritarian president.
Owl Raider (21 days ago)
+Robert Jarman Ugh, I did mention Election Threshold which is a designated safeguard. Of course most systems have more than 1 designated safeguard, these aren't usually mutually exclusive so you can have multiple in the same system. To explain what Election Threshold is think of a system with a 200 member parliament(for easy math). 200 members in parliament means you can have up to 200 parties consisting of a single parliament member each. You than set Election Threshold at a certain percentage, say 5%(which is around the low end), now you only have at most 40 parties rather than 200 as each party must have a minimum of 5 members each, so 5 membersx40 parties =200 total parliament members. Now you can add additional designated safeguards like those that you've mentioned, like what happens to all the votes that went to parties that didn't pass the election threshold, what happens when a party gained 6.5 members, etc. This is where transferable votes and other methods come into play, and again they can enter at any stage. Some systems use transferable votes even for the parties that didn't pass the Election Threshold, others drop the parties that didn't pass it outright than only apply transferable votes on the remaining parties. In some systems the transferable vote is automatic, in others individual parties make a prearrangement with other parties to how their excess votes are treated between the 2 parties. Regardless, I did mention in a previous post that there are many different democratic systems and that I was mostly talking about a multi-party system, more specifically a plentiful multi-party system with over 10 parties. The UK, France, etc, are technically multi-party systems but they're mostly limited to 3-6 parties in total out of which only 3-4 get into parliament due to designated safeguards like those you've mentioned. I'm trying to not get into specific systems as each country is slightly different thus the discussion will be almost limitless. You have countries with 4-6 parties, countries with 6-10 parties, countries with 10-20 parties, etc. While they're all technically multi-party system you can't really compare a 4-6 party system to a 10-20 party system. Similarly the reason for this party diversity is different between different countries. In the UK for example you have national parties like the Scottish and Northern Irish parties you mentioned. But that's because of the UK's unique government of technically being 4 different countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland packed into a single government. Most countries don't have that and the ones that do are usually federal systems like the US or Germany in which case you're dealing with states rather than actual countries, though the distinction isn't really important for this discussion. In other countries the diversity isn't regional based like the UK case but instead religious/ideological mostly. Regardless the number of parties in a given system is a direct function of the system's place on the Representation vs Governance scale, the more parties the more the system is skewed towards Representation and vice versa. When CGP Grey said that more representation is always good he ultimately meant that more political parties are always good, thus his ideal system is in the 10-20 party range or even more than that. I strongly disagree with this notion, and explained my reasons above. The systems you were talking about are far from maximal representation systems, still more than 2 party systems(which would be minimal representation under a democracy as a single party system is no longer a democracy) but still very far from maximal representation. You did correctly hint that most multi-party democratic systems don't go overboard with their party numbers, which only supports my stance that going overboard with representation simply isn't sustainable.
Robert Jarman (21 days ago)
Nowhere did Grey specifically state that the election would be proportional if FPTP was abolished. A ranked ballot very often produces a majority for one party, and the same is always true of a president elected by a ranked ballot. French politics also very often has a single party majority for one party in the national assembly and usually has an allied president thanks to a runoff election system. And first past the post in legislatures is not always assured to cause a single party majority, especially in places with strong regionalism like the UK and Canada where the Bloc Quebecois became the official opposition once, the SNP have most of the seats in Scotland in the UK, and the DUP and Sinn Fein operate out of Northern Irish constituencies such that the prime minister doesn't have a majority in the UK right now. The two party effect derives from two parties in any given constituency, not overall. I am not sure where you live, but one of the options that you could use to reduce the number of parties is called single transferable vote. You need to reach a quota, between 16.667% and 25%+1, depending on the size of the constituency (from 5 members in the first example to 3 members in the second example), which tends towards larger although still not majority parties that have already assembled broad and acceptable coalitions of voters. That makes Irish politics fairly stable, more so than I think it's Belgium you live in. You are thinking of proportional parliamentary elections without specially designed safeguards. And modern countries have such safeguards. Nord-Rheine Westfalen has such a safeguard for example. If the normal process of coalition building fails, then they hold a vote for all the candidates for the premier of the state, and if that fails to deliver a majority, a runoff