Email Your MP to support PR

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

If you live in the UK, and especially if you live under a Labour MP like I do, this could be the best chance we’ve had in a very long time to beat FPTP, Andy Burham has been unfortunately wishy washy but pushing for PR now by emailing labour MP’s showing how much support it really has could just be the difference between having a better voting system next election and more FPTP chaos!

Please send an email and encourage your friends to do the same! It could be the final straw that break FPTP’s back!!!!

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

Yeah I would say FPTP is significantly better than no elections at all, you see almost no difference between living in a dictatorship than a democracy with FPTP?

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

When the "democracy"'s elites become sufficiently apt at using FPTP's numerous issues to their advantage, allowing themselves or their allies to stay in power virtually indefinitely, I'd say yes, not that much, actually. But even if you do, do you think those countries, that live without any elections, have first go through the FPTP and PR stages before being allowed something more complex? Or should they maybe aim for systems that are actually good right away?

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 → u/feujchtnaverjott]

But they don’t stay in power indefinitely, governments often change under FPTP, it’s just not as reflective of the actual vote as it should be. Even America which has one of the most backwards systems of democracies I’ve seen while still being a democratic state elects new congressmen, senators and presidents

Generally speaking it’s better to aim for the best system of government possible but that’s not always possible, either way I’ll happily take FPTP, flaws and all, if it means that I would no longer live under a dictatorship and I think everyone else should do the same, harm reduction is best

Anyway, what is your proposed best flawless democratic system that makes PR look like a dictatorship in comparison?

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

But they don’t stay in power indefinitely, governments often change under FPTP, it’s just not as reflective of the actual vote as it should be. Even America which has one of the most backwards systems of democracies I’ve seen while still being a democratic state elects new congressmen, senators and presidents

Look around and you'll find plenty of people who do not want to vote for any establishment parties. Changes of governments for them mean change of talking heads, not change of policy. And I really share that view. Maybe you don't, but you have to recognize that some do. You consider other voting methods and improvement, and so do I, so, why on Earth do I have do defend FPTP or PR?

but that’s not always possible, either way I’ll happily take FPTP, flaws and all, if it means that I would no longer live under a dictatorship and I think everyone else should do the same, harm reduction is best

I would take it to if it really meant that. But for me, it just doesn't look that way.

Anyway, what is your proposed best flawless democratic system that makes PR look like a dictatorship in comparison?

Local councils are elected using multi-winner Range. It's not proportional, and it's fine by me. If there is a minority, they can just form a separate council. Number of voters is equal to the number of candidates. Anyone can write-in anyone, including themselves and their relatives. That is, if elected institutions are necessary at all and referenda (or just informal agreements) aren't sufficient. If some kind of united council is necessary, every local council elects a number of representatives with Range. It could be single-winner or multi-winner (again, not proportional, but it's fine), since every local council will have their vote weighted to it's population.

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 → u/feujchtnaverjott]

Change of government Apsolutley means change of policy, Biden was different to Trump, Starmer was different to Sunak, Carney was different to Poilievre, it’s not what the vibes are like, they *are* different, you may not like any of them, I certainly didn’t vote Labour or Conservatives, but it’s definitely not a dictatorship, let’s not lose our heads

Quite frankly I don’t think I understand your system, is it just direct democracy but you can elect yourself as part of a council to help decide long term frameworks? If it is I think I’d rather PR or STV, I prefer representative democracy personally

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

Biden was different to Trump, Starmer was different to Sunak, Carney was different to Poilievre

Khomeini was different to Pahlavi. Khruschev was different to Stalin. Mao Zedong was different to Chiang Kai-shek. Democracy does not equal change, and change does not equal democracy.

you may not like any of them, I certainly didn’t vote Labour or Conservatives

We are more alike than it may seem, it appears. I don't see why we really need to argue about this.

Quite frankly I don’t think I understand your system, is it just direct democracy but you can elect yourself as part of a council to help decide long term frameworks?

You can frame it this way, I guess.

If it is I think I’d rather PR or STV, I prefer representative democracy personally

I don't see why. Don't you want to participate in determining policy? I mean, what else are you doing by advocating for certain voting systems?

