The UK election date is set for 12 December 2019. But how does voting in a general election actually work? Motion graphics by Jacqueline Galvin Produced by Sarah Glatte Please subscribe HERE bit.ly/1rbfUog
Imagine the following situation: There are 10 candidates in constituency A. Each receives 10% of the votes, except one who receives 10% + 1 vote. First past the post system means that this candidate is elected despite having only 10% (+1 vote) support in the constituency. All the other votes are DISREGARDED. ... This means that theoretically - should this happen in every one of the 650 constituencies - a single party could acquire 100% seats with mere 10% of the votes with 90% of the votes being disregarded altogether. What an insane unrepresentative system.
@@elliot7753 Even if, does it matter? If it produces unrepresentative results, having the same voting system in the US would not make it great all of a sudden. ... BTW the US elections are pretty bizzare in basically every aspect possible. E.g. requirement to register to vote, unreliable electronic ballots, unstable election districts resulting in gerrymandering, ... and of course the fact that the president is not elected by the people but by the individual states, some of which vote proportionaly based on the election results from people, some vote "all-in" for one candidate, which - in theory - does not have to be the one that people voted for. Again, pretty much insane from my POV... And don't get me started on the two-party system.
Michal Řehořek going back to the British democracy issue, for any one seat, or, ‘constituency’, a political party will send one MP to campaign in that region, you probably already know this, but in any one ‘constituency’, the Labour Party and the Conservatives Party are gonna take up about 80% of voter choice, so that equal 10% vote you explained earlier would never happen.
The can’t all ‘sit’ in the commons at once but they can still all be in the commons at once through a very complicated mechanism, mostly used by elitist academics, called standing.
Ramin Farhadi it is so undemocratic, Lib Dem’s had the chance to change it but chose a rubbish system to try and change it to therefore no one voted in favour of it
@First World Problems nope. There is nothing more undemocratic than a candidate that got an insignificant number of votes to be brought to Parliament and be extremely expensive. I live in Brazil , a country which has PR
It was done deliberately. The idea is so that during busy votes the chamber is overcrowded and no one in the chamber can feel comfortable, so weight to the decision being taken is felt. MPs will also try to get there early to get a seat and therefore will have to take part or at least listen to the debate.
Pygmalion Because it’s undemocratic and unrepresentative. A candidate can win as long as they more votes than the other candidates even if they have less than half of the votes.
As a British Citizen who has voted in our elections I can prove that the First Past the Post System is flawed because yes you can vote for your favourite candidate in your district/constituency however when you look at the results the winning candidates doesn’t actually win the majority vote because if you add all the opposition candidates votes together and compare it to the winners then they haven’t actually won the majority of their constituency meaning the elections system is flawed. I also understand people have there own opinions and I will respect that as I am not out right hating our elections just pointing out a flaw in the system.
@benbow7 That is indeed what happens. We have one election every five years minimum. And in fact we can have one much sooner, as is the case this time and was the case last time, because the Conservatives were not happy with their previous results.
We have PR in Ireland but you are able to vote down the list of candidates in order preference. Also constituencies have more than one TD (MP). Some of 5! It does lead to a very democratic outcome and usually coalition governments.
The Prime Minister isn't necessarily the party leader with the most amount of seats. Rather the PM is the leader who can maintain the confidence of the house.
It is the convention. Like a lot of things in the UK. And since coalitions are rare in the UK, the party leader is usually maintaining grip of his party wich results in majority support and therefor all the other MP's don't really matter all that much.
In this Internet age, why not have GLOBAL PARLIAMENT to work for EQUALITY for all HUMANITY... It can save billions of dollars on election expenses alone...
A headline from the BBC News website, "General election 2019: Labour and Tories pledge more borrowing" So, more debt for the UK tax payer to pay off ............an interesting sales pitch!
@@drakehound2244 It'd be nice if they promised to actively lower the debt rather than increase it. "We''ll increase the UK's debt", not really a good campaign strategy!
@@inquisitivehound6108 They can´t it was part of the bankers plan to put the world in debt. so they come out and save us all. but do we want a bunch of gamble addicts to rule the world ? the answer is NO. Sadly getting rid of that abusive spending habit takes more time then teaching people to spent money.
At the Brexiteer trolls who have no idea about UK election system. But are so vocal that they don´t even follow the news. Nigel Farage ha. Coward as usual rather cheer lead then lead.
@Johnny Caruthers Well he did it for his own personal vendatte reasons. Spreading racism with British people. How else should we call the UK, oh yes he is so brave. that he applied for a german passport. and so BRAVE he wants his EU pension secured. that pension is being paid by the divorce bill. Oh so BRAVE that he cheer leads rather then put himself as electable for his own party. Oh anything else I missed that weasel did?
