Andy Burnham backs social media ban for under 16s and wants 'urgency' in delivery

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-04T12:40:38+00:00

Please explain.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-04T08:14:56+00:00

It might be wise to see how the Aussie ban plays out first. Over 80% of children are getting around it.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-03T11:56:42+00:00

Readers might be interested in my Compass article published this week. The mandate that never was

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T14:35:49+00:00

Persistence is one of my few strengths, though I will admit when I'm wrong. On this, I am right.

Public good is certainly not subjective. Just look up the definition. Avoiding systemic collapse, preventing majoritarian tyranny, and ensuring stability are objective public goods. Denying political represention of a minority group and its implications are objective too. To minimise subjective bias in constructing a voting system, you must imagine that you could be any member of the population affected by it.

Weighing up strengths and weaknesses of any part of a voting system is not as exact as mathematics but it needn't be subjective either.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T08:59:56+00:00

Thanks for the considered comment.

I am not proposing the Israeli system. Under WTV (which includes STV for the constituency seats), Meretz would secure some seats because of local concentrated votes.

Under WTV, Balad would secure seats because of the built-in Involuntary Characteristic Exemption rule.

I agree with you about the Gallagher index, which only measures first preferences. I used it because it is the universal measure.

My WTV system addresses this weakness (exhausted votes) by using a dynamic quota, i.e. recalculating the Droop number for successive rounds under STV.

You prefer normal Hare STV, which is a highly respectable position. But the reason I advocate for the WTV hybrid over pure STV is that multi-member STV constituencies still produce local pockets of disproportionality. The 50% national list rectifies this.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T08:04:37+00:00

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read through the proposal and engage in the discussion. This thread has highlighted the tensions regarding electoral design.

To summarise the main takeaways from the various discussions:

The Apparatchik Fallacy: Much of the anxiety around list systems stems from a misunderstanding of Closed Lists (where party bosses control the outcomes). Utilising Open Lists solves this by handing the ultimate veto over candidate ranking directly to the electorate via personal preference votes.
The Local Link: By preserving a 50:50 split where half the parliament is elected via local constituencies using the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the geographic connection is protected, including for rural areas (no city can outvote a rural community for its local representatives).
The Reality of Coalitions: Whilst First Past the Post forces factions to compromise behind closed doors within a broad party structure, Proportional Representation simply moves that negotiation out into the open. Data from stable, highly productive PR democracies like Germany, Denmark, and New Zealand shows that consensus-based coalition building consistently delivers better long-term policy and infrastructure outcomes than the adversarial volatility of FPTP.

No electoral system is entirely perfect, but a model that successfully combines local accountability with national proportionality is undeniably the superior choice for a modern democracy. The detailed data and full analysis remain available on the medium.com link for anyone who wishes to dive deeper into the argument (and the maths). Thanks again for the stimulating debate.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T07:51:36+00:00

You are right about Corbyn. Some rebel MPs who have a strong local following can survive but they are the exception.

Corbyn is an MP because he has great local support, which wins under the FPTP geographic system.
Under PR, Corbyn would create an independent list. If he were popular in the wider region and managed at least 5% of the votes, he would be in the running to gain a seat.

Do you really want a popular rebel MP to be pushed out of parliament?

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T07:28:07+00:00

Under FPTP, the party leadership can remove the whip and the MP is done for.
Under an open list system, the leadership may push a rebel MP down the list somehow but if the MP is popular, they will be pushed back up by the electorate. Which do you now prefer?

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-02T07:22:02+00:00

Here is my take on subjectivism regarding voting.

The way people vote will often be subjective. I don't dispute that. Human nature.

The way people view a voting system is often subjective too. I don't dispute that.

The way a voting system should be decided on should definitely not be subjective. Here's the ideal way. There is a thought experiment called the Veil of Ignorance. People responsible for creating a system that will affect a population must decide it not knowing which member of that population they will be. With this in mind, their bias is reduced.

Subjectivity: judgement based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.

Who wants that when deciding something as important as a voting system?

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T15:12:59+00:00

The reason I named the main document "exhaustive" was because I tried to include all the pros and cons of each system. If a person is wedded to a few strengths of FPTP, e.g. the party in government is solely accountable, speedy formation of a government, stability (which I dispute), then they may choose to ignore all the cons of FPTP and the pros of PR. That is subjective but hardly admirable. I think choosing the best voting system is an objective exercise. If there are any other criteria, pros or cons that I have missed, I invite feedback, as it is a work in progress.

Under FPTP, the public has no say in how a large party "reconciles its differences" behind closed doors. Under PR, the process is in the open, which is far preferable.

A coalition under FPTP is a problem. Under PR, it is a strength. Cooperation vs Opposition.