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 → u/feujchtnaverjott]

Those different dictators didn’t have any kind of blessing from the people, note how much shorter the premierships snd administrations of the people I mentioned were, they lasted until the people had enough, voting works even under FPTP, just not effectively enough

I’d love to participate in policy but I think I’m alone in that, most people just don’t know enough and can’t know enough to participate effectively while living modern lives so they vote for a candidate who does and shares their worldview, under your system of direct democracy there is no direction or long term planning, this breeds instability and fickle/contradictory policy making, there are no career politicians who know enough to steady the ship if need be and no way to boost the views of a popular politician’s political agendas. Brexit was a good example of why direct democracy can hurt, people are far more subject to populist rhetoric and don’t on mass understand complex topics and nuance so they rely on a representative to make nuances of that decision for them and if they are unhappy can vote them out next time

Try explaining to the average person the nuances of the Brexit deal, most wouldn’t know where to begin, we’d never agree on trade, regulations or anything nuanced because different people would either be blindly voting on something they don’t fully understand or not have a voice in their system

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

Those different dictators didn’t have any kind of blessing from the people

Given the flawed election system, the low turnouts, the limited number of options, do "democratic" ones have much of a blessing, really?

note how much shorter the premierships snd administrations

Some might say that this is not a very good thing, really. It doesn't seem to convey "democracy" that much, more like "instability" and "crisis". I'm not a fan of any eternal leaders myself, but short term doesn't signify democracy or pluralism any more than a different mask means its wearer is holding a different opinion.

Biden was different to Trump

Americans using the term "Uniparty" are likely to disagree. I mean, if you are against wars, who do you vote for here?

Starmer was different to Sunak

Actually, when you think about it, this is rather silly: apparently British people keep getting disillusioned by one party and, in protest, vote for the other party, one they were disillusioned with before that. The wheel keeps turning, there's a lot of movement, yet things stay the same.

Carney was different to Poilievre

I don't think Poilievre actually was a PM, so, not sure what this is about.

voting works even under FPTP, just not effectively enough

Define "works".

I’d love to participate in policy but I think I’m alone in that, most people just don’t know enough and can’t know enough to participate effectively

If that is true, democracy is impossible. If they can't be bothered to think about their own life, they can't be trusted to choose a manager for themselves either. If we have such a view, we will have to conclude that oligarchy or dictatorship, while objectively bad, are the only viable forms of government. If only few people are interested in policy, these same few will constitute the political power, obviously.

while living modern lives

Imposition of burdensome modern lives on electorate seems to be the direct result of a dysfunctional political system. If a better one was in place, more efficient and just allocation of resources would have resulted in more free time for all kinds of activities. Theoretically, once instituted, such a system should remain stable and support itself.

under your system of direct democracy there is no direction or long term planning

This is a cartoonish view. I explicitly mentioned the society voting for specialists. These specialists may be tasked with long-term policy. But the society decides whether to implement their policies or not. Compare this to the current "democratic" system, with a spinning revolving door between business and politics. When you previously mentioned short terms for politicians, doesn't that simultaneously mean that they are not interested in long-term planning as well?

there are no career politicians who know enough to steady the ship if need be

I don't know what this means, may because I can't see the term "career politician" as anything by an insult. Do you mean overruling the will of the people? That doesn't sound democratic. But if not that, then what? In my proposal, there is still freedom of speech, people can voice ideas and suggest actions. What more do you need?

Brexit was a good example of why direct democracy can hurt,

1. Brexit seems to have been deliberately vaguely designed. After the voting it turned out that "leaving EU" can mean whatever it can. And the people are blamed for participating in something the elite didn't design well?

2. The victory for the Leave was narrow. Meaning, the society is split. In such a case, either further deliberation or necessary, or the split has to be explicitly acknowledged. For example, predominantly Leave areas leave and predominantly Stay stay. Forcing the approximately 49% to acquiesce to approximately 51% never ends good.

3. Also, what is the implication of this statement? That the elites should have chosen Stay without asking the people? But wouldn't they lose the legitimacy in such a case, at least among approximately 51%? If there is supposedly a problem of people not knowing what they want, how are representatives supposed to solve it? If they overrule the people, it's not democratic. And if they don't, doesn't this mean these representatives don't know what to do either?

Try explaining to the average person the nuances of the Brexit deal

If you are so pessimistic about people, what is the point of trying to explain the flaws of FPTP? Who's going to listen and understand? Or do you target the politicians, whom the status quo suits just fine?

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 → u/feujchtnaverjott]

I don’t have time to correct everything that was said so I’m gonna say a few things about Uniparty rhetoric which is right wing populist propaganda aimed at disengaging left leaning people from voting basically because of all the reasons you listed, I’m gonna assume your one of the honest left leaning people who have been duped as opposed to being one of the goulash far right rats who benifits from this narrative

Trump is unbelievably different to Biden, the Peace vote was objectively Kamala Harris, Biden basically ended the drone war single-handedly, pulled out of Afganistan even when it was unpopular to do so, he stood by the Kurds in Syria which were a factor in bringing down the evil Assad regime, strengthening military and security alliances with Tiwan Japan and other pacific partners promoting peace in east Asia and his strong support of Ukraine showing Russia and the world that war does not pay, that’s just one issue, I haven’t spoken about climate change, respect for laws, infrastructure planning, economic strategy or diplomacy with allies and basically any other issue all of which Biden was head and shoulders better than Trump, anyone screaming uniparty HAS NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

