|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 11, 2017 1:06:57 GMT
Interesting discussion this, because I've always thought that @benjl and I could easily be in the same party, so its quite instructive to find a major area of difference. I havd a lot of empathy with his view that democracy is a means to an end (i.e. good government) and would make the same argument for freedom of speech. In practice I think it doesn't make a lot of odds, both things are so clearly linked to the desired end that I'm unhesitatingly in favour of both; but in reality both are limited for practical reasons and I think it is useful when considering this limits to be bale to bear in mind the end purpose. I.e. on principle I'm suspicious of any limits on democracy but if one is proposed the question of whether it will produce better government than unlimited democracy is the acid test. I’m sorry to hear we diverge here, was bound to happen eventually though, no two are the same. You sum up my position very well, agree with some areas but at the same time don’t at all. In short you are a great loss to the ambassadorial profession. I would just say that if you (meaning anyone) really passionately believe that your party stands for what you see as right and value it’s continued existence, then surely you should also advocate a system within the democratic framework which will suit its needs. The fight to establish my party was a hard one, I choose to preserve the gains made in that fight over the alter of greater democracy (in this case pr) that I believe will have a negative long term effect on the working people of Britain. (This is my summing up as yellowperil is right, continuation would lead to tedium). You should stand your ground, I quite admire you for being willing to utter the heresy that democracy may be flawed. I can see at least some merit in most parties, I just find it interesting that while you are (I think) a social democratic Labour supporter and I came to the LDs via the SDP (when I was about your age) it turns out that there are things we differ on - which is fair enough since we support different parties. |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906 
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Dec 11, 2017 1:18:38 GMT
It's not often I read something on this forum that truly shocks me. I am stunned that seemingly well-intentioned people really think like this. Not at all. benjl is a breath of fresh air in not being overtly tribal nor doctrinaire all the time. He is his own man and we can actually see the ideas of an engaged and engaging young mind develop before our eyes. He thinks and he thinks outside the boxes. I like him and his freshness. @benjl seems to be quite tribal in his party loyalty, but less so in his ideas. This is an unusual combination, but was more common in the early days of the party's history when it had a higher proportion of autodidacts and 'organic intellectuals' among its members than it does now. Sometimes - particularly when he talks about patriotism, national identity, etc. - he reminds me of Evan Durbin (especially his wartime booklet What Have We to Defend?) and many of the old-style 'ethical socialists' who were influenced by Tawney, et al. It has to be said, though, that his ideas on democracy are at least partially a consequence of 'tribal' workerist attitudes on the matter. Pete Whitehead is right to point out that a lot of members do equate the health of the Labour party with that of the country more generally (as benjl does), and feel that a system which protects its elected officials shouldn't be sacrificed for a PR free-for-all. I would guess that this attitude is more prevalent among the old than the young, although it has undoubtedly passed through the generations as well. As an admittedly extreme example, I can think of one fiftysomething former Labour councillor of my acquaintance who advocates an ideal electoral system whereby all candidates who wish to stand for election should have to join his party first. His idea of 'democracy' is that each candidate would represent a different faction (e.g. Momentum), thus allowing for a degree of choice - but one that is safely contained within the party. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 11, 2017 3:24:02 GMT
I long for that day!  I don't! I am a long time supporter of Lib Dems but do I want to see them in unchallenged power? no thanks- it wouldn't be pretty. No party should be in unchallenged power, ever, that is exactly the point. That isn't what I said either. I said I'd like to see the day when all but one seat in the Commons is won by either the LDs, Greens, Liberals or 'others'. That doesn't mean any of those 4 groups would have a majority or 100% of the power. Plus, the one remaining seat could be held by either a moderate Tory or a centrist Labour MP.  I was arguing that while democracy is vital, too much democracy can be damaging to people's interests. It's not a particularly controversial statement unless you quote part of it out of context ... I am suspicious of democracy whatever the results ... Democracy is a means to a end, not the end in of itself. I’m afraid I find these statements highly controversial, quoted in full or in part. Democracy is absolutely an end in itself I really don't think it is. The example that springs to mind is the way a return to democracy was supposed to cure all of Francoist Spain's ills after the transition. Having put a system on a pedestal so much, it was little wonder that people soon became disenchanted with the outcomes that it brought and the slow pace of change. Democracy for me is the best means by which people can be represented, have their views heard and effect policies which will improve their lives, invented by flawed human beings for humans and therefore produces imperfect