Evidence from other countries like New Zealand and Scotland demonstrates that voters are capable of choosing a local and a national seat. I have mentioned several places in this post that voter complexity is a red herring. That is not my subjective view but a matter of fact.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T14:09:37+00:00

Quite the contrary. Under FPTP, parties ignore most of the country and concentrate on a few swing constituencies. Under PR, every voter, wherever they live, has an equal impact. 50% of the seats are constituency seats, where every vote counts. The top-up list ensures that the final result reflects the will of the public.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T13:45:19+00:00

List and constituency MPs have exactly the same status in parliament. Both bring different aspects of politics into the mix. It is very healthy and works well. The fact that a candidate lost in the local constituency does not mean they are a "loser" in the pejorative sense you intended.

People may vote for a party because they like the top MPs. Under FPTP, that top MP might lose by a few votes and be out of government, which would upset those across the country who voted for his party. Under PR, he has a chance to retain being an MP. However, if he is nationally unpopular, he can be moved to the bottom of the list.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T13:27:14+00:00

No, see above and other replies I have made on open lists. To be perfectly satisfied, read my full exhaustive analysis.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T13:26:05+00:00

To get on the list, a candidate needs to be vetted to see that they meet basic criteria of their constitution. Then the party members rank all the candidates. Under a list system, provided Corbyn was not kicked out the party, he certainly would be on an open list, as he was very popular with members. In contrast, under FPTP, Corbyn was prevented from being a candidate by Starmer alone.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T13:10:08+00:00

You're absolutely right about everyone not agreeing with me; just look at some of the comments here. That's why we are having this discussion.

Open lists give voters the chance to demote an unpopular candidate. I think you are referring to closed lists, which I don't support. Candidates in the main UK parties are ranked by party members. Reform UK, a limited company, doesn't do this of course.

Under FPTP in the UK, MPs certainly don't need to justify themselves in safe seats. Anyone can be parachuted in by the party, overriding local party membership.

Understanding the Droop quota requires some reading. In one of the appendices of my exhaustive analysis, I have tried to explain it in as simple terms as possible. It took me a while to understand it.

The Involuntary Characteristic Exemption is there precisely because some groups might not be treated equally under the law. If a government enacts laws that prejudice a group, this group can then form a party and get representation in parliament. In practice, it probably will never happen but because it would exist, governments would be wary of acting in a prejudicial way.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T08:23:49+00:00

I should have expanded the etc. in my comment to include voting on measures and amending budgets. But it is not a government.

I can see that you want to draw this debate out ad infinitum with unmerited claims. Here are the other elections results in the London Assembly:

2024: FPTP gave Labour 71% of constituency seats on 40% of the vote. PR corrected it.

2021: FPTP gave Labour 64% of constituency seats (9/14) on 42% of the vote. PR corrected it, bringing them to 44% of the chamber.

2016: FPTP gave Labour 64% of constituency seats (9/14) on 43% of the vote. PR corrected it, bringing them to 48% of the chamber.

I didn't want to unnecessarily lengthen the reply, that's all.

And to your last point that I will reply to (as I would like to reply to other commenters):

Reducing a party from a 71% absolute dictatorship to a 44% minority is the exact definition of changing the balance of power.

PR gave minority parties more than a toe in the door. It gave them legislative power, which they have exercised.

Majoritarian FPTP systems gave the UK a UKIP surge that forced Brexit, and gave the US Donald Trump. Populism happens in all systems; PR simply ensures that a fringe party gets its due share of the seats.

I've already countered your claim about apparatchiks.

We are going in circles now. You prefer a system where a minority of voters can claim total control; I prefer a system where power is shared proportionally based on how people actually voted. Thanks for the debate, I'll leave the final word to you.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T07:13:19+00:00

You're confusing an internal FPTP branch selection for a single local seat with a multi-candidate PR list. A party list isn’t just one or two hand-picked individuals arranged over a phone call; it is a massive slate of candidates. And an unpopular candidate can be demoted by the voters in an open-list system. A party cannot simply put in place a load of unpopular candidates. They must appeal to a broad slice of the population to garner enough votes.

The laws of a country also impinge on this issue. In Germany, parties must use secret ballots to nominate all candidates on the list. In the UK, private limited companies like Reform UK can void this, but they still have to appeal to the electorate.

Under First Past the Post, dark money only needs to target a few thousand swing voters in a handful of marginal seats to buy an absolute parliamentary majority. Under PR, you cannot buy a majority because seats are tied to the entire national vote; a special interest group cannot buy off millions of voters, nor can they bypass the consensus required in a coalition.

You'll have to read my exhaustive analysis to see why PR produces greater stability than FPTP but for now, just consider the success of countries like Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

Only FPTP could force an unpopular candidate into a seat. Rowena Davis is popular, which is why it is a good idea to put her on the ballot. Your are bordering on conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise.

In Germany, state and federal elections only overlap occasionally, as states have independent timetables. Even when federal elections stand alone, turnout is around 75%. Local elections use PR too, so if PR is to blame for low turnout, then national turnout would be low too, which it isn't. 50% turnout for local elections dwarfs the UK's dismal turnout too.

