|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 27, 2018 18:35:06 GMT
Doesn't seem that complicated, I think it would definitely be an improvement on the current system. There's nothing really wrong with the fundamentals of the type of Mixed-Member system used in Scotland and Wales, the only real issue is the use of closed-lists as opposed to open, with no major overhaul really needed. Well, there is the issue of whether there should be a separate vote for the list, or just accumulate the votes from the FPTP seats to apportion the list seats. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 27, 2018 18:41:51 GMT
There's nothing really wrong with the fundamentals of the type of Mixed-Member system used in Scotland and Wales, the only real issue is the use of closed-lists as opposed to open, with no major overhaul really needed. Well, there is the issue of whether there should be a separate vote for the list, or just accumulate the votes from the FPTP seats to apportion the list seats. I wouldn't really consider having two ballot papers to really be an issue to be honest, just so long as things are clearly labelled enough so that the electorate knows what it is they're voting for. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 28, 2018 11:28:14 GMT
Well, there is the issue of whether there should be a separate vote for the list, or just accumulate the votes from the FPTP seats to apportion the list seats. I wouldn't really consider having two ballot papers to really be an issue to be honest, just so long as things are clearly labelled enough so that the electorate knows what it is they're voting for. Experience from Scotland shows that substantial numbers of people are not capable of following simple and clear instructions on ballot papers. When they had the constituency candidates and the regional party lists on the same ballot paper (I think it was 2007), there were several hundred spoilt votes (sometimes well over a thousand) per constituency because people voted for two candidates in the constituency - even though the instructions were very clear in saying that voters had two votes: one in the constituency over here and one in the list over here. I have no problem in disenfranchising such people on grounds of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 28, 2018 12:43:50 GMT
I wouldn't really consider having two ballot papers to really be an issue to be honest, just so long as things are clearly labelled enough so that the electorate knows what it is they're voting for. Experience from Scotland shows that substantial numbers of people are not capable of following simple and clear instructions on ballot papers. When they had the constituency candidates and the regional party lists on the same ballot paper (I think it was 2007), there were several hundred spoilt votes (sometimes well over a thousand) per constituency because people voted for two candidates in the constituency - even though the instructions were very clear in saying that voters had two votes: one in the constituency over here and one in the list over here. I have no problem in disenfranchising such people on grounds of stupidity. Ah yes, I remember that well. The suggestion to change from two separate ballot papers came from Labour. The expected consequence was to minimise the effect of the "Second Vote Green" strategy, so the other 3 main parties (the LDs were a main party in Scotland then) readily agreed. Of course it backfired on Labour. The highest proportions of spoilt papers were in Labour-voting areas and it enabled the SNP to capitalise by calling themselves "Alex Salmond's SNP" thus appearing at the top of the ballot paper in most areas. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 28, 2018 12:53:40 GMT
I wouldn't really consider having two ballot papers to really be an issue to be honest, just so long as things are clearly labelled enough so that the electorate knows what it is they're voting for. Experience from Scotland shows that substantial numbers of people are not capable of following simple and clear instructions on ballot papers. When they had the constituency candidates and the regional party lists on the same ballot paper (I think it was 2007), there were several hundred spoilt votes (sometimes well over a thousand) per constituency because people voted for two candidates in the constituency - even though the instructions were very clear in saying that voters had two votes: one in the constituency over here and one in the list over here. I have no problem in disenfranchising such people on grounds of stupidity. Well. I do. What counts as stupidity to an obsessive anorak like you is merely confusion to them. If that number of people are confused it is stupidity in the political classes not in the public. Just use time-honoured FPTP single vote and be done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jul 28, 2018 13:02:41 GMT
Personally I don't like any system that appoints its democratic representative without facing the vote of the people. And I don't like a system where someone's punishment for a transgression is dependent on their popularity. That's a fair point, and a major downside of the recall system. MPs in safer seats would be less likely to face a recall vote. Take two hypothetical examples, the MP for Liverpool Walton and the MP for Warrington South. Now given that the hypothetical offences are the same for both of them, which one would be most likely to face a recall vote? |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,729
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 28, 2018 17:58:40 GMT
... it enabled the SNP to capitalise by calling themselves "Alex Salmond's SNP" thus appearing at the top of the ballot paper in most areas. So they won't be electing a leader called Zachary or Zoe any tine soon, then  |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jul 29, 2018 8:42:25 GMT