is held between the top two, and the parliament can only replace this premier by a majority vote against the premier and a majority vote in favour of someone else. And other places have even more safeguards, like how a dissolution happens if the parliament goes through too many prime ministers too quickly, as France did back in the 4th republic, such as calling an automatic dissolution if there are two prime ministers in 6 months or three prime ministers in 12 months, or if the budget fails after a 90 day period of debate followed by a failed vote to approve it, followed by another failed attempt to pass it not earlier than two weeks later. You can also require a certain number of members of the parliament to initiate a no confidence vote, say 10% of the members, and if they fail to dislodge the prime minister on that vote, they cannot initiate another vote in the same parliamentary session. The president, chosen in a ranked, scored, or runoff vote, could also be vested with some powers to provide leadership in the event of coalitions not working out as well. Giving the president most of the ability to provide the leadership and setting policy goals for foreign policy and the military means that a lot of the disputes that tend to fracture coalitions can be put on the hands of the president who needs to be impeached for crimes or removed by the people to be ousted. The president could also have the power to extend the term of the budget (say by a twice renewable period of 90 days each) if the parliament won't pass anything, which avoids government shutdowns the way the US has had them. The president could also have some powers of executive orders, provided that they are countersigned by the prime minister and approved or rejected by the parliament within 6 months, which while avoiding the risk of a presidential autocracy, also provides for leadership when parliament can't do anything. The prime minister and the cabinet, as well as the president, could also be forbidden from running on party labels and the cabinet be comprised of technical experts in their field, which reduces the friction of coalitions. Many major powers of regulation, many of which that tend to chip apart coalitions like revenue from natural resources, could be put into the hands of commissions and independent boards, which get fixed terms, fixed salaries, and also a typically long and staggered term system, with mandatory education and qualifications in their field, and removable only for cause of crimes, misconduct, neglect, absence, or corruption. A coalition breaking apart can't fix that nor can a new prime minister. The judicial service could be based on a civil law and a system of employing and disciplining judges that looks a lot more like a job that you professionally apply for and need professional qualifications, based on merit, usually life until mandatory retirement terms, fixed salaries, and independence from the legislature and especially the executive, so nearly all courts (except usually the courts of last resort and also the constitutional court) will operate whether the coalition wants them to or not.
Owl Raider (1 month ago)
+Skyval Ream I'm sorry but you seem to lack understanding of fundamental political terminology that this discussion is going nowhere... Your Wikipedia quote doesn't rebut my statement at all. The key word there is: "using", the way the houses were elected was using proportional representation, that's very true. I never suggested otherwise, in fact I clearly said the US has proportional representation... Your quote says nothing about what proportional representation actually is, and this video is confusing proportional representation with just representation. He's using the term in its literal sense, as in representation based on the population, hence proportional, however there is a term called proportional representation in political science which basically means what I said above. As for not agreeing with the governance vs representation scale, that's fine but you didn't say why you disagree. I intentionally mentioned both ends of the scale, aka the 2 extremes, are you disagreeing with that? If not than what exactly is it you're disagreeing with?
Carmen Mencar (1 month ago)
Nicely explained.
Sagar Mazumdar (1 month ago)
This is what has been happening in India
Narrator (1 month ago)
literally greece's political problem for the last 40 years two partys exchanging power
Reivelt (1 month ago)
so this is what is happening in Indonesian upcoming election....
Uncle Larr (1 month ago)
An oblivious attempt at misrepresenting what :ranked choice voting is in order yo.keep the current corrupt form that helps only rigged fraudulent rethugliecons
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
What do you mean? CGP Grey endorses ranked choice voting and has other videos about it where he argues that they fix problems mentioned in this video
Exubeh1 (1 month ago)
Queen Lioness kinda looks like Elizabeth II. Not in an offensive way, just that's the lion version of the Queen right there...
That one Canadian (1 month ago)
That’s why we have the “Ghost vote”. I’m not explaining it Look it up
hk4124 (1 month ago)
Too bad there is no queen lion to switch up the voting system. The 2 parties have 100% control, why would they ever allow change?
TeeCan (1 month ago)
The netherlands be like: uhhmm, no...
fly0827 (1 month ago)
Cat Lover (1 month ago)
While this system is still broken, I will say that in Canada we have more than two parties that consistently run for office. Though it definitely suffers from the spoiler effect.
Hank W (1 month ago)
I strongly believe that all public elections should use Ranked Choice Voting, like the system used in Maine, USA in the 2018 General Election.
