|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 13, 2021 9:42:40 GMT
Electoral politics is not like retailing or service industries where the object is to serve the customer's individual needs and every specific preference. It's about a single government for the whole nation. The system should not act to encourage people to split into small electoral blocks - it should do everything it can to discourage and prevent that sort of thing happening.
I take it you would prefer a 1 party state to this?
That's how I read your underlying preference if not ethos.
I hope it is not so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 9:43:29 GMT
I think the point is the existing system doesn't prevent frivolous candidates, anyone who wants to stand can get 10 signatures without too much difficulty. It is the deposit that is more of a disincentive to stand for smaller parties than the signature requirement. And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits.
Out of interest, what would the £500 deposit as introduced in the 80s be in 2021 if corrected for inflation?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 13, 2021 9:46:05 GMT
Electoral politics is not like retailing or service industries where the object is to serve the customer's individual needs and every specific preference. It's about a single government for the whole nation. The system should not act to encourage people to split into small electoral blocks - it should do everything it can to discourage and prevent that sort of thing happening. The UK system has never been abut electing a single government for the whole nation. As far as the system is concerned Westminster elections have always been about electing a representative for your constituency. Forming a government has only ever been an incidental consequence, regardless of how some candidates or electors have treated it.
In order to achieve your goal we would need a directly elected head of government. Ideally elected under a preferential or multi-round system.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 13, 2021 9:46:37 GMT
And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits.
Out of interest, what would the £500 deposit as introduced in the 80s be in 2021 if corrected for inflation?
£500 in 1986
£1,498.32 in 2020
Inflation averaged 3.3% a year.
From Bank of England Calculator
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 13, 2021 11:22:27 GMT
I think the point is the existing system doesn't prevent frivolous candidates, anyone who wants to stand can get 10 signatures without too much difficulty. It is the deposit that is more of a disincentive to stand for smaller parties than the signature requirement. And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits.
I would prefer to make entry easier but the consequences for low support much heavier. So just one nominee and one assentor. A fee of £50 cash not returnable. But a deposited bond for a more substantial sum to await the result of polling. At achieved 20% or more of the votes the bond is returned. Then a sliding scale of 'penalty' for failure to garner votes. In GE terms I would make the bond £10,000. 20% of the vote or better and bond returned. But for every rounded up 1% below 20% the candidate/party pays £500. As an example, the achievement of 7% of the votes would cost £6,500. (That is 20% less 7% achieved = 13% x £500 = £6,500) Having a Bond removes the need for to find a lot of cash up front for the parties. One only needs to pay if one stands and repeatedly gets a small return showing that the candidature was either pointless, frivolous or grandstanding, and those practices should carry a penalty charge to account for the irritation, the long ballot paper and the confusion to the main event of electing an actual representative. And the ballot to show the full name of the candidate. Not the nick name, the assumed name, the preferred name or the shortened name. If you don't like your given names from birth then go through the legal process of alteration of it, but I calendar year + one day (minimum) before any election.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 13, 2021 11:56:18 GMT
And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits. I think it probably does a bit. The number of candidates for the OMRLP in a general election would probably be substantially more if the deposit was £100, and substantially fewer if it were £1,000. The number of candidates in general elections generally went down substantially in 1987 (after the deposit was raised from £150 to £500), and has been gradually ratcheting up since then.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 13, 2021 12:01:26 GMT
And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits.