results. It was never meant to please all of the people all of the time. That's not to say there always has to be a tyranny of the majority either. *cough*Brexit*cough*Not at all. benjl is a breath of fresh air in not being overtly tribal nor doctrinaire all the time. He is his own man and we can actually see the ideas of an engaged and engaging young mind develop before our eyes. He thinks and he thinks outside the boxes. I like him and his freshness. As an admittedly extreme example, I can think of one fiftysomething former Labour councillor of my acquaintance who advocates an ideal electoral system whereby all candidates who wish to stand for election should have to join his party first. His idea of 'democracy' is that each candidate would represent a different faction (e.g. Momentum), thus allowing for a degree of choice - but one that is safely contained within the party. Sounds like he should be sent to Cuba. The ancient Greeks knew that people were irrational, so that's not some recently discovered flaw in a democratic set-up. The current system we have assumes, nonetheless, that our representatives and those in charge of the electoral process will at least act honourably (as do most undemocratic systems, to be fair) – but there are increasing signs that this is largely not the case. For the wider tenets of a democratic society mentioned by Adam, it's important as he said to remember that not all such freedoms can always be exercised in absolute terms. For the narrower definition of 'maximum democracy' that I think benjl was going for to mean doing everything by the ballot box, I actually largely agree with him. For example, I don't believe in an elected head of state, I am comfortable with a not entirely elected upper house, I don't wish to start electing civil servants, I don't want to see elections for judicial positions, I'm against the trend towards directly elected executive mayors, I'm almost entirely opposed to any Swiss-style direct democracy and I would prefer to see PCCs abolished (but probably replaced with something). All that could make me sound like not much of a democrat. I do believe in democracy as a principle, though, and I am in favour of a fairer voting system for local government. I would like to think that if I opposed it, on the other hand, that it would also be for principled reasons, rather than for the perceived benefit of one particular social class or the genuine benefit of a single political party. It was that attempt at justification from benjl which I found stunningly unfortunate, because it does contrast with how well he usually cuts across party lines here. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 11, 2017 22:07:33 GMT
That doesn't seem like a high price to pay? If those parties are only winning support because they're the only opposition vehicle in town and subsequently collapse to others - that's democracy. The net effect would be to still have the same amount of opposition seats more or less but with that opposition now actually reflective of voter's beliefs. I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing, quite the reverse for the reasons you describe. It is more likely to happen with the Lib Dems though as they have been very good in taking away support from labour or the conservatives whenever one of those parties is in third place at a local level. Labour and the Conservatives do not tend to generate the same level of tactical votes as an opposition party on a council. Broadly speaking I would agree with this, but there is an important codicil: sometimes tactical votes are built up by hard work on the ground, not just by bar charts. You don't want to eliminate that, because showing up the ruling party by outworking them is something that minority parties on a council have to do if they're to serve a useful purpose. So it means you have to maintain some form of ward link, not just go straight to a party list system. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 12, 2017 8:37:22 GMT
I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing, quite the reverse for the reasons you describe. It is more likely to happen with the Lib Dems though as they have been very good in taking away support from labour or the conservatives whenever one of those parties is in third place at a local level. Labour and the Conservatives do not tend to generate the same level of tactical votes as an opposition party on a council. Broadly speaking I would agree with this, but there is an important codicil: sometimes tactical votes are built up by hard work on the ground, not just by bar charts. You don't want to eliminate that, because showing up the ruling party by outworking them is something that minority parties on a council have to do if they're to serve a useful purpose. So it means you have to maintain some form of ward link, not just go straight to a party list system. Very much agree with your first two sentences, partially agree with the last one! Certainly I agree that "some form of ward link " which connects the voters in that ward with the workers doing the business on their behalf is a vital part of a working local democracy. The trick is to make that work as well as making the system fairer and more representative. How you achieve that will vary from place to place ( no one case fits all here),but it is achievable in most places.Sometimes the trade off has to be slightly bigger wards than I would prefer on other grounds. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 12, 2017 14:18:22 GMT
I'm not too keen on STV, because I'm not keen on the larger ward sizes it necessitates and it does not provide much improvement to competitiveness - in most places, it just adds a safe seat for a different party, but leaves at least half the seats as safe under any reasonable set of circumstances.