Experience from Scotland shows that substantial numbers of people are not capable of following simple and clear instructions on ballot papers. When they had the constituency candidates and the regional party lists on the same ballot paper (I think it was 2007), there were several hundred spoilt votes (sometimes well over a thousand) per constituency because people voted for two candidates in the constituency - even though the instructions were very clear in saying that voters had two votes: one in the constituency over here and one in the list over here. I have no problem in disenfranchising such people on grounds of stupidity. Ah yes, I remember that well. The suggestion to change from two separate ballot papers came from Labour. The expected consequence was to minimise the effect of the "Second Vote Green" strategy, so the other 3 main parties (the LDs were a main party in Scotland then) readily agreed. Of course it backfired on Labour. The highest proportions of spoilt papers were in Labour-voting areas and it enabled the SNP to capitalise by calling themselves "Alex Salmond's SNP" thus appearing at the top of the ballot paper in most areas. The change to a single ballot was only part of the problem. The introduction of STV for the simultaneous local elections also contributed as voters had to vote preferentially on one ballot and with crosses on the other, which of course led to Scottish locals being pushed back a year to avoid clashing with Holyrood again. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774 
|
Post by john07 on Jul 29, 2018 19:25:22 GMT
Ah yes, I remember that well. The suggestion to change from two separate ballot papers came from Labour. The expected consequence was to minimise the effect of the "Second Vote Green" strategy, so the other 3 main parties (the LDs were a main party in Scotland then) readily agreed. Of course it backfired on Labour. The highest proportions of spoilt papers were in Labour-voting areas and it enabled the SNP to capitalise by calling themselves "Alex Salmond's SNP" thus appearing at the top of the ballot paper in most areas. The change to a single ballot was only part of the problem. The introduction of STV for the simultaneous local elections also contributed as voters had to vote preferentially on one ballot and with crosses on the other, which of course led to Scottish locals being pushed back a year to avoid clashing with Holyrood again. It doesn’t help that in Scotland we have different voting systems for every level of election. STV for local elections (with AV for local bye-election). FPTP for Scottish Parliament constituencies. Lists for Scottish Parliament regional posts. FPTP for Westminster elections. List for European Parliament elections. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jul 29, 2018 19:30:06 GMT
With the exception of the local elections you vote with one X per ballot though so it’s not that complicated.
(Slight exception for 2007 when two ballots were on one sheet of paper)
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 29, 2018 19:58:45 GMT
The change to a single ballot was only part of the problem. The introduction of STV for the simultaneous local elections also contributed as voters had to vote preferentially on one ballot and with crosses on the other, which of course led to Scottish locals being pushed back a year to avoid clashing with Holyrood again. It doesn’t help that in Scotland we have different voting systems for every level of election. STV for local elections (with AV for local bye-election). FPTP for Scottish Parliament constituencies. Lists for Scottish Parliament regional posts. FPTP for Westminster elections. List for European Parliament elections. And one of the lesser benefits of Brexit is that it gets a bit less confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 22, 2018 11:38:56 GMT
|
|
zoe
Conservative
Posts: 637
|
Post by zoe on Aug 22, 2018 15:15:14 GMT
Ah yes, I remember that well. The suggestion to change from two separate ballot papers came from Labour. The expected consequence was to minimise the effect of the "Second Vote Green" strategy, so the other 3 main parties (the LDs were a main party in Scotland then) readily agreed. Of course it backfired on Labour. The highest proportions of spoilt papers were in Labour-voting areas and it enabled the SNP to capitalise by calling themselves "Alex Salmond's SNP" thus appearing at the top of the ballot paper in most areas. The change to a single ballot was only part of the problem. The introduction of STV for the simultaneous local elections also contributed as voters had to vote preferentially on one ballot and with crosses on the other, which of course led to Scottish locals being pushed back a year to avoid clashing with Holyrood again. Randomise positions on a ballot paper would be fairer😁 |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 22, 2018 20:08:43 GMT
You'd have thought the CPS would have a file by now. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Sept 18, 2018 11:50:09 GMT
Bloody hell, making is a bit more serious than being in possession of.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 18, 2018 12:02:28 GMT
The way the law is written, downloading an image from the internet is considered "making" as you are creating a copy of it. So essentially everyone is charged with "making".
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Sept 18, 2018 12:09:19 GMT
The way the law is written, downloading an image from the internet is considered "making" as you are creating a copy of it. So essentially everyone is charged with "making". Ah I see. I did not know that. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,712
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 20, 2018 21:00:09 GMT
Yes..and no. There is a difference between downloading an image for personal use and for redistribution; whilst they are both categorised as 'creating/making', they are not such an issue unless the material is serious. If it is, and you are likely to redistribute, that is when you will be charged with making. The CPS are not interested in laying charges of creating images without gopd grounds.
This sounds bad for Simon Thomas.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 20, 2018 21:29:20 GMT
Could we please move this from the "Parliamentary By-Elections" thread to the "General Politics" thread? There CANNOT be a by-election in Mid and West Wales because a) Helen Mary Jones is the new regional AM and b) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REGIONAL LIST BY-ELECTION!
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Oct 3, 2018 10:36:31 GMT
|
|