I would prefer to make entry easier but the consequences for low support much heavier. So just one nominee and one assentor. A fee of £50 cash not returnable. But a deposited bond for a more substantial sum to await the result of polling. At achieved 20% or more of the votes the bond is returned. Then a sliding scale of 'penalty' for failure to garner votes. In GE terms I would make the bond £10,000. 20% of the vote or better and bond returned. But for every rounded up 1% below 20% the candidate/party pays £500. As an example, the achievement of 7% of the votes would cost £6,500. (That is 20% less 7% achieved = 13% x £500 = £6,500) Having a Bond removes the need for to find a lot of cash up front for the parties. One only needs to pay if one stands and repeatedly gets a small return showing that the candidature was either pointless, frivolous or grandstanding, and those practices should carry a penalty charge to account for the irritation, the long ballot paper and the confusion to the main event of electing an actual representative. And the ballot to show the full name of the candidate. Not the nick name, the assumed name, the preferred name or the shortened name. If you don't like your given names from birth then go through the legal process of alteration of it, but I calendar year + one day (minimum) before any election. You need at least six or seven candidates in order to cause irritation, long ballot papers, or confusion for anything other than a minuscule proportion of the electorate. If you want a penalty for actually causing those things then 20% seems far too high a threshold.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 13, 2021 14:20:27 GMT
I would prefer to make entry easier but the consequences for low support much heavier. So just one nominee and one assentor. A fee of £50 cash not returnable. But a deposited bond for a more substantial sum to await the result of polling. At achieved 20% or more of the votes the bond is returned. Then a sliding scale of 'penalty' for failure to garner votes. In GE terms I would make the bond £10,000. 20% of the vote or better and bond returned. But for every rounded up 1% below 20% the candidate/party pays £500. As an example, the achievement of 7% of the votes would cost £6,500. (That is 20% less 7% achieved = 13% x £500 = £6,500) Having a Bond removes the need for to find a lot of cash up front for the parties. One only needs to pay if one stands and repeatedly gets a small return showing that the candidature was either pointless, frivolous or grandstanding, and those practices should carry a penalty charge to account for the irritation, the long ballot paper and the confusion to the main event of electing an actual representative. And the ballot to show the full name of the candidate. Not the nick name, the assumed name, the preferred name or the shortened name. If you don't like your given names from birth then go through the legal process of alteration of it, but I calendar year + one day (minimum) before any election. You need at least six or seven candidates in order to cause irritation, long ballot papers, or confusion for anything other than a minuscule proportion of the electorate. If you want a penalty for actually causing those things then 20% seems far too high a threshold. If the candidate cannot expect even one fifth of those turning out to vote, then they are by nature not serious contenders, but standing for 'other reasons'. Those other reasons may be valid, reasonable and useful to them, but should come at a price as they are using a system designed to produce an actual reprsentative. The bottom end of the ballot should be priced out, as it serves no purpose other than frivolity, vanity or party machinations. Those should be paid for or resisted by financial penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 13, 2021 14:36:38 GMT
You need at least six or seven candidates in order to cause irritation, long ballot papers, or confusion for anything other than a minuscule proportion of the electorate. If you want a penalty for actually causing those things then 20% seems far too high a threshold. If the candidate cannot expect even one fifth of those turning out to vote, then they are by nature not serious contenders, but standing for 'other reasons'. Those other reasons may be valid, reasonable and useful to them, but should come at a price as they are using a system designed to produce an actual reprsentative. The bottom end of the ballot should be priced out, as it serves no purpose other than frivolity, vanity or party machinations. Those should be paid for or resisted by financial penalty. Can't agree with such a penalty as it may prevent someone from standing who could be a future elected representative after building up support through standing over multiple elections.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 13, 2021 15:17:28 GMT
If the candidate cannot expect even one fifth of those turning out to vote, then they are by nature not serious contenders, but standing for 'other reasons'. Those other reasons may be valid, reasonable and useful to them, but should come at a price as they are using a system designed to produce an actual reprsentative. The bottom end of the ballot should be priced out, as it serves no purpose other than frivolity, vanity or party machinations. Those should be paid for or resisted by financial penalty. Can't agree with such a penalty as it may prevent someone from standing who could be a future elected representative after building up support through standing over multiple elections. Yes. Occasionally it might. I would regard that to be an advantage not a detriment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 15:24:20 GMT
