|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 17, 2019 11:55:40 GMT
Surely the logical compromise would be to significantly raise the number of signatures and abolish the deposit in exchange?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 17, 2019 11:59:14 GMT
I don't see the need for any change personally, in general more people standing in elections is a good thing and its not like we have a flood of "frivolous" candidates now.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 17, 2019 13:29:48 GMT
Surely the logical compromise would be to significantly raise the number of signatures and abolish the deposit in exchange? Or have an alternative - you can either collect a few hundred signatures, or pay a much higher deposit. Either way people would have to be more serious about standing. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 17, 2019 13:33:56 GMT
The problem we have is that political people have and continue to treat the public as thick cannon fodder, not people to be engaged with and persuaded. I know our media doesn't help. I applaud Powys, Shetland etc where they stick with Independents and can choose between 7 or 8 independents, people aren't stupid even if you want them to be.
You talk about the political system as being for and about parties, that is where the system is broken, democracy is about representing the people, representing parties only doesn't work it breaks democracy. The reports that Conservative candidates have had to sign a pledge to back Brexit is horrendous. Free speech is dead and dying in our parliament, the new speaker helping to kill it off too, by gagging back-benchers. 👽
I’ve been meaning to say this for a while, but please stop posting in tiny writing as it is difficult to read (and quite unnecessary). It is leaving me thoroughly alienated.... |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 17, 2019 13:38:32 GMT
The problem we have is that political people have and continue to treat the public as thick cannon fodder, not people to be engaged with and persuaded. I know our media doesn't help. I applaud Powys, Shetland etc where they stick with Independents and can choose between 7 or 8 independents, people aren't stupid even if you want them to be.
You talk about the political system as being for and about parties, that is where the system is broken, democracy is about representing the people, representing parties only doesn't work it breaks democracy. The reports that Conservative candidates have had to sign a pledge to back Brexit is horrendous. Free speech is dead and dying in our parliament, the new speaker helping to kill it off too, by gagging back-benchers. 👽
I’ve been meaning to say this for a while, but please stop posting in tiny writing as it is difficult to read (and quite unnecessary). It is leaving me thoroughly alienated.... Their text seems no smaller than any other posters to me?  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 17, 2019 13:39:39 GMT
Not rigging the system at all. If an Independent has at least 0.1% support in the constituency, s/he can stand just like anyone else. If s/he doesn't have 0.1% support, what's the point of her/his candidacy? Organisationally it favours parties, rather than independents. As an independent, the first time you stand you may not be known, but by the fifth, that's another matter, you might have a chance.
Lets go back to the 19th Century and introduce these rules on percentages and deposits, that would kibosh new parties like Labour, a really good idea!?!? Now Labour are establishment its different! It ever was thus. 👽
For the millionth time can I propose a sliding scale deposit? £1,000 deposit. You get £100 back for every 1% of the vote. 0.1% - you forfeit £990 9.8% - you forfeit £20 Sorted! [Figures for deposit and threshold are illustrative.] |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2019 13:47:04 GMT
The problem we have is that political people have and continue to treat the public as thick cannon fodder, not people to be engaged with and persuaded. I know our media doesn't help. I applaud Powys, Shetland etc where they stick with Independents and can choose between 7 or 8 independents, people aren't stupid even if you want them to be. You talk about the political system as being for and about parties, that is where the system is broken, democracy is about representing the people, representing parties only doesn't work it breaks democracy. No, you have it the wrong way round. Political parties exist because they give the voters a genuine choice which they would not have in elections conducted between independent candidates. Voters want to know whether their representative will support expanding the services of the state or will seek to restrict the state and leave it to individuals to fend for themselves. Whether they will favour leaving the European Union or remaining in it. Whether they will support socially progressive changes or seek to hold them back. And so on. With a single representative for 75,000 voters it's not possible for everyone, or indeed anyone, to have an MP voting exactly the way they want so they have to band together. Trying to find out from multiple Independent candidates where they stand on issues and then work out which of them has a plausible chance of winning would be beyond almost every voter. The party allegiance tells you that almost straight off. That's why a party system is in the interests of the electors. Your reading of the new Speaker is way off, incidentally. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 17, 2019 13:50:51 GMT
I can't think of a single reason that doesn't boil down to giving a partisan advantage to the parties/candidates who are best placed to meet whatever additional roadblock you wish to add. Seats with an extremely large number of candidates are extremely rare, whilst there are pretty much always some constituencies where at least one party with national support doesn't manage to put up a candidate. We don't need to make our political system look more like the American one.