@Johnny Caruthers All talks but no actions. only actions he did, was spreading gospel and lies. just for his own political agenda. I mean if he is so PATRIOTIC wouldn´t he lead the party ? and risk his EU pension. who wants the pension from the EU when it according to him the WORST DEVILISH institute in the world.
The system is pretty simple: 1. Turn up. 2. Put cross next to SNP. 3. Watch as English vote against their own interests again for a Tory gov or brexit slanted party. 4. The end of the UK
@Y2JHBK6 Why vote Tory then? You surely know that they believe in open door immigration and continuing on from Labour's multiculturalism don't you? We've had 300,000 a year plus under the Tories yet you still think they are worth your vote, why??
What’s this? An ad against FPTP? I don’t see any information with regards to how to ACTUALLY vote here.. (I’m not actually for FPTP, but this video sure does sound very biased against it..)
Can i forfeit my right so we can only vote until we reach 21 or 23 or 25? And take a test before gaining the right to vote so the voters know how the governmental system actual functions..
seems kinda bs that one opinion gets undermined if there are alot of votes through out the country but not in one constituencie to get seats in the parlament.It also doesnt make sense to me that there are not 650 seats in the parlament for very mp of the constituencie. I hope I understood it correctly but if not be free to correct me and respond
it is better and fairer if Britain's voting system is changed to one of proportional representation as it would allow smaller political parties to grow.
In the Netherlands, we just vote for a candidate of a party, from a list of candidates for each party. All the votes are counted and our seats of parliament are distributed accordingly. Crazy system, right?
Are you only allowed to vote for one candidate in the Netherlands or multiple in the same party? In Belgium the system is pretty much the same (apart from D'Hondt compared to the kiesdeler or the provincial kieskringen in BE compared to 1 in NL) but we can vote for as many candidates as we like from the same party and even can vote for the party list as a whole where you agree on the order (lijststem) with those votes aiding those on top of the list to get elected.
@@jannoottenburghs5121 Every party has a list of around 30 candidates, and you cast a vote for one of these candidates. These preferential votes make sure the most popular candidates make it onto the seats in parliament.
What difference does it make? If its not what the establishment want it doesn't matter who the people vote for. Haven't we seen enough examples of this already. Democracy is dead in the UK and for any other country that wants to leave the EU!
How to take down th adults in one easy lesson. Where is the part that shows that first past the post doesn't always win? Democracy, who would give a flying fig for it these days?
Max Willats Because it’s unrepresentative. A candidate can win as long as they have more votes than the others even if they don’t have majority. For example, let’s say there’s an election and there’s 100 electors each with one vote. Candidate A gets 40, Candidate B gets 20, Candidate C gets 30 and Candidate D gets 10. In the first past the post system, Candidate A would win even though 60 percent voted against him. This is unfair. You can find out more with this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s7tWHJfhiyo.html
@Kordell Swoffer Look at the video I provided in my previous comment, it explains it better. First last the post leads to gerrymandering and a two party system as we have seen in the US.
This is a good video to show children. Does anyone know where I can find the video about the role of the prime minister that she mentions at the end? Thanks.
GENERAL ELECTION DATES: IN THE UK, A GENERAL ELECTION HAS TO TAKE PLACE AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS, SO ONCE THE PARTY IS IN THE OFFICE, THEY DON'T TEND TO BUDGE UNTIL THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. IN BRITAIN, ONLY 40 PERCENT OF VOTERS CAN BE BOTHERED TO GET OUT OF BED AND MAKE THEIR MARK.
I'm no political expert but someone once spent ages trying to convince me to vote UKIP. I finally took his bait and told him I wouldn't vote for them in a million years. We had a brief discussion which I ended when he told me he didn't know what hung parliament meant. I avoid talking to him about politics or pretty much anything now.
This system is undemocratic. Also they should implement a push-button voting system rather than aye/nay system and add more benches so all MPs can sit here
I prefer the system a lot of other European countries use. They just look at the percentage a party got in an election and translate that percentage into seats.
Its unbelievable to me how voters in tbis country have to be explained how our voting system works. Yet I, as a 17 year old, know the system inside out and am not able to vote in this election. Votes at 16 could not be a more obvious solution!
This is obviously an educational video aimed at younger people, nobody is born with an inherent understanding of how the British democratic system works, it has to be taught at some point.