Jack Robertson (1 month ago)
I would of said equal representation is needed but ok
Dolar Ferroun (1 month ago)
Lol many people probably subbed because of that video, the number of views is nearly equal to the number of subs 😂😂
Kathy Grylls (1 month ago)
This new system will be great: all those people wanting their party to have a say in our country like the Communist party, Marxist party, Pirate party could have a say...
Greg Gardiner (1 month ago)
In a recent mayoral election in my town, two candidates split the vote, and gave minority rule.
Jude Evans (2 months ago)
Thanks!! My province is having a referendum to descide if we want to change our voting system from First Past the Post to a Proportional Representation system, and if so, to which system.
Lochlainn Kerley (2 months ago)
educational and witty, bravo
carolinneus (2 months ago)
Would the Eurovision voting system (many votes with different values) be more fair?
Abradolf Lincler (2 months ago)
3:30 what you've explained up to here.. probably took place in some shady ass place many years ago.. took many hours and many self minded shitheads.. and that has chiseled the world we live in today.. same with the mind bugs and religion.. I'm against it.. but I have to tip my hat to the guy or group of guys that came up with the idea to enslave the entire human race on something that can only be proven wrong when you die.. fucking perfect.. do as we say and as long as you can't prove better than what's in this handy book of mine.. you do as I say :D you might find out the truth.. when you die.. conveniently.. again.
Evert Clowting (2 months ago)
Vote Snake in 2020! Own animal kingdom first! ;-)
manman (2 months ago)
wouldn't more parties mean more minority rule
Skyval Ream (2 months ago)
Well, the representatives still need to vote on the policy, right? That can still require a majority.
Kevin Dufresne (2 months ago)
Maine implemented this for the first time in a national senate and house race in the Mid Terms yesterday, and its use is impacting the outcome. So exciting.
GermanGamer7 (2 months ago)
Go Leopard! 🐱
Ichijo Festival (2 months ago)
"Rulers of the jungle since time immemorial." ...Lions don't live in the jungle.
purplerains (2 months ago)
I challenge that the centrists sway, I think they just stop engaging, or those of a generation who knew their party sway but later centrists do not engage in politics. In US and South Korean national elections, two iconic two party systems, it is much more about who motivates their base more, particularly because over time, the parties differentiate themselves so much--it is minute, but the minute is all the citizenry know for their system, so people who say they don't have a side do not, and they do not really vote. This was part of what is so unusual about President Trump's supporters, he has lots of folks who never voted and never associated with a party, albeit they were on an extremist side, and instead of siding to a party they fell off the voting block long ago, and were brought in to vote by something that was 1) culturally iconic and comfortably familiar 2)wholly outside the system 3)a person living the life the would like to live . These people just straight up do not have a history of voting, and we know across endless democratic systems that you either vote regularly, or you don't. I think the end results are the same, its just that I believe the academia around this shows fairly well it is mostly that people stop voting, much less so people "switching" , in the long view and in the end game stages of first past the post systems
Tony Nameless (2 months ago)
That is exactly why gay marriage and weed was legalized. Not because we wanted to, but because too many of us were broken apart voting against something else.
Beevenhouse (2 months ago)
Can someone explain why the better a third party does, the more votes it gets the party they least agree with? I don't understand that part.
Beevenhouse (2 months ago)
+Skyval Ream Okay, I get it now. Thanks!
Skyval Ream (2 months ago)
The idea is that it causes them to vote for their favorite instead of their compromise. But if their favorite still doesn't win, it might cause their compromise to also lose when they could have won if they had those votes. So they get their least favorite when they could have gotten their compromise. This is purely an artifact of the voting system. A system where you give a rating to each candidate can avoid this.
Frank Zimmerman (2 months ago)
The biggest problem in human governments are humans. The person chosen can only be as good as the people doing the choosing.
