[denton-scratch]

> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm;

Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.

[vidarh]

Yes, but it is the norm. As far as I can tell, the UK, France and Belarus are the only countries in Europe without some form of proportional representation in elections for parliament. France tends to have a more fragmented result partly because of a tradition for a lot of electoral alliances etc. between the main parties to counter the effects of the electoral system and partly because it doesn't use First Past the Post. The UK and Belarus are the only two countries in Europe to use FPTP exclusively (Poland uses it for its senate but not for its lower house)

[ZeroGravitas]

UK uses PR for the Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland elections, but not the national UK wide ones.

[denton-scratch]

Point taken.

I'm not that happy to have the UK voting system compared to Belarus.

[ZeroGravitas]

They tried to change this in the UK.

It eventually went to a public vote.

The same guy that ran the Brexit campaign successfully convinced people that 'wasting' money on more democracy would lead to more dead babies and soldiers. Too many ironies there to list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341.amp

[vidarh]

Another reason why it lost was because a lot of proponents of PR saw it as a trap to get electoral reform off the agenda. Most people in the UK I know who supported PR voted against the change for that reason, and considered accepting it as part of the coalition agreements as a total betrayal by the Liberal Democrats.

[ZeroGravitas]

I doubt this subset of a subset of voters had any meaningful impact on the result. The only political parties to espouse this view were the (very small and fringe) BNP and Respect parties.

I can imagine a large chunk of people were in the "would have preferred to vote for PR, but still voted Yes to AV" camp though.

[vidarh]

None of the people I discussed this with would ever consider either Respect or the BNP. They were Labour or Lib Dem voter. It was a widespread sentiment in my circles.

I think you're massively underestimating just how many people were angry about it. I know people who voted Lib Dem over their promise of PR who have woved never ever to vote for them again.

[ZeroGravitas]

There are valid reasons to be angry with the Lib Dems and vow never to vote for them again, but vowing to not vote for them again over AV is illogical. They have always wanted PR, they got a vote on AV as a conpromise which is the closest anyone ever got to achieving it, and there's no other party that is pro-PR that has any chance of getting power under the current system (except maybe some regional parties and they're actually working against their own interests by supporting PR). The current system also makes it a requirement to vote tactically so ruling out voting for any party is an extreme position.

On the other hand, the current system also means many votes are wasted and maybe your friends know thier vote wasn't going to matter anyway, bit they prpbably sgouldnt encourage others who moght be on different circumsrances.

[vidarh]

It was a surrender because they cared more about power than about PR in the end.

As it stands the Labour membership is overwhelmingly in favour of PR and it only failed at Labour Conference this year because the unions did not have a position, so odds are that before the next election Labour Conference will have mandated a pro-PR position for Labour. Given almost all the smaller parties also supports it, it will then be a real possibility.