HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: CGP Grey

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

56752 ratings | 4264040 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 (4243)
Greg Glasgow (7 hours ago)
Super analogy and presentation . Thanks
Marechal Zolotoy (3 days ago)
Solution: Guild votes I thought abouut this just now and I wanna know if there is any problem on it for you guys: 1- Every working class is now its own guild. No cooperation is mandatory between their members, though, this is just a name for simplifying the process 2- The guilds are divided into local state divisions (e.g.: State Division of the Miners of California) 3- The state divisions are divided into even smaller outposts, called district divisions (e.g.: District Division of the Miners of Santa Fe Within the Miner's Guild of California [is Santa Fe even in California? I don't know, I'm not American) 4- In these districtal divisions, the candidates for the election are voted. An approval of 51% or more in the general scheme allows for a candidate to run 5- The real vote is taken, this time with an approval rating of 55% needed for a candidate to win. If there is no candidate with such a percentage of votes, the two most voted candidates shall be voted again 6- You have a democratic Soviet Union
Alayne Sims (10 days ago)
So, if this is a bad voting system, why is the world continuously using it, are we getting fooled?
Tsuyara (4 days ago)
The parties in power have a strong incentive to preserve it and the people aren't exactly well educated.
Eric Perdomo (11 days ago)
The us gov needs 2 be reformEd
da yo boi (11 days ago)
Seriously what is BG music name?
Doreen Savoie (14 days ago)
Suck it up sweethearts
Nathaniel Lazaro (19 days ago)
#vote turtle
Chris McElroy (21 days ago)
I wonder in political theory if we made like a pentacameral legislative branch as opposed to a bicameral one. Chamber 1 being small districts with first past the post representatives, chamber 2 being a senate with equal amount of distributed representatives, chamber 3 being a parliament style equal party distribution, chamber 4 being proportionate representation based on ethnicity, chamber 5 being equal representation based on income
shona beggs (21 days ago)
Even worse when people realise the two parties are one & the same, despite their faux outrage against the other!
A Nonny Mouse (22 days ago)
Without gerrymandering, FPTP elects the most popular candidate, while single transferable vote elects the least unpopular. In a two party system this gives the same result, but with many competing parties the leader is selected by a small minority of traditionalist voters when using FPTP. While this limits the power of minority extremists, it disenfranchises the majority of the voters, leading to electoral apathy. Popularity may be a good way to select a prom queen, but it has never been a good basis for selecting a leader. The normal result is the election of the party with the most talented liars, and the gradual decline in honesty and integrity in all parties, as they are forced to compete in the morass of political deception.
trollbreeder (26 days ago)
Watch Politics in the Animal Kingdom for information on better solutions to this political mess.
Tracey Gonzalez (27 days ago)
vote for owl, he's a centrist
Gariel2007 (29 days ago)
Solo I'm realy starting to like this singularity idea...
echelon anglo (1 month ago)
What about Ballotage?
Josu Carte García (1 month ago)
However, in a system where citizens don't drectly elect their King and, instead, elect representatives that choose kings, in the last scenario, Tiger and Leopard could reach an agreement and form a Government of coallition, naming a Tiger representative king, who will have to compromise some of his policy to please Leopard party.
Muhammad Badhon (1 month ago)
I may be biased, but Australian voting system solves all these problems mentioned in the video. #auspol #australia #IRV
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
I'm not so sure. FPTP is awful, and should be abolished, but there are surprisingly a lot of methods out there, even if you only look at single-winner methods, and some seem pretty great. But IRV, which is what Australia uses in their lower house, might not be better in practice; Australia's lower house is still two-party dominated, and almost every method behaves the same as FPTP when there are only two strong parties. Australia's duopoly might persist because IRV doesn't so much "eliminate" the spoiler effect as much as "hide" it by "moving" it. It's harder to be a spoiler, yes, but third parties still tend to become spoilers before they can become winners. Basically, it's still not always safe to put your honest favorite first. It's only safe if they are already front-runners (same as FPTP) or are very weak (an improvement vs FPTP?). But between those, they can still spoil the party they are most similar to. Weak candidates not causing spoilers is arguably an improvement, but ultimately weak candidates don't spoiler FPTP elections _THAT_ often, because people know to avoid it. But luckily, like I mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives. Among single-winner methods, my favorite is Score Voting, though its relatives Approval Voting and STAR voting also have their proponents and advantages.