Several good reasons. 1) Given the electoral system doesn't allow for transfer of votes from candidates, the presence or absence of candidates on the ballot paper can profoundly affect the result - see the recent argument about Brexit Party candidates. Which boils down to wanting to provide a partisan advantage to the candidates you perceive to be spoilers, over those you consider not to be spoilers. And, in any case, the most effective way to remove the spoiler effect is to switch to a proportional electoral system. Which is, again, an argument based in wanting to provide a partisan advantage to the candidates you perceive to be legitimately in with a chance of winning. Most people in this country are nowhere near rich enough to consider £500 to be a token sum. And, again, this argument boils down to wanting to provide partisan advantage to the parties/candidates you perceive to provide electoral legitimacy. Long ballot papers are rare. Ballot papers with similarly named candidates are even rarer. Yes, you've found an argument that isn't about partisan advantage, but it's an entirely spurious one. I don't see how this even constitutes an argument. People and parties put themselves up for election, and the electorate then decide whether to back them or not. Introducing artificial measures to reduce their options is contrary to the basic principles of democracy. If we start going down that road, then we've got a very good chance of ending up with a non-functional democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 17, 2019 13:52:39 GMT
I don't see the need for any change personally, in general more people standing in elections is a good thing and its not like we have a flood of "frivolous" candidates now. Yes, I find the fact that only 3 candidates are standing in a constituency like Cannock Chase a bit dispiriting. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 17, 2019 14:01:28 GMT
I’ve been meaning to say this for a while, but please stop posting in tiny writing as it is difficult to read (and quite unnecessary). It is leaving me thoroughly alienated.... Their text seems no smaller than any other posters to me? It isn't - it's just the default.
Forumites can increase the size of the font of their own posts, if they wish. *
*However, I don't want to encourage people to go up to a point size of twenty, just to prove that they are really,really right. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2019 14:06:46 GMT
Several good reasons. 1) Given the electoral system doesn't allow for transfer of votes from candidates, the presence or absence of candidates on the ballot paper can profoundly affect the result - see the recent argument about Brexit Party candidates. Which boils down to wanting to provide a partisan advantage to the candidates you perceive to be spoilers, over those you consider not to be spoilers. And, in any case, the most effective way to remove the spoiler effect is to switch to a proportional electoral system. It is the views of voters across a constituency that gives the partisan advantage. No use blaming me for that. And it's no use saying there should be a proportional system: that is a different debate and you can't just go sidetracking this one. STFU blaming me for the opinions of other voters. If you are legitimately likely to get 20,000 people to vote for you, you can easily raise £500 that you will definitely get back if you only get 2,000 of them voting. If you can't raise £500, then you had no chance of winning the election anyway, QED. Six candidates is a long ballot paper. Two is ideal. Three is one more than needed. Your lack of comprehension speaks volumes. This is not an artificial measure. The reason the Green Party gets a small proportion of the vote is that the vast majority of Britons wouldn't vote Green even if they thought it would lead to to Green candidates winning locally. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 17, 2019 14:13:22 GMT
Giving people only 2 or 3 candidates is not good democracy.
(Hence Trump as US President)
👽 The argument there would be to move away from a presidential system to one that elects an administration (as we do) .
There are always more than two or three candidates in American presidential elections, but only two or three ever really have any chance.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,886 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 17, 2019 14:14:35 GMT
Several good reasons. 1) Given the electoral system doesn't allow for transfer of votes from candidates, the presence or absence of candidates on the ballot paper can profoundly affect the result - see the recent argument about Brexit Party candidates. 2) The electors are best served by being guided to vote for those candidates who are legitimately in with a chance of winning, not those who have no chance. 3) Placing a candidate on the ballot is to confer on them a sense of electoral legitimacy which they may not possess, having only had to stump up a token sum and get ten signatures. 4) The longer the ballot paper, the greater the opportunity for confusion among voters about similarly named candidates. 5) The purpose of the electoral system isn't, however much we like it, to provide a reading of party popularity and facilitate smaller parties in making a political case. It's to choose representatives in Parliament. I'm sure there are many more.
The problem we have is that political people have and continue to treat the public as thick cannon fodder, not people to be engaged with and persuaded. I know our media doesn't help. I applaud Powys, Shetland etc where they stick with Independents and can choose between 7 or 8 independents, people aren't stupid even if you want them to be.
You talk about the political system as being for and about parties, that is where the system is broken, democracy is about representing the people, representing parties only doesn't work it breaks democracy.
The reports that Conservative candidates have had to sign a pledge to back Brexit is horrendous. Free speech is dead and dying in our parliament, the new speaker helping to kill it off too, by gagging back-benchers.