In UK elections most votes do not count. If you have the misfortune to live in a safe seat, your opinion does not matter, but on the bright side, you won't be bothered by the candidates or their representatives knocking on your door. Before an election the candidates claim to represent their constituents, after an election their loyalty switches to their party and the task becomes one of fobbing off constituents with platitudes and excuses. Parties are elected on promises contained in their manifestos, these promises are quickly forgotten post the election using a process of priority setting. Parties are elected on a range of issues making it easy to neglect those that are politically inconvenient once in government. Since the electorate only gets to place a tick on a ballot paper, parties are free to interpret an election result as conferring a mandate on any of their pet policies. From this simple tick in a box all governments manage to divine the will of the people on a range of issues, including those not even covered in their preelection manifesto. Post the election, all government ministers claim to be instep with public opinion. When challenged on the matter, they resort to knowing the views of the silent majority. When this fails, they claim to know better than the people who elected them.( If anything, this suggests the stupid people elected them and they should therefore not be in power.) Then there is the little matter of the unelected house of lords, who's existence can be traced back to a feudal system of government.
@@Zhaneris it requires a number of changes to make candidates accountable to their electorate. doing away with the party whip. Abolishing the house of lords and replacing it with an elected house with the same powers. Repealing the fixed-term parliament act. Making manifesto pledges legally binding. Removing legal exemptions for MPs.
@@nigeljohnson9820 The true Silent Majority (or at any rate a significant minority) are those who can't bring themselves to vote for any of the candidates, so they don't vote at all. Or they vote AGAINST the candidate they most dislike. If "None Of The Above" were an option on the ballot paper the voice of the people really would be heard. Take a look at this: www.votenone.org.uk/menu.html
@@jimmeven1120 I have long advocated that the UK ballot paper contained such an option. I would give it real meaning by limiting the powers of the elected government. The second highest majority. I would make it difficult for the government without a true majority to make binding international agreement and treaties. If "none of the above" became an option there would be a case for making voting mandatory, though this is not essential, since by not voting the opinion of "I do not know" is being expressed.
I can explain it quicker. You go in and give your name and address, get your ballot and put an X in the box next to whoever you want to vote for and pop it in the box. Saved you nearly three mins, you're welcome
Vote for the person who will represent you... so not the person who sided with boris against the people in his (scottish) constituency and has sent 5 different junk mails none of which apologises for the betrayal.
For those who are arguing against the first-past-the-post system, why are you against it? As a foreigner, it seems fair. In each constituency, you get more votes = you win, I fail to see how that could be wrong.
What country are you from? IF no member elected in a constituency belonged to a political party and has his or her own policies or is simply a delegate for their constituents you would be right, but this of course is not the case for the vast majority. The primary actors driving policy in legislatures are parties not individual MPs, and those parties represent and where possible serve the preferences of constituents. It follows that if a legislature claims to be democratic the parties should fairly represent their supporters so that those supporters should ideally be represented in proportion to their numbers.
You are right, on the surface it seems to make sense, but personally I am against it because in the end, it creates a disproportionate government. It means that smaller parties find it incredibly difficult to get seats even if they get a lot of votes across the country. I recommend watching Jay Foreman's video on tactical voting and CGP Grey's videos about First Past the Post as well :)
Don't be fooled by diversionary politics. Consider what is important. Vote to protect and improve the NHS. Vote for reduced student fees. Vote for a fairer sharing of our countries wealth. Facts. 1. Under the Conservatives National debt and borrowing have increased. 2. Growth in the last 6 months was 0.1%. 3. The richest 1% have increased their wealth by over 500bn since 2010 4. Average annual growth under last Labour gov was higher than under this gov. 5. Hospital waiting list have doubled since 2010 to 4 million. Vote for a better future. Not more elitist policies. Boris is a proven liar. The NHS will be sold off bit by bit. Don't be fooled by the smears. Jeremy Corbyn policies are common. Korea and France have many more nationalised industries then the UK. Churchill supported Nationalisation after the war. The Conservatives Nationalised Rolls Royce in 73. RBS and Lloyds were nationalised in 2008 with full Conservative support. And the Conservatives have even recently nationalised public services. It's just the owners are foreign governments. Don't be fooled. Vote for a better future. www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-manifesto-renationalisation-rail-energy-banks-europe-a7731961.html
@Paul c "legit"? A non legally binding referendum to vote for or against advising government to vote upon the issue.IT did. Perceived obligation fulfilled and now OUR representative democracy that represents the interests of everyone and not just your whiney minority can make decisions for the best. Because the very best deal is no brexit and everyone knows it. If you want representative democracy get off your knees and fight for it.
@Max Paine No one under 21 should get the vote, because they are easily led and usually vote for leftist parties that promise the world and deliver nothing but high taxes and disappointment. You want to vote: wait until you are wise enough.
@Max Paine Student? they rather travel across the EU without all the hassles and work while taveling. So they are going to vote Liberal Democrats. So beter go work your meme at the eldery who cannot adopt to the 21st century.
