|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 5, 2019 13:20:05 GMT
Overhangs wouldn't work so easily with a regional system though - you'd need at least some element in the list system to cover the whole parliament in one go. Whether that's replacing regional lists with a single one or adding a national list on top is the question, though I'm not sure the word "simply" would belong in there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 14:17:32 GMT
Overhangs wouldn't work so easily with a regional system though - you'd need at least some element in the list system to cover the whole parliament in one go. Whether that's replacing regional lists with a single one or adding a national list on top is the question, though I'm not sure the word "simply" would belong in there. When I experimented with a similar system for Westminster, I had both regional and national lists. I even tried it with a third list in multi-ember constituencies at roughly county level, but that was too complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 5, 2019 15:01:57 GMT
In AMS, the two votes should be called the constituency vote and the list vote, not the first vote and the second vote. When I was younger, and when I used to invent electoral systems, I tended to assume that all voters understood fully, and would be capable of voting tactically to the most effective level, to make sure that their votes or votes would be used most efficiently. For example, in an additional member system which has multiple layers of local lists, regional lists and a national top up list, the voter would be able to decide which party to vote for at each level based on their knowledge of the likely effective thresholds and likely share of the vote for each party. However, as I got older, I gradually realised that this is not realistic. I think that if I supported AMS now, then I would want there to be only one vote in the constituency, and that all the constituency votes should be added up to provide the totals for the additional top up allocation of seats. Having a statutory requirement that parties should be forced to nominate multiple candidates, either under STV, or under an open list system, is nincompoopismatic and totalitarian . A lot of small parties would struggle to find more than one candidate in the relevant area. When I was a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years, I was more dogmatic than I am now about supporting STV rather than anything else. If we had PR now, I would be open to virtually any type of PR, and I would want it to be simple enough to accommodate the stupidity of ordinary voters. I wouldn't mind having a closed list system, with small (STV sized) constituencies. Given that all the serious Parties manage to stand candidates in virtually every seat, and there would not be any more MPs or councillors than now, i dont see any problem finding more than one candidate in a ward or constituency where 5 or 6 are being elected. There are of course some local government deserts for the Lib Dems and Greens and no doubt those would continue. The point is that voters should have a choice between people within their Party (and other Parties), not just their favoured Party vs the others. No one would be prevented from standing. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 5, 2019 15:18:34 GMT
In AMS, the two votes should be called the constituency vote and the list vote, not the first vote and the second vote. When I was younger, and when I used to invent electoral systems, I tended to assume that all voters understood fully, and would be capable of voting tactically to the most effective level, to make sure that their votes or votes would be used most efficiently. For example, in an additional member system which has multiple layers of local lists, regional lists and a national top up list, the voter would be able to decide which party to vote for at each level based on their knowledge of the likely effective thresholds and likely share of the vote for each party. However, as I got older, I gradually realised that this is not realistic. I think that if I supported AMS now, then I would want there to be only one vote in the constituency, and that all the constituency votes should be added up to provide the totals for the additional top up allocation of seats. Having a statutory requirement that parties should be forced to nominate multiple candidates, either under STV, or under an open list system, is nincompoopismatic and totalitarian . A lot of small parties would struggle to find more than one candidate in the relevant area. When I was a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years, I was more dogmatic than I am now about supporting STV rather than anything else. If we had PR now, I would be open to virtually any type of PR, and I would want it to be simple enough to accommodate the stupidity of ordinary voters. I wouldn't mind having a closed list system, with small (STV sized) constituencies. I think a named list candidate for a constituency and a second national closed list where you vote only for a party might work. However a purely proportional top up could also work to ensure as much proportionality as possible. I would have this as national and closed. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,781 
|
Post by john07 on Aug 5, 2019 15:23:01 GMT
One idea was floated in the 1970’s, I think by Michael Steed was a regional list system where voters opted for a particular candidate from their chosen list.