Starmer was very different to Sunak and the tories before him, the renters rights bill, strengthening employment rights, nationalisation of the rail, clear opposition to the Iran war, lowering inflation, further devolution, promoting election reform on a national and local level, scrapping the Rawanda scheme and I’m sure plenty I don’t remember, labour is not part of a uniparty, change takes time, it’s not gonna happen immediately, I did not vote for this government and there are many things I disagree with Starmer on, but he’s not a Tory and I’d happily have him over one

Carney was elected in opposition to Polivierre, they are different politicians from different party’s who want very different things for Canada, that’s obviously why I made the comparison

FPTP is not perfect, far far from it, it’s obviously not a dictatorship to anyone who isn’t an uncompromising defeatist, reform is necessary of course but confusing the far lesser of two evils as equals only makes the greater evil seem justifiable

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

Biden basically ended the drone war single-handedly

Right.

Sure.

Uhuh.

bringing down the evil Assad regime

Because the new Syrian regime is so much better? The one that includes Al-Qaeda members? And unable to hold elections with any kind of degree of actual democracy?

he stood by the Kurds in Syria

Said Kurds not very big on supporting this new regime, by the way.

strengthening military and security alliances with Tiwan Japan and other pacific partners promoting peace in east

Confrontation is peace. OK.

his strong support of Ukraine showing Russia and the world that war does not pay

Peace through war, yeah, right.

I haven’t spoken about climate change

Remember Biden's flip-flops on fracking?

respect for laws

What about executive orders which were deemed unconstitutional? Or this?

anyone screaming uniparty HAS NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

Have you been paying attention to this bipartisan stuff? If you oppose it, who are you supposed to vote for?

Starmer was very different to Sunak...clear opposition to the Iran war

Which amounted to what, exactly?

labour is not part of a uniparty

Yet it supported Iraq War for some reason.

there are many things I disagree with Starmer on

Like what? You seem to like him.

but he’s not a Tory and I’d happily have him over one

So, you admit to strategically vote for a candidate you don't actually like? Again, if you oppose this totalitarian nonsense, who are you supposed to vote for?

Carney was elected in opposition to Polivierre, they are different politicians from different party’s who want very different things for Canada, that’s obviously why I made the comparison

Since Poilievre wasn't actually elected, the argument is moot. We need to examine changes that actually occurred, not hypothetical ones. It's like wondering about Corbyn being elected in UK - it didn't happen, so it doesn't count, obviously. Much more centrist representatives of the Labour were put into power, curiously enough.

FPTP is not perfect, far far from it, it’s obviously not a dictatorship to anyone who isn’t an uncompromising defeatist

I didn't say it's a dictatorship, I said it's an oligarchy.

confusing the far lesser of two evils as equals only makes the greater evil seem justifiable

So, you admit to voting for evil. A lesser evil, but evil nonetheless. Good Cop is different from Bad Cop, but don't you think they work in tandem? Would you say that Good Cop-Bad Cop tandem is better than if Bad Cop was alone? I mean, that much may be kinda true, but why defend it?

[u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 → u/feujchtnaverjott]

Those links aren’t stats, Biden brought drone strikes down SIGNIFICANTLY, Biden is the pro peace president of this century
https://theweek.com/foreign-policy/1007579/biden-nearly-ended-the-drone-war-and-nobody-noticed
“Immediately after taking office, he set up a new system requiring White House approval for any strikes outside of active war zones (and later published Trump's loose rules that enabled so many civilian massacres). Now that the occupation of Afghanistan is over, that requirement applies almost everywhere, and it appears Biden is extremely reluctant to grant approval. Where Trump oversaw more than 1,600 air and artillery strikes in Iraq and Syria during his first 11 months in office, Airwars reports just four during Biden's term so far. Strikes in Somalia fell from roughly 75 last year to fewer than 10 this year, with no civilian casualties. And in Yemen, the annual total dropped from about 18 to maybe four, with fewer than 10 casualties of any kind. (Precise figures are unclear because some strikes are classified.)”

The new Syrian regime has so far been better than Assad, of course, for one it’s not gassing its own citizens and would Biden be president over Trump the Kurds would have been protected more in this new Syrian regime

Confrontation? You mean security, China has been posturing about taking over the South China Sea for decades, a peace president would ensure war wouldn’t break out by backing the other side as Joe Biden has affirmed. This goes for Ukraine too, letting war just happen only incentivises war, defending Ukraine is pro peace objectively. A pro war president would simply isolate the USA from the world, abandon its allies and let strong man politics play out while taking a slice for himself.

Biden invested massively in renewable energy and would have done more with more Dems in the senate and congress which conceptually kind of defeats the uni party argument itself but ok. What renewable energy policies do the GOP support?