You need at least six or seven candidates in order to cause irritation, long ballot papers, or confusion for anything other than a minuscule proportion of the electorate. If you want a penalty for actually causing those things then 20% seems far too high a threshold. If the candidate cannot expect even one fifth of those turning out to vote, then they are by nature not serious contenders, but standing for 'other reasons'. Those other reasons may be valid, reasonable and useful to them, but should come at a price as they are using a system designed to produce an actual reprsentative. The bottom end of the ballot should be priced out, as it serves no purpose other than frivolity, vanity or party machinations. Those should be paid for or resisted by financial penalty. I don't agree and I'll use Brexit and lockdown as reasons. Prior to a real and, as we know, successful Brexit movement, minor and niche groups from an anti-EU perspective stood for election. Under your proposal, many of those initial green shoots of Euroscepticism would have been excluded from standing. A recent group from this year, Freedom Alliance, are barely getting handfuls of votes. They are speaking for the sceptics and the anti- movement, however tiny their results may be. Their opinion, legitimate as it is, would be excluded from the ballot. FPTP is a stupid voting system from start to finish. Pricing out candidates, on top of excluding voters who don't live in a handful of marginals, makes a mockery of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 13, 2021 15:59:24 GMT
If the candidate cannot expect even one fifth of those turning out to vote, then they are by nature not serious contenders, but standing for 'other reasons'. Those other reasons may be valid, reasonable and useful to them, but should come at a price as they are using a system designed to produce an actual reprsentative. The bottom end of the ballot should be priced out, as it serves no purpose other than frivolity, vanity or party machinations. Those should be paid for or resisted by financial penalty. I don't agree and I'll use Brexit and lockdown as reasons. Prior to a real and, as we know, successful Brexit movement, minor and niche groups from an anti-EU perspective stood for election. Under your proposal, many of those initial green shoots of Euroscepticism would have been excluded from standing. A recent group from this year, Freedom Alliance, are barely getting handfuls of votes. They are speaking for the sceptics and the anti- movement, however tiny their results may be. Their opinion, legitimate as it is, would be excluded from the ballot. FPTP is a stupid voting system from start to finish. Pricing out candidates, on top of excluding voters who don't live in a handful of marginals, makes a mockery of democracy. I honestly don't think that it does make a mockery of democracy at all. If you can't win and know that you can't win you are using a system for selecting representatives for other purposes and ought to pay for it. To eradicate the vanity trip independents, single issue obsessives, OMLRP and minor party 'let's take a punt' by pricing them out is wholly sensible and useful. Brexit Party (and all the earlier versions), Green (Gobal Warming alarmists) and similar new movements (my Reclaim Party and the Reform UK) are all well funded and can afford to make their point even where support is weak; but it stops them cluttering up GEs with multiple candidates for no real point or purpose. I love FPTP as well and will not brook any change from it and seek return to it for all elections in Britain. We differ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 16:02:34 GMT
I don't agree and I'll use Brexit and lockdown as reasons. Prior to a real and, as we know, successful Brexit movement, minor and niche groups from an anti-EU perspective stood for election. Under your proposal, many of those initial green shoots of Euroscepticism would have been excluded from standing. A recent group from this year, Freedom Alliance, are barely getting handfuls of votes. They are speaking for the sceptics and the anti- movement, however tiny their results may be. Their opinion, legitimate as it is, would be excluded from the ballot. FPTP is a stupid voting system from start to finish. Pricing out candidates, on top of excluding voters who don't live in a handful of marginals, makes a mockery of democracy. I honestly don't think that it does make a mockery of democracy at all. If you can't win and know that you can't win you are using a system for selecting representatives for other purposes and ought to pay for it. To eradicate the vanity trip independents, single issue obsessives, OMLRP and minor party 'let's take a punt' by pricing them out is wholly sensible and useful. Brexit Party (and all the earlier versions), Green (Gobal Warming alarmists) and similar new movements (my Reclaim Party and the Reform UK) are all well funded and can afford to make their point even where support is weak; but it stops them cluttering up GEs with multiple candidates for no real point or purpose. I love FPTP as well and will not brook any change from it and seek return to it for all elections in Britain. We differ. We do differ, and that's okay .
