|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 17, 2019 15:20:34 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. Of course the two party system will break down from time to time, and one of the two will vanish/ reincarnate and be replaced by another- that's the only way it can possibly work, so the nineteenth century coming together of the Whigs and Peelites to create the Liberal Party, or the twentieth century replacement of the Liberals by the Labour Party. I think we may be nearing the point when the Liberal Democrats will replace the Labour Party which will shrink back to minor party status, unless of course we abandon the two party system at long last, which is what I would prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 17, 2019 16:11:24 GMT
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. 
This may be a feature of my iPad, if others can’t see it, but for me all posts by Defenestrated Fipplebox come in small type, and that is unique to him/her. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050 
|
Post by middyman on Nov 17, 2019 16:53:14 GMT
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.
This may be a feature of my iPad, if others can’t see it, but for me all posts by Defenestrated Fipplebox come in small type, and that is unique to him/her. I have an iPad but mine does not suffer the same problem. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 18, 2019 1:58:55 GMT
Giving people only 2 or 3 candidates is not good democracy. (Hence Trump as US President)
The fact that a profoundly unsuitable candidate like Donald Trump was elected as president, was not a consequence of the fact that there were only two main candidates in the election. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 18, 2019 2:13:29 GMT
A few thoughts in response to the recent conversation in this thread:
1. The deposit was raised from £150 to £500 in 1986. If this amount had been index-linked, the deposit would now be about £1300. It would be slightly more efficient at deterring frivolous candidates.
2. When I was researching electoral systems for my dissertation in my final year at university, I found some attitudes from writers several decades ago who assumed, as a basic premise, that ordinary voters would be offended and confused by having a choice of more than two candidates. In local elections, there was even an assumption that people would be annoyed by the existence of a contested election at all, where an unopposed election would be easier.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 18, 2019 8:15:12 GMT
A few thoughts in response to the recent conversation in this thread: 1. The deposit was raised from £150 to £500 in 1986. If this amount had been index-linked, the deposit would now be about £1300. It would be slightly more efficient at deterring frivolous candidates. 2. When I was researching electoral systems for my dissertation in my final year at university, I found some attitudes from writers several decades ago who assumed, as a basic premise, that ordinary voters would be offended and confused by having a choice of more than two candidates. In local elections, there was even an assumption that people would be annoyed by the existence of a contested election at all, where an unopposed election would be easier. That sounds like an interesting dissertation, is it available online anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 18, 2019 13:37:01 GMT
A few thoughts in response to the recent conversation in this thread: 1. The deposit was raised from £150 to £500 in 1986. If this amount had been index-linked, the deposit would now be about £1300. It would be slightly more efficient at deterring frivolous candidates. 2. When I was researching electoral systems for my dissertation in my final year at university, I found some attitudes from writers several decades ago who assumed, as a basic premise, that ordinary voters would be offended and confused by having a choice of more than two candidates. In local elections, there was even an assumption that people would be annoyed by the existence of a contested election at all, where an unopposed election would be easier. That sounds like an interesting dissertation, is it available online anywhere? No - in those days we did it with quill on clay tablets |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 18, 2019 15:08:43 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? For the purpose of electing a representative of the district to send to Parliament, strictly speaking two is one more than needed, and the ballot paper itself and the involvement of the public at all are also surplus to requirements.
Obviously, Democracy muddles things, but then the idea of parliamentary representation of territorial constituencies far predates Democracy in Britain. -_-
|
|
|
|
Post by November_Rain on Nov 18, 2019 15:26:30 GMT
Re: deposits - I know with three General Elections in four years, a lot of minor parties (Animal Welfare, SDP etc) have really felt the pinch with it all. I suppose the right to have a choice if you don't want to vote for the main three (or four) parties, but why not look at some sort of incentive with the deposit? E.G You get the £500 back if you get the full 5% or more, £250 between 2.3-4.9%, £100 between 0.5-2.2% and nothing if you get less than 0.5%?
I think it's fun having some off-beat candidates like that bizzare woman in Kensington standing for the "Touch Love Worldwide (UK) Party", Lord Buckethead, The chap in the Elmo suit etc, as it livens up what can be a very nasty and dull election campaign. Yes the individuals I mentioned won't even break even and get their £500 back, but I feel people should have the right to stand and it opened up.
