Comment by adiabatichottub
1 day ago
But how can those changes be made if the representatives don't act to make them? It would take a pretty big act of solidarity amongst various constituencies to send the message that failure to act is not an option.
Since we're talking about the UK, in 2010 negotations after a hung parliament produced an opportunity to move towards something a little more representative: The 2011 referendum on changing to AV voting from first-past-the-post.
Unfortunately, voters rejected that change quite strongly, and that probably set the trend for a while against further steps to proportional or more direct democratic systems.
AV is a type of transferable vote system, and a step closer to proportional representation. In AV you get two votes, so you can vote for your preferred candidate first (who may be niche but represents you better), and your tactical-vote candidate second (who doesn't represent you but are better than the even-worse candidate). As opposed to the current FPTP system, where you often have to tactical-vote for candidates who don't represent your interests much, and your actual preference is not recorded at all.
Even though AV is far from ideal, if voters had said yes then I think just the symbolism of changing the system, would have resulted in a greater inclination to change the system again later.
AV, STV and PR have been debated a number of times in the UK parliament in the last centery, so it does keep coming up, and will likely come up again, eventually.
Fun fact - the same people who managed to inch the Brexit vote over the line were also involved in killing AV ... a certain Dominic Cummings and his gang.
> Unfortunately, voters rejected that change quite strongly,
Both major parties united in a ridiculously aggressive campaign for the No (there were literally, I mean literally, billboards equating the electoral reform to killing babies).