This is why there are checks and balances within the country, why the Congress and the Senate exist. They cancel out the FPTP system by allowing for greater representation within government and limiting the president's power. By electing a representative more tailored towards a county's needs they get the representation THEY deserve, while still keeping the political system nice and simple. Lion voted representatives in Congress can vote against Gorilla legislation forcing a compromise between parties and ensuring equal representation.
Tsuyara (4 days ago)
FPTP for congress/senate still has these issues though. Just on a smaller scale, where each constituency has all the issues (which can compound them in cases like the 2015 UK election).
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
What about keeping local districts, and election one rep per district, but using a different single-winner method? One that's as simple as FPTP, like Approval Voting?
Jakethehoff (1 month ago)
this was proportional representation
MLDKF (1 month ago)
I immediately thought of this video with an election that happened yesterday in the town of Fall River, Mass. There, the citizens had a special election asking if they wanted to recall the current mayor and who they wanted as their new mayor. Despite 60% of all votes saying they wanted the mayor to be recalled, he still won the election as he was on the ballot of "who do you want to be the new mayor" with a vote of 35% because no one else got as much
Alfie Snithies (1 month ago)
got shown this at school. Accidentally shouted "THAT'S CGP GREY"
Shubham Shetty (1 month ago)
but this is assuming leopard voters will always vote for leopard in all elections
Dohiya Novak (1 month ago)
I've been thinking for a while about types of voting, trying to come up with a system that would be fair. During this endeavor, I have realized the importance of abstinence which modern voting systems seem to ignore. I think that one should always have the choice to abstain, and that whoever counts the votes can understand what it means, why people abstain. An important reason one may abstain was brought up recently by the amazing atheist, he said that he refused to vote because none of the options were good enough. But our voting system doesn't count abstinence, so really that was pointless. I think a good voting system would have the option to abstain on the ticket, and also the option to abstain against. That is, there are many reasons one may abstain, like a lack of interest or understanding, but when someone is trying to say that none of the options are good enough, they should have the option to abstain against, to let the counters know.
Dravin Royce (1 month ago)
I know! I figured it out, people need to be able to vote more than once but only once per candidate, if you vote for all the candidates you are okay with then the most people turn out happy. For instance, while Lincolns presidency was a blessing, if a system like mine was in place, the southern vote could show their distaste for the Republican candidate and the true winner (the southerner) would have come out. The system is just as stable and expresses the true values of the people under it’s rule
Videotology (1 month ago)
Would it still count as voting if the candidate pulls a shotgun to my head and says, "Vote for me or you and your family will die"?
James Gutman (1 month ago)
gil (1 month ago)
Well... fuck fptp
Pen BFDI (1 month ago)
666 dislikes lol btw someone copied your video
DaBurntToaster (1 month ago)
isnt the whole point of the electoral college to allow minorities to have a voice? I agree that first past the post sucks, but I'd still like to preserve the ability for the small minority to win when they are right and the majority is wrong. isnt that one of the founding principles of our nation? our ancestors were the minority and they fought for their freedom and won against the odds.
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
This isn't really about the electoral college at all, you could have an electoral college not based on FPTP. But I don't think FPTP really helps minorities, and it's not like it can tell when the majority is wrong. That said, there are voting systems which allow majorities to lose under certain circumstances, generally rating-based systems, like Score Voting. But those circumstances are pretty restrictive, requiring all at once: 1. That there exists some compromise which the majority likes almost as much as the majority winner2. That the remainder/minority is still reasonably large, and unified3. The remainder/minority prefers the specific compromise mentioned in (1) _vastly_ more than the majority winner4. The majority is willing to cooperate/be honest.
wp r (1 month ago)
It should be called First Past the Others, since there is no 'post' or objective threshold in place.
EVERETT KLING (1 month ago)
so grey i love your vids and all, but you could have just said popular vote when you were describing fptp
Skyval Ream (1 month ago)
What do you mean? A popular vote is just one where everyone votes for something directly, right? So you could have a popular vote under a different voting method, not just FPTP.