Buttercupkat Productions (2 months ago)
The gorilla is Donald. 🦍
Ben Sellars (2 months ago)
Nick Monks (2 months ago)
Why It's So Hard To Change. They say, "You have to vote if you want to get what you want!f" Democrats say they will do "Na na na na na." Republicans say they will do "Ni ni ni ni ni." Party (doesn't matter which) gets into power, and they do a few things that look like "Na na na na na" or "Ni ni ni ni ni", but really it's a lot of "Doo doo doo doo doo", and have merely increased the polar power dynamic by creating a non-issue for the other party to run against that they can use to excite their base. Then their base says to the disinterested voters and the would be "spoiler" (you have to come out and vote if you want change! (But you'll have to vote for my party or else you're essentially voting for the other party!) So you say, "well let's change the system", but it's a two party system now, and for those two parties that keep trading control, it's working just fine, thank you very much. And we don't have a Queen who decides how the process works...no, no. The inmates run their own asylum. And this is why I'm pissed off every time we have an election and the party closer to my views can't understand what I'm upset about...but they sure are riled up and ready to blame the opposition when the party they vote for doesn't deliver the thing their constituents thought they were voting for...
Skyval Ream (2 months ago)
Getting an alternative system through to existing system is definitely an issue. There is some hope, Maine was able to change to RCV for a lot of elections. Right now Fargo, North Dakota is considering switching to Approval, and Lane County in Oregon is considering a switch to STAR. More local initiatives like this are probably the best way. Another idea might be to convince a party to use Approval or something in their primaries. Then it's more likely that their actual best candidate will be selected, giving them an advantage over the other party in general elections, incentivizing them to switch as well.
christomopher89 (2 months ago)
Sharing this again since there is a mail-in referendum in British Columbia regarding a change in our electoral system so fingers crossed!
v_killer7 (2 months ago)
How dare you oppress us. Snakes unite!
v_killer7 (2 months ago)
+Zeke Mackay you tigcucks can eat shit. Venom order 777 for 2020!
Zeke Mackay (2 months ago)
tumšsCuška77 you guys are too extreme! Vote tiger!
5:40 You just made a whole bunch of assumptions that 3rd party voters will agree significantly with more things by one party than the other party.
What's wrong with a simple Borda count?
Skyval Ream (2 months ago)
Borda has a reverse spoiler effect and is allergic to strategic voting, to the point that it can become an anti-method an start electing candidates which everyone agrees is bad. I like rating-based methods like Score, Approval, or STAR more.
LynnAnn Perlin (2 months ago)
Love it!
Franz (3 months ago)
What about a videao about proportional voting systems ant its flaws and advantages. + It is proportional - even with local voring districts on several levels where local direct seats can be gained and surplus votes are counted on the next higher levenl, in parliamentarim with proportional voting, the party normally decides how every meber of pariament will decide in parliament, because the parties decide who is on the voting list, not the people decide directly who is going to represent them. If one decides against his party in parliament, the next time the party places someone else on the list who will do what they say. On the other hand do you want all the time local intrests in every level of politics?
Skyval Ream (3 months ago)
That con sounds like it only applies to closed-list systems, where the parties decide the order of the list internally. There are other systems which avoid that issue. With open-list systems, the lists are ordered by how many endorsements the candidates get from the voters when they vote. There are also party-agnostics systems which don't use party lists at all, such as STV (which Grey has a video about on this channel)
phillip stafford-dafoe (3 months ago)
I watched this in highschool by accident but now my city has a referendum question on the ballot for the 2018 municipal election regarding a switch to ranked ballot voting over first past the post And all my friends who said this was boring or a waste of time are scratching their heads about what I'm when saying now Thanks Grey
Spicy Cat (3 months ago)
Why didn’t you cover how you could just limit who can lead for how long.
Skyval Ream (3 months ago)
We generally don't put limits on the parties themselves.
Rachel Von Rebelle (3 months ago)
Dayala Singh (3 months ago)
Then how does Canada have three major parties.
Dayala Singh (3 months ago)
+Tommy Dee ok
Tommy Dee (3 months ago)
Because people there vote on seats, not offices.
Jacob Griffin (3 months ago)
2:46 - The 2016 elections in a nutshell.
Markus Meridius (4 months ago)
This thread: a bunch of ameritards thinking this is how they vote.
Skyval Ream (4 months ago)
What do you mean? This is the method used at some level in almost every election, even electoral votes are determined by statewide FPTP elections
Ithiltor Kingslayer (4 months ago)
i like this video and all..... BUT Y TURTLE NO WIN ;-;
Lets find a nickname (4 months ago)
Can't we solve this with 2 election ? In first election everyone vote the candidate they like most. If no candidate can get more than %50 of popular vote (which is probably what will happen), in second round 2 candidate with most popular vote, voted again. One of them will get more than %50 of vote and he or she will be president.
