ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,331
|
Post by ricmk on Oct 1, 2022 15:57:59 GMT
Obviously the question at any referendum should be: “Should the UK remain with FPTP or change from FPTP?” And then if change wins, the winning side get to tell the country what they want to do, and that it’s what all change voters demanded in their vote. If we vote to "leave" FPTP, can we then have a "people's vote" and try again? Don’t be silly. Only an enemy of the people could ever suggest that. Why do you hate democracy so much? The will of the people is clear so no people’s vote is needed. The fact that 70% of the people who wanted change think my deal is rubbish is beside the point! Switching to serious mode, if you really wanted a 2-step process I’d look at what New Zealand did to ratify a proposed flag change. Lots of debate about change options which ended up with a referendum to pick a favoured ‘change’ option. Then a further debate and public vote with the winning change option against status quo. Might have bits wrong - haven’t checked if I remember right - but if you really want to lock in consent for a change then you could do a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by kevinf on Oct 1, 2022 16:46:05 GMT
Still looking for something about Parliamentary defections in this thread….
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,673
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 1, 2022 20:30:03 GMT
Obviously the question at any referendum should be: “Should the UK remain with FPTP or change from FPTP?” And then if change wins, the winning side get to tell the country what they want to do, and that it’s what all change voters demanded in their vote. Were that to happen a vote between two different systems could be offered - say AV and regular D'Hondt. No, it would have to be multiple rounds with multiple options to whittle them down. I'm not going to vote for electoral reform if STV isn't going to be an option, and certainly not to have some miserable little compromise forced on me.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 1, 2022 23:26:49 GMT
I dislike referendums on principle after 2014 and 2016 so not actually on principle. I dislike referendums on principle, and I said so in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 2, 2022 7:04:49 GMT
Were that to happen a vote between two different systems could be offered - say AV and regular D'Hondt. No, it would have to be multiple rounds with multiple options to whittle them down. I'm not going to vote for electoral reform if STV isn't going to be an option, and certainly not to have some miserable little compromise forced on me.
And I'm the reverse. I'd vote for D'Hondt, but will vote to keep FPTP if the alternative is STV or AV. Don't understand why a vote needs to be transferable in a system with proportionality. Perhaps let it be transferred if your party doesn't make the 2% nationwide threshold, but otherwise not.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by polupolu on Oct 2, 2022 7:33:52 GMT
No, it would have to be multiple rounds with multiple options to whittle them down. I'm not going to vote for electoral reform if STV isn't going to be an option, and certainly not to have some miserable little compromise forced on me.
And I'm the reverse. I'd vote for D'Hondt, but will vote to keep FPTP if the alternative is STV or AV. Don't understand why a vote needs to be transferable in a system with proportionality. Perhaps let it be transferred if your party doesn't make the 2% nationwide threshold, but otherwise not. Proportionality isn't the point of STV. Proprortionalty implies votes "belong" to one party or another. Transferability (or preferential voting if you are American) moves the choice from party machine to voter. Multi-member constituencies where a party may get more than one MP magnify that effect, as voters can show a preference between candidates of the same party.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Oct 2, 2022 7:43:43 GMT
Still looking for something about Parliamentary defections in this thread….
Sorry, they've defected from this thread.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 2, 2022 8:32:44 GMT
And I'm the reverse. I'd vote for D'Hondt, but will vote to keep FPTP if the alternative is STV or AV. Don't understand why a vote needs to be transferable in a system with proportionality. Perhaps let it be transferred if your party doesn't make the 2% nationwide threshold, but otherwise not. Proportionality isn't the point of STV. Proprortionalty implies votes "belong" to one party or another. Transferability (or preferential voting if you are American) moves the choice from party machine to voter. Multi-member constituencies where a party may get more than one MP magnify that effect, as voters can show a preference between candidates of the same party.
On the contrary, proportionality *is* the point of STV (The Electoral Reform Society was originally called the Proportional Representation Society). But the explanation for why STV needs to be transferable is precisely *because* it needs to be transferable in order to be proportional. It is an election between individual candidates, not parties. Therefore you need to be able to transfer votes from candidates who have more than they need (to other similar candidates), and from candidates who don’t have enough (to give others a chance). STV ensures proportionality according to whatever criteria are chosen by the voters (whereas List PR only allows proportionality according to party).
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 2, 2022 19:26:27 GMT
I don't see why people are so against referendums. Personally I like them. There are many reasons to oppose them, none of which look particularly good up close.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,206
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Oct 2, 2022 19:49:03 GMT
Proportionality isn't the point of STV. Proprortionalty implies votes "belong" to one party or another. Transferability (or preferential voting if you are American) moves the choice from party machine to voter. Multi-member constituencies where a party may get more than one MP magnify that effect, as voters can show a preference between candidates of the same party.
On the contrary, proportionality *is* the point of STV (The Electoral Reform Society was originally called the Proportional Representation Society). But the explanation for why STV needs to be transferable is precisely *because* it needs to be transferable in order to be proportional. It is an election between individual candidates, not parties. Therefore you need to be able to transfer votes from candidates who have more than they need (to other similar candidates), and from candidates who don’t have enough (to give others a chance). STV ensures proportionality according to whatever criteria are chosen by the voters (whereas List PR only allows proportionality according to party). I'm prepared to back STV over more strictly proportional systems because (a) it leaves the final outcome in the hands of the voters (parties can recommend an order of preference but voters can ignore it), (b) it doesn't shut independents out as list systems almost inevitably do, and (c) it still delivers a much more proportional outcome than FPTP. (d) It retains a constituency link between MPs and constituency, albeit not on a 1:1 basis. This could be a good thing; if you really have a problem with your single constituency MP, you're stuffed; in a multi-member seat you have a choice. Any electoral system is a compromise of some kind, and FPTP is no less a compromise than any other system. The question is which compromise is least worst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2022 20:35:27 GMT
No voting system is perfect.