👽
You are again quite wrong in that assertion. It is very good to have a compulsion to attest and assert conformity to our manifesto on the primary policies, less the hapless voter votes on obvious appearances and then finds the 'monster' had stood with crossed fingers and was a socialist Remainer and not a true blue Leaver at all. No one makes people sign up as candidates for us. If they don't like our manifesto and believe in it whole-heartedly, they are free to stand for another party dear to their own convictions, or to ply their case as an independent and then crash and burn. What they are NOT entitled to do is to get the imprimature of our party, the money of our party, the active supporters of our party, and the natural voters of our party........ ...............And the FUCKING rat out on us by failing to support the core of our current offer. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 17, 2019 14:19:07 GMT
I’ve been meaning to say this for a while, but please stop posting in tiny writing as it is difficult to read (and quite unnecessary). It is leaving me thoroughly alienated.... Their text seems no smaller than any other posters to me? I didn't understand John's comment either- the font used by Defenestrated Fipplebox appears to me identical to the one used by@johnchanin to make his complaint! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 17, 2019 14:21:25 GMT
Their text seems no smaller than any other posters to me? I didn't understand John's comment either- the font used by Defenestrated Fipplebox appears to me identical to the one used by@johnchanin to make his complaint! *Other fonts are available*
*Other fonts are available*
*Other fonts are available*
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,886
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 17, 2019 14:23:58 GMT
Surely the logical compromise would be to significantly raise the number of signatures and abolish the deposit in exchange? Or have an alternative - you can either collect a few hundred signatures, or pay a much higher deposit. Either way people would have to be more serious about standing. I prefer a much bigger deposit and no signatures at all. It is an absolute right to be able to stand and it should not be dependent on gaining any assent from the state or any person. What we want and need is open opportunity for serious candidature which for me means asserting an ability to get at least 10% of the vote. Less than that and the candidature was either a form of advertising, self-promotion, personal vanity or party 'paper' representation. So if there were to be a penalty on failing to get at least 10% it would inject order and reason. I suggest a depost (non-returnable) of £500 when putting in one's papers, together with an acceptable Bond in the sum of £10,000 which is called in after the poll on all candidates failing to gain 10%. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,886
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 17, 2019 14:40:35 GMT
I prefer a much bigger deposit and no signatures at all. It is an absolute right to be able to stand and it should not be dependent on gaining any assent from the state or any person. What we want and need is open opportunity for serious candidature which for me means asserting an ability to get at least 10% of the vote. Less than that and the candidature was either a form of advertising, self-promotion, personal vanity or party 'paper' representation. So if there were to be a penalty on failing to get at least 10% it would inject order and reason. I suggest a depost (non-returnable) of £500 when putting in one's papers, together with an acceptable Bond in the sum of £10,000 which is called in after the poll on all candidates failing to gain 10%.
Self serving rich /elite, defend the rich / elite from the poor in the name of democracy.
That is what both Labour and Conservative posters have said on this thread.
Absolutely disgusting
👽
It is not disgusting but a personally held and quite valid point of view: Just one you don't like. That does not make it disgusting in any way. I remember a Russian critic saying that he loved to watch the great black and white film of 'Anna Karenina' in the hope that one time thr train would be late (they so often were in Russia) and Anna would be saved. When I see your posts on this Forum I am inexorably drawn to the avatar with a morbid hope that whilst I am watching, the stone will loosen, and you will hurtle into the abyss. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 17, 2019 14:52:02 GMT
I am in favour of a system which would make it more difficult to have candidates standing for fairly frivolous reasons or to confuse the electorate,but which supports serious candidates with a point to make even if they are unlikely to win on this occasion.
I am against any system which discriminates exessively against candidates on financial grounds, though some financial penalty is still advisable to deter no-hope candidates cluttering up the place.
I would put the nomination signature requirement higher than at present, maybe 50, which is not that much higher than many parties actually collect now when they only need 10. Much higher than 50 really stretches the organisational abilities of small but serious parties or individuals with a single issue to pursue, but it's high enough to deter the genuinely frivolous.
I would raise the returnable deposit to £1k, with a gradiated return depending on the percentage gained, rather like Griff's proposal but at a simpler and lower level- say at 10% full return, 5% half return, 1% £100 return.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 17, 2019 14:55:05 GMT
Six candidates is a long ballot paper. Two is ideal. Three is one more than needed. This is your sole reason for actually wanting to make it more difficult to get on the ballot paper. You want to turn the UK political system into a two-party duopoly, denying the electorate a choice. Perhaps you'd be happier if you moved to North Carolina? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2019 15:08:24 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that a two party system, with the parties divided by broad ideological questions, is the one which provides the best government. Political pressure and democracy does not just come from electoral challenge and sometimes it is wiser and far more effective to direct the challenge within the established party system rather than by creating yet another political party. A large number of political parties forming coalitions after an election does not necessarily lead to genuine choice and good governance, as Italy used to show, and the recent political history of Israel is also establishing.
The US system has its own problems which are quite separate issues.
|
|
