New Voting System?

[abigsmurf]

Wow Brighton and Hove came down to just 250 votes. Was expecting a yes from there.

[koopatroopa90]

Lol, I recon loads of extreme lefties (Smash EDO / Cowley Club types) don't even bother to vote (as they are all against "the man", regardless of who it is/how they were voted in), but yeah I'd have expected a yes. Then again, my Mum voted no, as did a couple of other people I know in Brighton...

[Adrock]

What you're saying is that people's second preferences don't matter. I think it is an improvement for people to have a say in the outcome, even if it's their second choice.

It's all a bit pointless now, anyway. I think AV is for sure dead in the water now. If in the next 100 years there is another change mooted, it won't be AV.

They certainly dont matter right now, in the current system. But a second preference is still a second preference, its not your first choice and generally speaking I choose the party I support because the others dont appeal. There are definitely lesser evils of the rest of the bunch but they are still not my choice.

Of course, the idea that an MP would end up with over 50% of the vote is preferable because it gives that candidate a mandate and legitimacy. That, to me is the main strength of AV.

I dont think its pointless still discussing though, its interesting. Better than listing irks all the bloody time anyhow.

[egparadigm]

The reason I think it's pointless is more to do with the fact that I want a PR system.

Preferences are still important under some PR systems, because it guarantees that no votes are wasted. So for example, under STV your vote is transferred because it's quite possible your #1 candidate is already elected.

[Adrock]

So are you talking no constituencies? So you vote for the party as opposed to the candidate? As in party lists and the likes?

Because that is incompatible with everything about our current Parliament.

[egparadigm]

Oh god, no. I think party lists are almost as bad as FPTP. Too much power to party leaders.

Larger constituencies, absolutely. More than one member is crucial, but there's no need to throw away all geographical links.

See here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48

EDIT: actually, I don't know if that link helps. But four-five members per constituency would be enough to provide proportionality, as far as I understand it.

[abigsmurf]

PR's always going to struggle to get support because it'll give power to the far left and far right. Although the amount of power would vary depending on the cut off point, UKIP and the BNP could join together and haven enough voting power to swing key votes. The thought of the government cutting deals with them is worrying.

Ultimately, voting reform is only going to happen when FPTP puts a government in power whom the people simply didn't want. People at the moment are unhappy with the Lib Dems failure to really step up to the task of being in power but they're the government people chose.

If the Lib Dems for example, had formed a government with Labour, large parts of the country would've been tearing their hair out because they wanted change and an unpopular party had clung to power by abusing the system. If the referendum had happened in those circumstances it would've been a much closer run thing.

[Adrock]

It would, but to change the size of constituencies to encompass 4 or 5 MP's would make it very hard to keep that 'local' link with the community our system nurtures. Of course a cynic would suggest that has been largely eroded as the Prime Minister has become increasingly Presidential over the years. Its now very much the party leader people vote for rather than the person who will represent your interests as opposed to their own career goals.

The truth is, for me, the problem with our current system is more the career politicians and ever increasing reliability on the individual ego as opposed to collective cabinet responsibility. In fact, in my memory I have no recollection of a resignation due to a failure of a cabinet member's department. Quangos or civil servants were increasingly blamed.

Its hard to explain my thoughts without a diatribe but essentially the problem is the people within Parliament and not the structure of Parliament itself. These things could be circumnavigated with some clever reforms but it would take a very brave Prime Minister to ever try it.

I mean, right now the Lib Dems and Tories are publically ripping eachother to pieces about their differences yet because the desire to be in power is so strong they will put up with the pungent stench coming from their opponents. The coalition creates a situation where MPs who should be representing Liberal Democrat constituents are forced to tow the coalition line because their careers rely upon it. This is exactly the same for Conservative voters.

It essentially makes many people feel disenfranchised even though the person they voted for is supposedly representing them. The correct behaviour our system requires if it is to effectively fulfill its role is for the MPs to actually represent the opinion of the people who put them in their position.

[Adrock]

PR's always going to struggle to get support because it'll give power to the far left and far right. Although the amount of power would vary depending on the cut off point, UKIP and the BNP could join together and haven enough voting power to swing key votes. The thought of the government cutting deals with them is worrying.