NorwegianInAmerica (2 months ago)
1:22. Well, ITS PacMan dating eating a piece of pie or cake
Hayden Dunstan (2 months ago)
In Canada the Green Party is growing
Polar GrizBear (2 months ago)
Turtle for 2020
Jez I AM (2 months ago)
This explains the current system in the UK with the emergence of the new The Independent Group..... I refuse to vote for either of the two main parties, so for me, UK Politics is indeed broken.
Jez I AM (2 months ago)
For fucks sake sloooooooo down your EXPLANATION !!!! We're trying to LEARN something.
silvia romano (2 months ago)
Cough *America* Cough
sujeet tiwary (2 months ago)
Amazing work Thanks
drmadjdsadjadi (2 months ago)
It does NOT "inevitably" result in a two-party system. Just look at Canada for proof. In 1993, the Progressive Conservative Party was in power but they lost an election where they went from majority government to losing official party status. They would never again hold power until they combined with the Canadian Alliance (which had been founded in 2000 and it, in turn, had been formed out of the former Reform Party of Canada that was founded in 1987). Then, in 2011, the Liberal Party of Canada, went from Official Opposition to third party, not just in seats but also in votes, only to once again form the government following the 2015 election. Two-party systems may tend to dominate but they are by no means monolithic as your video would suggest in first past the post systems and it is quite possible for third parties to supplant major parties from time to time (especially when major parties self-destruct, such as the Liberals did in the UK - after forming the government up until 1922 (they foolishly split themselves into two factions, a National Liberal group headed by David Lloyd George, the-then PM and the former PM, H. H. Asquith), they then compounded their foolishness by recklessly supporting a Labour government in 1923 because of their deep hatred for the Conservatives, which actually held the most seats in Parliament in that election. This effectively ended the Liberal reign as one of the two major parties in the UK. They MIGHT have been able to recover from their initial 1922 election blunder but they definitely could not survive the 1923 election fiasco. The key is that the whole purpose for third parties (and why we still vote for them) in a FPTP system is so that someone can pick up the pieces when one of the two major parties inevitably self-destruct and that is what stops us from having one-party dictatorships. The second purpose of third parties is for the two major parties to steal all their good ideas from the third parties just so that the two major parties DON'T self-destruct!
Henry Gaming (2 months ago)
This was made on my 1st birthday!
Jeff Doe (2 months ago)
This is like TierZoo
Joël Mentor (2 months ago)
Literally the US election.
ManPig Zepeda (2 months ago)
So many assumptions. Firstly all voters change party's and why doesn't another candidate come forward for that party that originally lost I mean come on.
Nishita Bhowmik (2 months ago)
My my its been 8 years!!
Li (2 months ago)
He really did solve the problem of talking abt politics without sounding biased to a party 👌🏽👌🏽👌🏽
Coleman Hegarty (2 months ago)
So happy I live in Ireland😂😂😂
Azar K. (2 months ago)
Ingenius, indeed...
cantbeleveitsnotnaru (2 months ago)
I am thoroughly pissed that the BC elections chose to keep this stupid fucking system. AGAIN!!!!
Robert Jarman (2 months ago)
People are often frustrated in that election with the politicians who claim they'd implement the results. It's a bad idea to have a politician deciding the most fundamental means by which they themselves get elected. BC did not include any clauses in the referendum that would make say a citizen's assembly rather than a political committee decide on how to implement the results if in favour of proportional elections. And BC and Canada in general is notorious for having very strong party discipline, and also very strong party leaders with the caucus usually more dependent on the leader and not the other way around. BC has no backup plans either in the event of deadlock, where many countries with PR do have backup plans, like Nord-Rhein Westfalen where a runoff can be held between the top most voted candidates for premier if trying to get a majority coalition fails persistently. And there was an incredible amount of outright lying by the no side, where they deliberately failed to acknowledge the existence of solutions to the problems they claimed existed like party discipline and any failure in coalition formation. BC does in fact have a codified provincial constitution, the only province in Canada to have such, which would be the perfect opportunity to have made rules that governed this sort of process, such as binding the Lieutenant Governor to appoint a premier who is chosen by the Legislative Assembly, first attempted by the Speaker giving a mandate to someone to get a majority in a confidence vote, or if that fails, to get the most votes in a runoff between the top two of any candidate any 5 MLAs nominate, and being unable to dismiss that premier without a vote of no confidence, you could have forbade early elections without a failed budget or failed vote of no confidence, you could have also prevented coalition partners from exercising undue influence by providing for basic things such as a broad list of human rights that any extremist party backing a coalition might target, and forbade the modification of the constitution except with a referendum approving of the change. These sorts of things prevent the problems that proportional systems even can devolve into under certain bad situations.