I'd probably go for single-member wards, with groups of wards aggregated to produce top-up members (broadly as for Holyrood elections). All done on one ballot, because the second one seems an unnecessary complication, and with top-up members assigned on the basis of who got the most votes without being elected (as in Germany.) This would have the additional benefit of making beefed-up area committees an easier option to sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 12, 2017 19:40:24 GMT
I'm not too keen on STV, because I'm not keen on the larger ward sizes it necessitates and it does not provide much improvement to competitiveness - in most places, it just adds a safe seat for a different party, but leaves at least half the seats as safe under any reasonable set of circumstances. I'd probably go for single-member wards, with groups of wards aggregated to produce top-up members (broadly as for Holyrood elections). All done on one ballot, because the second one seems an unnecessary complication, and with top-up members assigned on the basis of who got the most votes without being elected (as in Germany.) This would have the additional benefit of making beefed-up area committees an easier option to sell. Ah, who would have thought that an argument about the desirability of democracy would have appeared on this week's local by-election thread while I was busy! If STV is done properly then no-one has a safe seat because they are challenged by members of their own Party, not just other Parties. That does mean 5/6 member wards and an obligation on Parties to stand more than one candidate, or perhaps more candidates than they have councillors (not the case in Scotland, which certainly does not have STV the way I would have done it). Currently in the METS we have the situation where all three councillors are safe in most wards, and that definitely leads to complacency. Your system, EAL, still leaves the decision on who gets elected mainly in the hands of the political Party, not the electorate. That is the thing that is worst about our present systems. I am quite sanguine about larger wards - being represented by at least one person sympathetic to my viewpoint is more important for me, especially in these days where face to face meetings are less essential and a sensible group of councillors can divide up or rotate surgeries in different areas |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 12, 2017 19:48:00 GMT
On the subject of democracy, I agree it has many flaws... FPTP is one of the least democratic systems on offer, for example, and that is a major flaw!
But anyone who says that democracy should be restricted in order to protect the interests of a particular political party (especially if they go on to say that the interests of "The People" can only be properly looked after by that political party, so it is pointless to ask their actual opinion about it) is looking down a slippery slope to totalitarianism in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 12, 2017 19:57:59 GMT
On the subject of democracy, I agree it has many flaws... FPTP is one of the least democratic systems on offer, for example, and that is a major flaw! But anyone who says that democracy should be restricted in order to protect the interests of a particular political party (especially if they go on to say that the interests of "The People" can only be properly looked after by that political party, so it is pointless to ask their actual opinion about it) is looking down a slippery slope to totalitarianism in my view. FPTP may be less proportional than other systems - that is a matter of fact, but the idea that it is less democratic, is, whether you like it or not a matter of opinion. No-one has said that. Or that no-one should be asked their opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 12, 2017 20:01:46 GMT
I'm not too keen on STV, because I'm not keen on the larger ward sizes it necessitates and it does not provide much improvement to competitiveness - in most places, it just adds a safe seat for a different party, but leaves at least half the seats as safe under any reasonable set of circumstances. I'd probably go for single-member wards, with groups of wards aggregated to produce top-up members (broadly as for Holyrood elections). All done on one ballot, because the second one seems an unnecessary complication, and with top-up members assigned on the basis of who got the most votes without being elected (as in Germany.) This would have the additional benefit of making beefed-up area committees an easier option to sell. Ah, who would have thought that an argument about the desirability of democracy would have appeared on this week's local by-election thread while I was busy! If STV is done properly then no-one has a safe seat because they are challenged by members of their own Party, not just other Parties. That does mean 5/6 member wards and an obligation on Parties to stand more than one candidate, or perhaps more candidates than they have councillors (not the case in Scotland, which certainly does not have STV the way I would have done it). Currently in the METS we have the situation where all three councillors are safe in most wards, and that definitely leads to complacency. Your system, EAL, still leaves the decision on who gets elected mainly in the hands of the political Party, not the electorate. That is the thing that is worst about our present systems. I am quite sanguine about larger wards - being represented by at least one person sympathetic to my viewpoint is more important for me, especially in these days where face to face meetings are less essential and a sensible group of councillors can divide up or rotate surgeries in different areas a) You cannot feasibly force people to stand more candidates than the seats they expect to win. Any rules can easily be gamed, and where does it leave parties who can't muster enough candidates for a full slate? b) You must have misunderstood me, because it certainly doesn't leave the choice up to the party, except insofar as the party can decide who they select for which ward (and good luck trying to ban that.) Put bluntly, any argument for STV which insists that 'proper STV' is a system that isn't actually used anywhere is a dumb argument. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 12, 2017 20:24:34 GMT
Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go So would I! BIG did seem to have some policies though, as far as I could see. And presumably the people that voted for them saw some purpose in them, even if that purpose was mainly to get the Local Labour Party to become less complacent... Sorry for the partisan dig, BTW. Power corrupts eventually, in my experience, whatever its political colour |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Dec 12, 2017 20:35:26 GMT
I'm not too keen on STV, because I'm not keen on the larger ward sizes it necessitates and it does not provide much improvement to competitiveness - in most places, it just adds a safe seat for a different party, but leaves at least half the seats as safe under any reasonable set of circumstances. Good point. My division in Edinburgh (Morningside) has four members and effectively gives four safe seats for the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems. The SNP once won a seat at the expense of the Lib Dems at the height of their popularity (and in the depths of the Lib Dems' toxicity). Most do not even consider putting up more than one candidate for fear of splitting their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 12, 2017 21:00:44 GMT
Ah, who would have thought that an argument about the desirability of democracy would have appeared on this week's local by-election thread while I was busy! If STV is done properly then no-one has a safe seat because they are challenged by members of their own Party, not just other Parties. That does mean 5/6 member wards and an obligation on Parties to stand more than one candidate, or perhaps more candidates than they have councillors (not the case in Scotland, which certainly does not have STV the way I would have done it). Currently in the METS we have the situation where all three councillors are safe in most wards, and that definitely leads to complacency. Your system, EAL, still leaves the decision on who gets elected mainly in the hands of the political Party, not the electorate. That is the thing that is worst about our present systems. I am quite sanguine about larger wards - being represented by at least one person sympathetic to my viewpoint is more important for me, especially in these days where face to face meetings are less essential and a sensible group of councillors can divide up or rotate surgeries in different areas a) You cannot feasibly force people to stand more candidates than the seats they expect to win. Any rules can easily be gamed, and where does it leave parties who can't muster enough candidates for a full slate? b) You must have misunderstood me, because it certainly doesn't leave the choice up to the party, except insofar as the party can decide who they select for which ward (and good luck trying to ban that.) Put bluntly, any argument for STV which insists that 'proper STV' is a system that isn't actually used anywhere is a dumb argument. a) It is an electoral system.. It can have any rules that are agreed. I did modify the suggestion to "at least one more candidate than you have councillors" So in the case of Morningside that John07 mentions all four would have to put up two candidates, while the SNP might get a small leg-up by only having to stand one.. (which if it worked would be reversed next time..). b) Yes, it is the fact that the parties select the candidates and the electorate cannot choose between candidates of their own party that I do not like. I advanced a way that would reduce the safeness of seats and the power of the parties somewhat under STV (I agree that the parties would try to "game" any system, but really useless councillors would soon be out if there was choice..) You must have misunderstood me: The STV used in Scottish local elections is infinitely preferable to the FPTP used in English Councils. Four safe seats for four different parties (as in Morningside) is much better than the 3 safe seats per ward for one party that we see in most English Mets. However more councillors per ward than the 3 seen in most Scottish wards (as in the 5 per ward in the NI Assembly) would give more choice and be more proportional. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,774
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 12, 2017 21:09:09 GMT
I'm not too keen on STV, because I'm not keen on the larger ward sizes it necessitates and it does not provide much improvement to competitiveness - in most places, it just adds a safe seat for a different party, but leaves at least half the seats as safe under any reasonable set of circumstances. Good point. My division in Edinburgh (Morningside) has four members and effectively gives four safe seats for the Conservatives, Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems. The SNP once won a seat at the expense of the Lib Dems at the height of their popularity (and in the depths of the Lib Dems' toxicity). Most do not even consider putting up more than one candidate for fear of splitting their vote. There are ways to build systems to get around that, but it starts to complicate things. One is: add up all the party candidates' votes. Then use the party vote total to allocate the seats proportionally, going to the candidates who get the most votes. So, eg, a party getting 40% split between two candidates 10%/30% gets 4/10 of the seats and if that gives them only one seat it goes to the candidate more people voted for. I think The Netherlands uses this method. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 21:21:56 GMT
I think a PR system like STV works for local councils because most you already have multi member wards
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,441
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2017 21:39:56 GMT
I simply dislike preference systems. Top up lists fine. Closed of course being an unreconstructed Stalinist.
Of course one possibility might be that electoral reform leads to realignment of parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 12, 2017 21:47:15 GMT
Mixed-member with open-lists and preferential voting for the constituencies for me!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 21:52:20 GMT
I would be surprised if you were opposed to stv but supported an open list.
We have a pretty tribal country i think it would take more than PR
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 21:53:41 GMT
I'm not that bothered by preferences tbh take em or leave em
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,441
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2017 22:10:30 GMT
Another way of breaking down vast majorities on councils under FPTP would be single member wards. There are quite a lot of southern towns where Labour have good areas but not quite good enough to win many wards.
|
|