Ultimately, voting reform is only going to happen when FPTP puts a government in power whom the people simply didn't want. People at the moment are unhappy with the Lib Dems failure to really step up to the task of being in power but they're the government people chose.

If the Lib Dems for example, had formed a government with Labour, large parts of the country would've been tearing their hair out because they wanted change and an unpopular party had clung to power by abusing the system. If the referendum had happened in those circumstances it would've been a much closer run thing.

Firstly, if the people choose BNP fairly then what right does anybody have to ignore their legitimacy? If any party gains support its because people agree with their policies, the more radical they are the more damning it is for the mainstream parties in their failure to represent people effectively. The vast majority of voters for radical parties choose to do so as a protest at the ineffective mainsteam parties. Tyranny of the minority is definitely possible but usually the far right cancels out the far left and vice versa in PR.

Secondly, nobody chose a coalition. Labour would not have been abusing the system if they formed Government. Explain that please.

The people chose to give nobody a mandate to lead the country on their own. They chose for the Conservatives to have a minority Government but the Tories chose to ensure their legislative power by making a pact with the Lib Dems.

[prinnysquad]

My missus said that her mother had voted no. This was because she 'didn't want to see the BNP get in power'.

Stupid old trout.

[egparadigm]

It would, but to change the size of constituencies to encompass 4 or 5 MP's would make it very hard to keep that 'local' link with the community our system nurtures. Of course a cynic would suggest that has been largely eroded as the Prime Minister has become increasingly Presidential over the years. Its now very much the party leader people vote for rather than the person who will represent your interests as opposed to their own career goals.

The problem with the whole 'local link' thing is its importance is massively over-played. First of all a lot of MPs are simply parachuted into safe seats by party apparatchiks. FPTP is, in fact, a closed party list system in the same way PR List usually is. Under STV you get to choose between candidates as well as parties. So you could rank 1 Lib Dem, 2 Labour and 1 Green if you wanted to, depending on who's the best candidate.

There are two responsibilities an MP has: casework (issues and grievances of constituents) and politics.

Under the present system, the vast majority of people have zero political representation. Even people who successfully elect an MP aren't properly represented because the parties are such broad churches. That is, under PR the parties would become much more coherent, smaller operations that would more accurately cater for the views of the electorate.

On the casework front, MPs are supposed to represent everyone equally, however they voted and whatever their problem. The problem is, they don't. They can't. MPs are generally an opinionated sort, and so it's only natural that they won't work hard on a case they don't believe in or agree with. Having more than one member to turn to is absolutely crucial. When you have a health problem, sometimes the doctor you visit won't give you the help you need, which is why you have the right to a second opinion. Not so under our system – it's effectively illegal for an MP to help someone outside their patch. I have personal experience with this sort of problem, as I once had a crisis and my usual doctor was on holiday. If the only doctor I could see was the one I saw that day I would have had a mental breakdown, because they refused to help me.

I do agree something should be done about the professionalisation of politicians. Actually, STV would help with that, because you could choose which member of a party you wanted. But more importantly, I would back term limits for all MPs. Eight years is more than enough time in politics for anyone. I would like to see a much bigger turnover in the personalities, and would even back random selection and a sort of jury service for members of the public – compensating them with benefits for fulfilling their civic responsibilities.

On the BNP thing. There are many other ways of keeping the BNP out of power, and all of them are preferable to keeping FPTP. We could ban them or we could set a 5% minimum to keep out the really small parties. Actually, they will never have a great deal of power under any system, because most people are not racists, and they would never get into government because no party – not even UKIP – would share power with them.

[MartyG]

Setting a minimum percentage of votes just doesn't fly though - that isn't democracy. I favour PR because it represents the people's wants. Those wants might seem abhorent, but that's their right and what they've voted for. FPTP simply doesn't represent that, and yeah, neither does AV really but that was always a compromise and one that really did favour the No camp. PR might lose some of that local representation, but I'd agree certainly for my constituancy that the MPs who've represented here don't give a left bollock other than getting their bell tower repaired for free.

Sadly the AV vote has, predictably, been seen as people don't care about electorial reform, this is already being crowed.

They might even be correct: as ~60% didn't bother voting then that would be the status quo.