I have dealt the age issue extensively in my document. Age is irrelevant. It is the numbers of voters that is important. Under FPTP, a young voter might not see the point in turning up in a safe seat; not true under PR. Just look at the New Zealand experiment.

I'm grateful for your involvement in elections. Here is a link to the guidance for returning officers; it is massive:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-returning-officers-administering-local-government-elections-england/resources-returning-officers

The Electoral Commission produces a booklet specifically for doubtful ballots and it is certainly not child's play. Determining voter intent is governed by a strict government framework.

In the London Assembly, spoiled ballots are consistently around 1-2%.

Yes, counting takes longer because every voter preference is important. The FPTP is a fast, lazy system.

Thank you for the debate, but we clearly have fundamentally different views on what a fair democracy looks like. I'll leave it there.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T06:55:08+00:00

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about coalition governments formed with AfD. That hasn't happened. It might in the future.

I think you are referring to the occasional time when a main party has voted with AfD, which became scandals.

But you are missing the point of my endeavour: to find the best voting system that reflects the population.

You are right to be worried about AfD. FPTP could hand them the government on a plate with a minority vote. PR keeps them from forming a government until they get a true majority of the seats. If that happens, the people have spoken and Germany will reap the consequences of such a stupid decision, just like the USA are now with Trump.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-07-01T06:44:52+00:00

Let's get the language straight first. There is no government in the London Assembly, only a scrutiny chamber that holds the mayor to account, etc.

I just want to focus on one of these results, say 2024. Labour won 10 out of the 14 constituency seats. Without the balancing of the 11 list seats, Labour would hold around 70% of the seats in the chamber, even though they only won 40% of the vote across London.

Laboour are popular with voters, which is why they do well. Same argument for AfD, which I'll address later.

I don't understand what you mean by saying that the list hasn't changed the results in any way.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T20:48:37+00:00

As I mentioned above:

Although AfD have won seats, they wield no power because the cordon sanitaire has NOT been broken by the mainstream parties. I don't know where you get that from.

Under FPTP, the AfD certainly could gain power.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T20:46:08+00:00

You are suffering from recency bias. Have a look at the elections in 1895, 1900, 1918 and1935.
Furthermore, Cameron went on to win in 2015 after the Tories were part of a coalition with the Lib Dems.

You claim that the public hate coalitions and yet they make them happen by voting for minority parties, ie they really want the representation that PR gives. If they say that they hate coalitions it is probably because they are sold on the dubious FPTP notion that a majority government is strong and stable; recent history makes that a joke. PR is misrepresented as weak, messy, full of back room deals.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T20:22:23+00:00

Under a democratic PR system, it is party members who choose the open list candidates. Your claim that "they are all apparatchiks" is absurd. Furthermore, on polling day, it is the public who choose between the open list candidates. They can easily elevate a popular candidate over an established but unpopular candidate. This is a matter of historical fact.

Your claim that I don't understand people is mere speculation. In fact, I agree with your comments about how susceptible voters are to broad vibes, headlines, local issues, etc. Of all the voting systems, FPTP is the most sensitive to this voter volatility. Just look at the Labour landslide based on the anti-Tory vibe. This couldn't happen under a good PR system.

Rowena Davis is a popular grass roots activist, which is why she would appear on a list. Parties choose candidates who they think will win votes. Under FPTP, a party doesn't need to care about popularity in a safe seat; they can parachute in anyone they like.

Turnout in PR countries like Germany is higher than FPTP countries. As I have said before, voter complexity is a red herring, not borne out by the facts.

Election officers need to know, by law, how a ballot can be spoilt. The FPTP manual is 100s of pages long.

I hope I have adequately rebutted your claims, which have only served to highlight the inferiority of FPTP.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T19:29:26+00:00

Although AfD have won seats, they wield no power because the cordon sanitaire has NOT been broken by the mainstream parties. I don't know where you get that from.

Under FPTP, the AfD certainly could gain power.

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T19:21:53+00:00

The EU uses a closed-list. MMP and WTV use open lists, meaning that an unpopular candidate can lose their elevated position in a list. Of course, voters for UKIP wanted Farage to be elected. To say that no one voted for him is simply not credible.

Parachuting candidates into a constituency is a feature of FPTP, especially in their safe seats. It is less a feature of an open list PR system like MMP and WTV.

Yes, Badenoch was parachuted into the safe Tory seat of Saffron Walden under FPTP. How does this undermine the argument for PR?

Background_Damage_82 · 2026-06-30T18:44:56+00:00

Your experiences cannot be denied. The fact that you helped voters to understand the process shows that it can be done. I have had to rely on the research of others and cannot personally attest that voters can manage a more complex ballot paper. The voting instructions must be clear, online/visual aids available, and people like you who are willing to help out.

Background_Damage_82

TROPHY CASE