Lets find a nickname (7 days ago)
+Quintinohthree Thank you. I will check Netherland elections later
Quintinohthree (7 days ago)
+Lets find a nickname I live in a country with open-list proportional representation for all elections, and I think you don't quite understand how it all works. Candidates don't get moved up higher on the list by voters. My vote for a particular candidate only goes on to determine whether they are elected to the body the election is called for outright, or whether their position on the party list determines if they are elected. In the Netherlands a candidate receiving at least a quarter of the electoral quotient (="number of valid votes"/"seats in election) is elected outright ahead of the remainder of their party list, but having only recieved votes sufficient for less than a seat they cannot simply decide to start a part of their own, and indeed candidates being elected ahead of their position on the party list is quite rare to begin with. Here's a real example from our 2017 parliament election which I'm slightly proud my vote actually played a part in. A party recieved 14 seats. Number 19 of the list received votes well in excess of a quarter of the electoral quotient, the third most among all candidates from this party of which only six candidated recieved more than a quarter of the electoral quotient, thus bumping out the candidate in 14 th position on the list. This candidate however had also exceeded a quarter of the electoral quotient, though being the last candidate to do so with only 302 votes in excess, or not even 2% over the threshold, one of which was mine, therefore the candidate in 13th position was also bumped out. Also, if you're worried about hundreds of people running against eachother, realise we had 1116 candidates running for 28 parties in an election for 150 seats, and no heads exploded. I hope you understand it better now.
Lets find a nickname (4 months ago)
+Skyval Ream You said if there would be an open list system people can still make their fovorite candidates in party being in a top part of lists. First of all I don't get how these things would be decided. And second I don't think it is necessary to have an open list. If a some guy in party is incredibly popular in party, because of his speechs and actions in parliment, he can create his party in new elections. If not even %0.2 of peoples don't think he deserve a better position in party, they already can't make him in top of the list, but if there is that much people, they can make him the leader of his own party and get elected. Now I noticed this while writing this, with my voting system there could be hundreds of people running against each other in parliment. This can make average voters heads exploded. And it would lower the party number in general elections. Problem solved. Anyhow I still think this legislative body isn't enough for an actual democracy, even though most of the people don't think they are capable of running gowernments. Plus of this legislative body, actual people should have right to veto its acts. Like in Swiss system. Anyone can make a law, and if this law can get more than %1 of adult populations signatures, it should be voted and all of the people can say yes or no. I really think in the future senates would removed and people will be the ones who actually make laws without needing to representatives. Probably through internet. Of course this would need every citizen to have at least high speed internet to discuss.
Skyval Ream (4 months ago)
>Of course since the party leader get to choose all 500 peoples list of senator... This is only true in closed-list systems. There are also open-list systems where the order of the list is somehow determined by the electorate (e.g. the voter votes for a party by endorsing a specific candidate within that party, and the list is ordered by # of endorsements). Moreover there are party-agnostic (psuedo-)proportional methods like Single Transferable Vote, which Grey has a video on. There are other, less well-known methods as well, including ones that use Score voting as a base, such as Reweighted Range Voting (Score Voting and Range Voting are the same thing). I probably lean towards proportional representation as well. But we will probably always need single-winner methods. Not just for any remaining cases where there is only a single seat, but also for elections which are inherently single winner, such as elections about policy directly (the representatives themselves also vote, don't they?) There are some which are somewhat skeptical if true proportional representation is optimal (the people I'm thinking of still think its a massive improvement over the current system), but this is somewhat speculative. The premises are usually something like: 1. The ultimate purpose of any legislative body is to produce policy. Two bodies which produce the same policy are equally good (or bad) even if one is proportional and the other is not. 2. The Policies able to be passed in a proportional body will be fairly centrist (relative to the electorate). 3. A body of centrists (relative to the electorate) should produce similar policies. Therefore, a centrist body is not worse than a proportional body. And it may also be more cohesive and efficient. That's a lot of speculation, hence why I lean towards proportional representation (when applicable) but I would be interested in seeing these ideas tested small-scale using a better voting method.
Lets find a nickname (4 months ago)
Also I think the best way of making people happy with result is having national parliment which every party would get a percentage of senator equal to the parties vote in popular vote. Such as if there is 500 senator ; The party that takes the %40 of votes get 200 senator, the part that get %2 of votes get 10 senator. Of course since the party leader get to choose all 500 peoples list of senator, he would have full control over party and there would be dictatorship inside of party, but since most of the people vote for their ideologies and social class rather than specific senators, people won't mind it.