FPTP has created a monster, we know that. Safe seats have become impossible for rival parties to gain, or even be competitive in. Parties can get `too good' overall results from terrible national vote share. It's clear and obvious and easy to understand, though it's also lacking in proportionality, it centres votes which matters to a tiny disproportionate clump of seats, and allows parties to ignore great swathes of the country because victory is guaranteed.
David Boothroyd once asked on here why parliament needs to be proportional. I have always believed it must be because we've hundreds of years of evidence of the damage done to politics by the entrenched polarisation of binary voting. We're a complex country with various political views. The Commons needs to reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 2, 2022 20:49:58 GMT
On the contrary, proportionality *is* the point of STV (The Electoral Reform Society was originally called the Proportional Representation Society). But the explanation for why STV needs to be transferable is precisely *because* it needs to be transferable in order to be proportional. It is an election between individual candidates, not parties. Therefore you need to be able to transfer votes from candidates who have more than they need (to other similar candidates), and from candidates who don’t have enough (to give others a chance). STV ensures proportionality according to whatever criteria are chosen by the voters (whereas List PR only allows proportionality according to party). I'm prepared to back STV over more strictly proportional systems because (a) it leaves the final outcome in the hands of the voters (parties can recommend an order of preference but voters can ignore it), (b) it doesn't shut independents out as list systems almost inevitably do, and (c) it still delivers a much more proportional outcome than FPTP. (d) It retains a constituency link between MPs and constituency, albeit not on a 1:1 basis. This could be a good thing; if you really have a problem with your single constituency MP, you're stuffed; in a multi-member seat you have a choice. Any electoral system is a compromise of some kind, and FPTP is no less a compromise than any other system. The question is which compromise is least worst. Let's be honest. Lib Dems mostly like STV because they'd do better than under a straight PR. The same reason tories and labour like FPTP. The only real problem with PR is that coalition making is very much taking government formation out of the hands of the voter. I'd like to solve this problem by getting parties to commit in a binding declaration to either being available for joining a right of centre block, a left of centre block, grand coalitions, any combination of the above, or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Oct 2, 2022 21:36:08 GMT
Or even "electoral reform - yes or no?" (isn't that basically what New Zealand did) Maybe the referendum should just have been ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without actually specifying the question, then all the politicians could spend years afterwards arguing about what the referendum result meant?
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,251
|
Post by peterl on Oct 2, 2022 22:38:56 GMT
I don't see why people are so against referendums. Personally I like them. There are many reasons to oppose them, none of which look particularly good up close. The most convincing argument is that they undermine representative democracy. Not really seeing a downside there. Surely the strongest argument against referenda is that giving people a binary choice to support "A" or "B" turns half the population against the other half, ala Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 2, 2022 22:53:56 GMT
The most convincing argument is that they undermine representative democracy. Not really seeing a downside there. Surely the strongest argument against referenda is that giving people a binary choice to support "A" or "B" turns half the population against the other half, ala Brexit. And that doesn't happen at general elections? Most Referendar Are nowhere near as divisive as brexit.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,251
|
Post by peterl on Oct 2, 2022 22:58:47 GMT
Not really seeing a downside there. Surely the strongest argument against referenda is that giving people a binary choice to support "A" or "B" turns half the population against the other half, ala Brexit. And that doesn't happen at general elections? Not so much, since there are not literally two options. Everyone has a minimum of three choices, sometimes more. In addition, you are voting on a variety of factors, different policies, personalities, candidate's experience etc. This makes most voting options easy to justify, whereas binary votes inherently divide opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 3, 2022 6:53:26 GMT
Not really seeing a downside there. Surely the strongest argument against referenda is that giving people a binary choice to support "A" or "B" turns half the population against the other half, ala Brexit. And that doesn't happen at general elections? Most Referendar Are nowhere near as divisive as brexit. the Scottish independence referendum was incredibly divisive
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 3, 2022 7:03:20 GMT
And that doesn't happen at general elections? Most Referendar Are nowhere near as divisive as brexit. the Scottish independence referendum was incredibly divisive That's true. But sometimes divisive questions need answering.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Oct 3, 2022 8:13:18 GMT
I don't see why people are so against referendums. Personally I like them. There are many reasons to oppose them, none of which look particularly good up close. The most convincing argument is that they undermine representative democracy.
Agreed they undermine our representative democracy in the UK. We are a parliamentary democracy, which referendums cut across. They especially undermine parliamentary democracy because politicians use them as an cop out to making the hard decisions themselves.
If referendums are an integrated part of the democratic system, then they can work. In the UK they aren't so it's best not to have them ever.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 3, 2022 9:02:49 GMT
The most convincing argument is that they undermine representative democracy.
Agreed they undermine our representative democracy in the UK. We are a parliamentary democracy, which referendums cut across. They especially undermine parliamentary democracy because politicians use them as an cop out to making the hard decisions themselves.
If referendums are an integrated part of the democratic system, then they can work. In the UK they aren't so it's best not to have them ever. Its not feasible in a modern democracy to not have referendums on constitutional issues. Its clear that politicians at the very least should not be making decisions on their own pay (too low to the countries detriment), the way they are elected and the like.
|
|