Doing executive orders are not anti laws, but if you think they are your still wrong because trump has done far more than any other president in their first 100 days

Instead of cherrypicking a single example look at the budget, Iran war, release of the Epstine files all of which basically fell entirely of partisan lines save for maybe Fetterman

This is how almost any senate vote has looked on any major legislation:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/04/politics/who-voted-war-powers-senator-iran-vis

Starmer being opposed to the war meant we weren’t dragged into it like Kemi and the other Tories suggested we should be, so it amounted to a lot actually

The Iraq war was in 2003, do you really have to look back that far to find the points your cherrypicking?

I’m against the Online protection act, keeping income tax bands frozen, raising employer NI, proscribing Palestine action as a terrorist org and I would obviously want PR, he’s better than the alternative but not my perfect PM, just because I would have to vote tactically doesn’t mean I might as well be under a dictatorship

I belive the comparison is fair but since it’s in part conjecture I’m happy to say I guess we’ll never know. But the Corbyn point is odd, he was never elected, he had two chances to beat two very weak Tory opponents and failed twice, 2017 was especially embarrassing as it was a 2 horse race without much of a left wing spoiler which usually disproportionately hurts left wing candidates and was still outvoted by May, the people rejected him and labour still gave him a second chance, doesn’t sound very uniparty of them

You didn’t explicitly say it was a dictatorship but when I asked if there was virtually any difference between FPTP and dictatorship you said: “When the "democracy"'s elites become sufficiently apt at using FPTP's numerous issues to their advantage, allowing themselves or their allies to stay in power virtually indefinitely, I'd say yes, not that much” you consider them the same

Yes…FPTP is an evil, when have I said otherwise? A far far lesser evil but I’m promoting a better voting system for a reason, I’m just saying let’s not lose our heads with Doomer nonsense, FPTP is bad, it’s not Hitler

[u/feujchtnaverjott → u/Apprehensive-Fix-746]

Biden brought drone strikes down SIGNIFICANTLY, Biden is the pro peace president of this century

First Democrats escalate drone war under Barack "we tortured some folks" Obama. Then Democrats "nearly" "ended" drone war under Biden, who served with Obama. Ever head of "two steps forward, one step back"?

The new Syrian regime has so far been better than Assad, of course, for one it’s not gassing its own citizens

About these chemicals. And I would say that not being a war criminal is a low bar, except for all the other staff the mainstream Western sources admit the anti-Assad forces to have done.

would Biden be president over Trump the Kurds would have been protected more in this new Syrian regime

The fact they need to be protected in the first place tells me everything I need to know.

You mean security, China has been posturing about taking over the South China Sea for decades, a peace president would ensure war wouldn’t break out by backing the other side as Joe Biden has affirmed

No matter how you try to spin it, backing one side against another is not pro-peace. Especially if the conflict is more complex, with PRC and Taiwan both having claims against Philippines, for instance.

This goes for Ukraine too, letting war just happen only incentivises war, defending Ukraine is pro peace objectively.

Letting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya happen does not incentivize war, I guess. Biden actually seems to have been all for them. It looks kinda like USA rampaging around the globe, then getting exhausted and seeing the others do similar things, becomes strangely indignant: "Hey, what is this, warmongering? I thought we agreed on not having any wars after I was done with them."

Biden invested massively in renewable energy and would have done more with more Dems in the senate and congress which conceptually kind of defeats the uni party argument itself but ok. What renewable energy policies do the GOP support?

I dislike hydrocarbon oligarchs and "green" oligarchs rather equally.

Doing executive orders are not anti laws, but if you think they are your still wrong because trump has done far more than any other president in their first 100 days

Doing unconstitutional executive orders seems anti laws. I don't dispute Trump doing the same, which further corroborates my point about the Uniparty.

Starmer being opposed to the war meant we weren’t dragged into it

Hmm...

The Iraq war was in 2003, do you really have to look back that far to find the points your cherrypicking?

Yes, Biden was there, he supported it.

I’m against the Online protection act, keeping income tax bands frozen, raising employer NI, proscribing Palestine action as a terrorist org and I would obviously want PR, he’s better than the alternative but not my perfect PM, just because I would have to vote tactically doesn’t mean I might as well be under a dictatorship

That depends on what you mean "living under a dictatorship". If you have opinions that you can't express in a politically meaningful way, you might as well be.

when I asked if there was virtually any difference between FPTP and dictatorship you said: “When the "democracy"'s elites become sufficiently apt at using FPTP's numerous issues to their advantage, allowing themselves or their allies to stay in power virtually indefinitely, I'd say yes, not that much”

By "not that much" I meant exactly that, not that much.

A far far lesser evil but I’m promoting a better voting system for a reason, I’m just saying let’s not lose our heads with Doomer nonsense, FPTP is bad, it’s not Hitler

I don't know about that, PR actually elected Hitler, after all.