Conroy Boothe (4 months ago)
This is soooo Jamaica 😅
AST (4 months ago)
Ineedas hower (4 months ago)
Well you argued that it was good in the electoral college video
Parkour Chicken (5 months ago)
So Croatia in a nutshell
Res Publica (5 months ago)
Another option is that the third party candidate does so well he just replaces one of the 2 main parties and the system does not change...
Res Publica (5 months ago)
Snake should coup the governent and rule as the true king of course I mean he is the best candidate
WrathOfMega (5 months ago)
Would it be possible for a radical centrist party to force its way in to the system by carving out roughly even numbers from both major parties, thus reducing blowback even if it loses?
Quintinohthree (7 days ago)
It could, but a centre party ruling with parties to both sides is unstable and eventually the system should devolve back to two parties, perhaps with a shift left or right
Something or Other (5 months ago)
Well, I don’t see what’s so bad with minority rule. Sure, some feelings will be hurt, but the winner is the winner.
Something or Other (5 months ago)
Robert Jarman tl;dr
Robert Jarman (5 months ago)
There are many better ideas than this FPTP system. Rank the candidates so that your first choice is your favourite and so on. Then if a candidate has a majority, declare them the winner. If not, then find the candidate with the fewest votes, eliminate them, look at the ballots, and transfer the votes to the next choice. Continue until either someone gets a majority or there are two candidates, and in the latter case, pick the one with the most votes. That is just the easiest way to do things. Here's another. Let's imagine a larger district than the FPTP district and have multiple winners, let's say there are 5 who collectively represent the district. Then find a quota which candidates must meet. This is votes/(seats+1)+1. For a single member district it was 50%+1. For a 5 member district, it is 16.666%+1. Do the same as before, declare elected any candidates who reach the quota elected. If there is a surplus, transfer them at the scale of their surplus. If there are still seats to elect, eliminate the least popular and transfer votes. Continue until all candidates are elected or you have as many candidates as there are seats to be filled plus one, and elect all of them except for the least popular. Or use a cardinal voting system, based on averages. Put the candidate on a sliding scale of X to Y, say 0-10, do the same with any other candidate you care to score, and average the results for each candidate. This tends to produce a very much so consensus candidate too and fewer polarizing ones.
Geek37 (5 months ago)
This is how false dichotomies are created.
rachael m (5 months ago)
This system has made all the other parties, saving labour or conservatives, almost EXTINCT, and worryingly dramatically discourages adults to vote. It's disgraceful and I'm just amazed we allow ourselves to be treated this way in this supposedly liberal country. David Cameron, wasn't an honest and straight playing man, before during or after he won the leadership for PM. He fast tracked this through parliament making it law in the last year's before he left. Were we properly informed about this historical, almost undemocratic change to our voting law? I don't believe we were because WE WOULD NEVER OF AGREED TO IT. WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.
Dakota Mapping (5 months ago)
Always vote snake.
Matt Murphy (5 months ago)
Harambe will always get my vote x
Cat Loving Trio (6 months ago)
This this why the U.S.A. only has 2 canidates per election.
Robert Jarman (5 months ago)
It has several hundred thousand candidates. The US doesn't just have one race. These first past the post issues affect basically all of them.
CaptainCole (6 months ago)
The American election system exemplifies this problem, we need rank-choice voting
Gopal Swain (6 months ago)
Because my all problem has been solve. .
Gopal Swain (6 months ago)
I watched this video. And I will realy impressive. ..still like it
Yep I’m Here (6 months ago)
Doesn't this prove the electoral college is good?
EightThreeEight (3 months ago)
+Tommy Dee Exactly. And that's dumb.
Tommy Dee (3 months ago)
No. How the Electoral College works is that there isn't one big national election, but 51 separate elections, one in each state and the District of Columbia. Each of these FPTP elections are given a different amount of points based on the population of that state, and whoever gets a majority, in this case 270, becomes president.
EightThreeEight (5 months ago)
No it doesn't. The EC only makes things worse by, even in a two-party system, sometimes not even giving people the candidate they wanted.
Skyval Ream (6 months ago)
I don't think so, the EC uses FPTP in many stages, where it has the same problems as normal.
Smeinstein (6 months ago)
how can "hers" be kings?
