Challenge:
To have the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system replace First Past The Post (FPTP) in the UK at national elections.
POD:
Anytime from 1945 onwards.
More information:
Most discussions of the possibility of changing the electoral system in the UK centre on the possibility of a minor party requiring this as part of a coalition agreement with a major party. Think of IRL, the Liberal Democrats having a referendum on the Alternative Vote as a condition of their alliance with the Tories in 2010.
However, this WI I am proposing is different. I want MMP to be introduced by a majority party with a majority in the House of Commons. Whilst this seems counter-intuitive, given that both major parties benefit to varying degrees from FPTP, I think it does negative the potential negative experienced by minority governments doing it as part of a coalition agreement, the feeling that 'the nation is being held to ransom by a minor party that will benefit from changing the electoral system'.
I suggest instead that under certain circumstances a major party could be forced by public pressure and even perhaps mild embarrassment on its own part at a recent election it received a landslide victory, while getting a clear minority of votes.
A good example here is the 1993 New Zealand election, after which the National Party was forced to put MMP to a referendum (which was successful).
At the 1993 NZ election (99-seat Parliament at the time) the seat-to-vote statistics were as follows:
National: 50 seats from 35.05% of the vote
Labour: 35 seats from 34.68% of the vote
Alliance: 2 seats from 18.21% of the vote
New Zealand First: 2 seats from 8.40% of the vote
More information at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1993
While it is clear that this was hardly a resounding victory for the Nationals, it was disproportionate enough to provoke sufficient public anger to have a referendum held.
Why MMP?
Hypothetically speaking, you can choose any form of Proportional Representation for this WI, however I find it very difficult to imagine the UK ever moving to a completely multi-member electoral system. So at least to me, MMP seems like a more plausible compromise.
Bonus Points:
Have the Tories be the government who presides over the change to MMP in the UK. I find this particularly interesting as historically it has been the Tories who have been the party most opposed to any change to the electoral system.
Additional Bonus Points:
More of curiosity than anything else, what is the most disproportionate that the UK Parliament can plausibly get under FPTP?
In order to achieve this you can add an additional minor party other than the Lib Dems (either UKIP in recent times or some earlier version of it) win a noticeable vote share, while reducing one or both major parties to the 'electoral floors' (when I say electoral floor, I am meaning how, I'm sure how accurate this, but I've heard it speculated that both Labour and the Tories, no matter how unappealing they are to most of the public will always receive around 20-25% of the vote each, short of a near-complete organisational collapse).
To have the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system replace First Past The Post (FPTP) in the UK at national elections.
POD:
Anytime from 1945 onwards.
More information:
Most discussions of the possibility of changing the electoral system in the UK centre on the possibility of a minor party requiring this as part of a coalition agreement with a major party. Think of IRL, the Liberal Democrats having a referendum on the Alternative Vote as a condition of their alliance with the Tories in 2010.
However, this WI I am proposing is different. I want MMP to be introduced by a majority party with a majority in the House of Commons. Whilst this seems counter-intuitive, given that both major parties benefit to varying degrees from FPTP, I think it does negative the potential negative experienced by minority governments doing it as part of a coalition agreement, the feeling that 'the nation is being held to ransom by a minor party that will benefit from changing the electoral system'.
I suggest instead that under certain circumstances a major party could be forced by public pressure and even perhaps mild embarrassment on its own part at a recent election it received a landslide victory, while getting a clear minority of votes.
A good example here is the 1993 New Zealand election, after which the National Party was forced to put MMP to a referendum (which was successful).
At the 1993 NZ election (99-seat Parliament at the time) the seat-to-vote statistics were as follows:
National: 50 seats from 35.05% of the vote
Labour: 35 seats from 34.68% of the vote
Alliance: 2 seats from 18.21% of the vote
New Zealand First: 2 seats from 8.40% of the vote
More information at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1993
While it is clear that this was hardly a resounding victory for the Nationals, it was disproportionate enough to provoke sufficient public anger to have a referendum held.
Why MMP?
Hypothetically speaking, you can choose any form of Proportional Representation for this WI, however I find it very difficult to imagine the UK ever moving to a completely multi-member electoral system. So at least to me, MMP seems like a more plausible compromise.
Bonus Points:
Have the Tories be the government who presides over the change to MMP in the UK. I find this particularly interesting as historically it has been the Tories who have been the party most opposed to any change to the electoral system.
Additional Bonus Points:
More of curiosity than anything else, what is the most disproportionate that the UK Parliament can plausibly get under FPTP?
In order to achieve this you can add an additional minor party other than the Lib Dems (either UKIP in recent times or some earlier version of it) win a noticeable vote share, while reducing one or both major parties to the 'electoral floors' (when I say electoral floor, I am meaning how, I'm sure how accurate this, but I've heard it speculated that both Labour and the Tories, no matter how unappealing they are to most of the public will always receive around 20-25% of the vote each, short of a near-complete organisational collapse).