The allocation of seats between parties would be determined by the votes for the list. The ranking of the candidates from each list would be sorted by the number of votes each one received.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2019 16:08:21 GMT
One idea was floated in the 1970’s, I think by Michael Steed was a regional list system where voters opted for a particular candidate from their chosen list. The allocation of seats between parties would be determined by the votes for the list. The ranking of the candidates from each list would be sorted by the number of votes each one received. This is pretty much the system used in Finland. There's a lot to be said for it |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,008
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 5, 2019 16:38:36 GMT
One idea was floated in the 1970’s, I think by Michael Steed was a regional list system where voters opted for a particular candidate from their chosen list. The allocation of seats between parties would be determined by the votes for the list. The ranking of the candidates from each list would be sorted by the number of votes each one received. This is pretty much the system used in Finland. There's a lot to be said for it Commonly known as open list system. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,367
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 5, 2019 17:42:11 GMT
One idea was floated in the 1970’s, I think by Michael Steed was a regional list system where voters opted for a particular candidate from their chosen list. The allocation of seats between parties would be determined by the votes for the list. The ranking of the candidates from each list would be sorted by the number of votes each one received. This is pretty much the system used in Finland. There's a lot to be said for it Would cause absolute scenes in the two main parties. Just based on the name recognition. Could see people with cult followings like Rees-Mogg or Corbyn getting into the millions of votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2019 17:44:25 GMT
You wouldn't have a single national list
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 5, 2019 18:16:42 GMT
This is pretty much the system used in Finland. There's a lot to be said for it Commonly known as open list system. But just like STV, it would only be as "open" as the parties choose to make it. Most parties would just field as many candidates as they thought would get in, plus maybe one for luck. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Aug 5, 2019 18:50:20 GMT
The scheme proposed by the late Phil Gallie had some merits (simplicity, personal representation). The three island constituencies (Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland) would return single members. The mainland constituencies (mirroring the Westminster boundaries) would return two members but the elector would cast a single vote. The remaining 12 seats would be awarded to the party that topped the constituency round. A few simulations:-
2005 LAB 60, LD 27, SNP 25 and CON 17
2015 SNP 70, LAB 41, LD 10 and CON 8
2017 SNP 70, LAB 31, CON 22 and LD 6.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,900
|
Post by Tony Otim on Aug 5, 2019 19:30:34 GMT
The scheme proposed by the late Phil Gallie had some merits (simplicity, personal representation). The three island constituencies (Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland) would return single members. The mainland constituencies (mirroring the Westminster boundaries) would return two members but the elector would cast a single vote. The remaining 12 seats would be awarded to the party that topped the constituency round. A few simulations:- 2005 LAB 60, LD 27, SNP 25 and CON 17 2015 SNP 70, LAB 41, LD 10 and CON 8 2017 SNP 70, LAB 31, CON 22 and LD 6. I can't see a single thing to recommend that. It's basically FPTP with the horrendous winner's bonus imported from Greece. No thanks. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301
|
Post by maxque on Aug 6, 2019 1:44:57 GMT
Commonly known as open list system. But just like STV, it would only be as "open" as the parties choose to make it. Most parties would just field as many candidates as they thought would get in, plus maybe one for luck. Well, most of those requires you to submit a full list and/or take the next on list rather than having a by-election. |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on Aug 7, 2019 15:06:37 GMT
SNP signs littering, and I mean littering lampposts around north Lerwick (around the Ferry termimal).
Nothing else. Apart from someone still keeps scrubbing out the Scottish thistle on the brown tourist signs on the road to Toft.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on Aug 8, 2019 9:53:28 GMT
The SNP caravan has visited Yell and is on Unst today. They drove past me in formation as I was walking back from the post office.
I look forward to a knock on the door this afternoon.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on Aug 10, 2019 19:45:24 GMT
Hmmmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 10, 2019 20:59:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 10, 2019 21:38:00 GMT
Sturgeon was here posing as a Viking, In what way? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 10, 2019 21:41:21 GMT
This probably explains non-driving for a significant number of us, just like why I never put myself in situations where I'm expected to catch balls, do co-ordinated dance routines or stay upright on roller skates. "To be able to steer a car, concentrate, judge distance, use both hands and feet together and remember how to carry out a sequence of tasks all at the same time is very daunting. It is hardly surprising that many of us who have dyspraxia decide that driving a car is beyond our capabilities." dyspraxiafoundation.org.uk/dyspraxia-adults/driving/I am poor at catching balls, useless at dance routines and terrible on roller skates. After a little initial confusion ... "No, Mr Griffiths. Steer right to avoid those trees" ... I found the co-ordination to operate a car fairly easy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 12, 2019 8:55:15 GMT
This probably explains non-driving for a significant number of us, just like why I never put myself in situations where I'm expected to catch balls, do co-ordinated dance routines or stay upright on roller skates. "To be able to steer a car, concentrate, judge distance, use both hands and feet together and remember how to carry out a sequence of tasks all at the same time is very daunting. It is hardly surprising that many of us who have dyspraxia decide that driving a car is beyond our capabilities." dyspraxiafoundation.org.uk/dyspraxia-adults/driving/I am poor at catching balls, useless at dance routines and terrible on roller skates. After a little initial confusion ... "No, Mr Griffiths. Steer right to avoid those trees" ... I found the co-ordination to operate a car fairly easy. Was the instructor Welsh though Gwyn? Maybe avoiding the trees was a second language processing speed issue? 😉 |
|