Saumitra Chakravarty (2 months ago)
George Orwell must be turning in his grave.
Some Guy (2 months ago)
Howard Schultz seriously needs to watch this video.
SuperStar Swadloon (2 months ago)
What if they can only have a set ammunt of terms, will that help the system at all?
SuperStar Swadloon (2 months ago)
+Skyval Ream Alright, I didn't really pick up on that the first time, thanks for explaining!
Skyval Ream (2 months ago)
This is about two-party domination, so unfortunately, unless it's term limits for _entire parties,_ then no, I don't think it'd help this particular issue much.
Tushar Chowdhury (3 months ago)
This all couldve been made with flipaclip
Hÿpêr Čøøkîîê (3 months ago)
Awww my fav animal is tigers D:
matthew galer (3 months ago)
KatzenProductions (3 months 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 (3 months ago)
Really helpful - thank you!
smile444 (3 months ago)
well it is possible for a newcomer to win. Trump proved that
Ihdc1 (2 months ago)
But he was a member of one of the main parties, not an independent.
hogus bogus (3 months 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 (3 months 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 (3 months 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 (3 months ago)
Bernie decides to enter the race
SuperSuperdude88 (3 months ago)
Fuck! So what's the answer!
Jamaica News Hub (3 months 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 (4 months ago)
Any other British Colombians mad as hell right now?
Robert Jarman (3 months 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 (4 months ago)
I remember my teacher explaining this in class. Truly eye opening.
RASEL Pervez (4 months ago)
The QUEEN abdicated and the king stayed and set the vote GET UR PRIORITIES AND GENDER DIFFERENCE IN ORDER
John Sparrow (4 months 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 (3 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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.
drmadjdsadjadi (2 months ago)
The spoiler effect is an unabashed lie told by those in power to keep your preferred candidates OUT of power -- the reality is that the problem is not with you but rather your fellow voters who foolishly support the two main parties and do not realize that THEIR votes act as spoilers for centrist candidates - you see, it is all in how you look at it ;)
Owl Raider (4 months 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 (3 months 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 (3 months 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 (3 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months ago)
Nicely explained.
Smazum (4 months ago)
This is what has been happening in India
Narrator (4 months ago)
literally greece's political problem for the last 40 years two partys exchanging power
Reivelt (4 months ago)
so this is what is happening in Indonesian upcoming election....
Uncle Larr (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months ago)
That’s why we have the “Ghost vote”. I’m not explaining it Look it up
hk4124 (4 months 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?
Ancient Cookie (4 months ago)
The netherlands be like: uhhmm, no...
fly0827 (4 months ago)
Cat Lover (4 months 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 (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
I would of said equal representation is needed but ok
Dolar Ferroun (5 months ago)
Lol many people probably subbed because of that video, the number of views is nearly equal to the number of subs 😂😂
Kathy Grylls (5 months 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 (5 months ago)
In a recent mayoral election in my town, two candidates split the vote, and gave minority rule.
Jude Evans (5 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 (5 months ago)
educational and witty, bravo
carolinneus (5 months ago)
Would the Eurovision voting system (many votes with different values) be more fair?
Abradolf Lincler (5 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 (5 months ago)
Vote Snake in 2020! Own animal kingdom first! ;-)
manman (5 months ago)
wouldn't more parties mean more minority rule
Skyval Ream (5 months ago)
Well, the representatives still need to vote on the policy, right? That can still require a majority.
Kevin Dufresne (5 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 (5 months ago)
Go Leopard! 🐱
Ichijo Festival (5 months ago)
"Rulers of the jungle since time immemorial." ...Lions don't live in the jungle.
purplerains (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 months ago)
+Skyval Ream Okay, I get it now. Thanks!
Skyval Ream (5 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 (5 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 (5 months ago)
The gorilla is Donald. 🦍
Ben Sellars (5 months ago)
Nick Monks (6 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 (5 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.

Would you like to comment?

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