Alfred Pardoe (6 months ago)
This isn't how the British voting system works (as well as all other countries that follow the same system) , well not exactly this simple. They don't just simply place the winner in control, its more complex and the % of which party gets the vote general is represented in parliament by that %. It works very well and has for years, like anything it has its bad moments (like 2015) but overall the system is far superior to that of the Electoral College. Edit: I re-watched and think this video should be about the electoral college vote in america not the british system. soo awkward. My point mainly still stands
EightThreeEight (5 months ago)
That's not correct. The votes and seats in UK elections are often highly unproportional.
DriveR13G27 (6 months ago)
Amazing video, subscribed
Enyon Eugenisu (6 months ago)
We need something like this to annalize proposed changes to proportional representation system in British Columbia, Canada before referendum.
ShadyNetwork (6 months ago)
Greetings from 2018. As an outsider looking in, I'd say the US is completely fucked because of this system. Plzfix.
waterguyroks (6 months ago)
How is it possible to fix this? Given that presumably the people in power are the people with the ability to change the system, and they have an incentive not to change it given that the flawed system is the one that led to them being put in power in the first place?
Net Neutrality (6 months ago)
Start with state referendums like what Maine did. The people in power don't control how you vote on a ballot initiative.
coconutcore (6 months ago)
But what if owl joins again?
ingsve (5 months ago)
Since the setup was that only Owl voters were centrists that could go either way, if Owl reenters and takes their 13% voters back then that would mean that Gorilla gets 46% and Leopard gets 41% with little to no flow between the sides in different elections. That would mean that as long as Owl stays in the race and keeps their voters then Gorilla would win every election. In practice the Owl voters that dislikes Gorilla would realize this and shift back their vote to Leopard to try and keep Gorilla from winning which would eventually prompt the Owl voters who dislikes Leopard to support Gorilla which would deplete Owls votes even if they do stay in the race.
witherblaze (6 months ago)
Should have used red and blue donkeys. The democratic party of JA's and the JP (Ja party). Great video anyway.
unnecessary opinion (6 months ago)
Sweden is heading this path.... soon it’ll be between SD and S
ingsve (5 months ago)
MMP is not applicable in Sweden since there are no single seat constituencies. This is also why the comment that Sweden is heading for this path is wrong. Sweden's parliament is directly proportional for any party that reaches the threshold of 4% and at no point would anything close to FPTP apply.
Net Neutrality (6 months ago)
With so many parties, you'd think they'd opt for Mixed Member Proportional
DLmucho2 (6 months ago)
But didn't Harambe and Cecil both get assassinated?
Red Jellonian (7 months ago)
Maine making first steps toward removing FPTP.
stevenj100 (7 months ago)
Why is it first past the post and not first passed the post
levi kinggamer (7 months ago)
Daniel Bowes (7 months ago)
Who the fuck would vote for a frog
slitor (3 months ago)
Well....Dan Quayle became vice president.
raredreamfootage (7 months ago)
the problem are the advanced polling news organizations do. This is what influences these outcomes. All voters should head into the elections blind of any predictions.
raredreamfootage (7 months ago)
what's the best alternative?
Skyval Ream (7 months ago)
I like Score Voting and its variants. They even include party agnostic proportional variants. Condorcet methods might also be pretty good. A more popular alternative is Instant Runoff/The Alternative Vote/"Ranked Choice", but I think there is reason to suspect these still lead to duopoly, and pretty much every system will behave like Plurality/FPTP when there are only two strong options.
stygn (7 months ago)
Even though I've watched this video several times, I'm still disappointed that Turtle doesn't win : (
Mittens FastPaw (7 months ago)
I really need to stop going back and watching these. It depresses me knowing no choice in my life in the USA has ever represented me at all.
Apricot Theory (7 months ago)
This series of videos on voting systems should be mandatory material for all people by age 18.
Karl Solvang (7 months ago)
well in norway for example we have a first past the post system, regardless we still have several parties
slitor (3 months ago)
Yes, but those are seats not A elected position...we still provides seats to the runner ups. And we also have the seats which the parties can fill themselves based on the popular vote, if they have over 4 percent of the total tally.... unless they are unlucky and ran out of mandates because one party got more municipal seats... Ok... that part is a bit weird.
Connor Dankensburgh (8 months ago)
So essentially, people are stupid and vote strategically to put down other candidates.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.