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 15, 2021 16:35:26 GMT
I don't agree and I'll use Brexit and lockdown as reasons. Prior to a real and, as we know, successful Brexit movement, minor and niche groups from an anti-EU perspective stood for election. Under your proposal, many of those initial green shoots of Euroscepticism would have been excluded from standing. A recent group from this year, Freedom Alliance, are barely getting handfuls of votes. They are speaking for the sceptics and the anti- movement, however tiny their results may be. Their opinion, legitimate as it is, would be excluded from the ballot. FPTP is a stupid voting system from start to finish. Pricing out candidates, on top of excluding voters who don't live in a handful of marginals, makes a mockery of democracy. I honestly don't think that it does make a mockery of democracy at all. If you can't win and know that you can't win you are using a system for selecting representatives for other purposes and ought to pay for it. To eradicate the vanity trip independents, single issue obsessives, OMLRP and minor party 'let's take a punt' by pricing them out is wholly sensible and useful. Brexit Party (and all the earlier versions), Green (Gobal Warming alarmists) and similar new movements (my Reclaim Party and the Reform UK) are all well funded and can afford to make their point even where support is weak; but it stops them cluttering up GEs with multiple candidates for no real point or purpose. I love FPTP as well and will not brook any change from it and seek return to it for all elections in Britain. We differ. One of the valuable features of FPTP is the ability of Party Z to get 1,000 votes, thereby splitting votes away from Party B and causing Party B to be defeated by Party A. In that sense it is more valuable and meaningful than AV elections. Perhaps the most significant and powerful moment of my political career was when (with a vaguely centre-left manifesto) I got 193 votes, and the incumbent Labour MP was defeated by a margin of 75 votes. I remember one time when I was 15 I was sitting in class in a German lesson when I suddenly became aware of a large, sharp and painful boil on my left buttock. I had to sit balanced on my other buttock for the rest of the day until the evening when I had the opportunity to prick it out. A minor party in a FPTP election is just as powerful: a boil on the buttock of the main party, to send that party a reasomn as to why the voters don't want to vote for party A or B.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 15, 2021 16:43:26 GMT
I honestly don't think that it does make a mockery of democracy at all. If you can't win and know that you can't win you are using a system for selecting representatives for other purposes and ought to pay for it. To eradicate the vanity trip independents, single issue obsessives, OMLRP and minor party 'let's take a punt' by pricing them out is wholly sensible and useful. Brexit Party (and all the earlier versions), Green (Gobal Warming alarmists) and similar new movements (my Reclaim Party and the Reform UK) are all well funded and can afford to make their point even where support is weak; but it stops them cluttering up GEs with multiple candidates for no real point or purpose. I love FPTP as well and will not brook any change from it and seek return to it for all elections in Britain. We differ. One of the valuable features of FPTP is the ability of Party Z to get 1,000 votes, thereby splitting votes away from Party B and causing Party B to be defeated by Party A. In that sense it is more valuable and meaningful than AV elections. Perhaps the most significant and powerful moment of my political career was when (with a vaguely centre-left manifesto) I got 193 votes, and the incumbent Labour MP was defeated by a margin of 75 votes. I remember one time when I was 15 I was sitting in class in a German lesson when I suddenly became aware of a large, sharp and painful boil on my left buttock. I had to sit balanced on my other buttock for the rest of the day until the evening when I had the opportunity to prick it out. A minor party in a FPTP election is just as powerful: a boil on the buttock of the main party, to send that party a reasomn as to why the voters don't want to vote for party A or B. As George Galloway showed recently in Batley, its also possible to be a boil on both cheeks of the same arse
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 16, 2021 10:05:18 GMT
I honestly don't think that it does make a mockery of democracy at all. If you can't win and know that you can't win you are using a system for selecting representatives for other purposes and ought to pay for it. To eradicate the vanity trip independents, single issue obsessives, OMLRP and minor party 'let's take a punt' by pricing them out is wholly sensible and useful. Brexit Party (and all the earlier versions), Green (Gobal Warming alarmists) and similar new movements (my Reclaim Party and the Reform UK) are all well funded and can afford to make their point even where support is weak; but it stops them cluttering up GEs with multiple candidates for no real point or purpose. I love FPTP as well and will not brook any change from it and seek return to it for all elections in Britain. We differ. One of the valuable features of FPTP is the ability of Party Z to get 1,000 votes, thereby splitting votes away from Party B and causing Party B to be defeated by Party A. In that sense it is more valuable and meaningful than AV elections. Perhaps the most significant and powerful moment of my political career was when (with a vaguely centre-left manifesto) I got 193 votes, and the incumbent Labour MP was defeated by a margin of 75 votes. I remember one time when I was 15 I was sitting in class in a German lesson when I suddenly became aware of a large, sharp and painful boil on my left buttock. I had to sit balanced on my other buttock for the rest of the day until the evening when I had the opportunity to prick it out. A minor party in a FPTP election is just as powerful: a boil on the buttock of the main party, to send that party a reasomn as to why the voters don't want to vote for party A or B. Wonderfully phrased, well expressed and entertaining. But I disagree with it entirely.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 28, 2021 15:46:15 GMT
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 28, 2021 15:47:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Sept 9, 2021 14:38:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Mar 24, 2022 12:56:21 GMT
The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 has received Royal Assent.
The FTPA is no more.
|
|