Re: Locals, that needs reforming re: Nomination forms. I think five signatures would be better as it would be helpful for candidates of a major party standing in a chanceless area for their party and perhaps waiver the rules re: it has to be signatures in your ward to signatures within the nearest two wards? With Town/Parish councils it's only two, and even then half of the seats don't get filled, especially some of the smaller ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 18, 2019 15:58:58 GMT
Re: deposits - I know with three General Elections in four years, a lot of minor parties (Animal Welfare, SDP etc) have really felt the pinch with it all. I suppose the right to have a choice if you don't want to vote for the main three (or four) parties, but why not look at some sort of incentive with the deposit? E.G You get the £500 back if you get the full 5% or more, £250 between 2.3-4.9%, £100 between 0.5-2.2% and nothing if you get less than 0.5%? I think it's fun having some off-beat candidates like that bizzare woman in Kensington standing for the "Touch Love Worldwide (UK) Party", Lord Buckethead, The chap in the Elmo suit etc, as it livens up what can be a very nasty and dull election campaign. Yes the individuals I mentioned won't even break even and get their £500 back, but I feel people should have the right to stand and it opened up. Re: Locals, that needs reforming re: Nomination forms. I think five signatures would be better as it would be helpful for candidates of a major party standing in a chanceless area for their party and perhaps waiver the rules re: it has to be signatures in your ward to signatures within the nearest two wards? With Town/Parish councils it's only two, and even then half of the seats don't get filled, especially some of the smaller ones. I suspect many of these novelty candidates get their money back in sponsorship, personal appearnces, adverts, crowd funding etc. |
|
|
|
Post by November_Rain on Nov 18, 2019 16:03:00 GMT
Re: deposits - I know with three General Elections in four years, a lot of minor parties (Animal Welfare, SDP etc) have really felt the pinch with it all. I suppose the right to have a choice if you don't want to vote for the main three (or four) parties, but why not look at some sort of incentive with the deposit? E.G You get the £500 back if you get the full 5% or more, £250 between 2.3-4.9%, £100 between 0.5-2.2% and nothing if you get less than 0.5%? I think it's fun having some off-beat candidates like that bizzare woman in Kensington standing for the "Touch Love Worldwide (UK) Party", Lord Buckethead, The chap in the Elmo suit etc, as it livens up what can be a very nasty and dull election campaign. Yes the individuals I mentioned won't even break even and get their £500 back, but I feel people should have the right to stand and it opened up. Re: Locals, that needs reforming re: Nomination forms. I think five signatures would be better as it would be helpful for candidates of a major party standing in a chanceless area for their party and perhaps waiver the rules re: it has to be signatures in your ward to signatures within the nearest two wards? With Town/Parish councils it's only two, and even then half of the seats don't get filled, especially some of the smaller ones. I suspect many of these novelty candidates get their money back in sponsorship, personal appearnces, adverts, crowd funding etc. You're probably right to be fair, especially if they're a celeb or "micro-celeb" with a fanbase or in the case of Harriet Gore....with love However, they have the right to stand. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 18, 2019 16:13:35 GMT
A electoral official should have the power of discretion, to prevent confusion, that would prevent Literal Democrats etc. But other than that trust people. 👽 Discretion is a mess because different ROs start giving different rulings and then in subsequent elections find it hard to undo things when challenged with what has been allowed before. The mess in this election with the independents who added "Brexit" to their surname shows just why individual officials shouldn't be making potential different rulings on this. Another thing that needs reforming are the number of sheets of paper in nomination packs. There's way too many, it should not be required to submit copies of purely information pages and can anyone point to any way in which this inflated packs have improved the quality of candidates standing?! |
|
msc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 910
|
Post by msc on Nov 18, 2019 16:17:19 GMT
When it comes to memorable no namers, beyond the obvious there was Mal "Voice of the People" Malakouna who used to stand in a few Enfield Southgate elections. Despite being Voice of the People, he finished bottom. Also Rammstein Guy who kept a fist raised in the air all through Gordon Brown's speech in 2010. Many of the old school Loonies of course. Auberon Waugh's Dog Lovers Party, a gag that went over my head first time I saw the 79 election coverage. Commander Bill Boaks.
I see no harm in these people raising a small donation to the treasury and standing. There isn't a single voter who goes "Oh I was going to vote for the Labour Policy, but now I can't resist voting for Lord Buckethead instead." Those votes were already lost, lost to a voided ballot or lost to a novelty act there's little difference. Other opinions are readily available.
Although despite not being a candidate this always brings my memories to James McGuire Smith, returning officer of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale in 1997. ("Mr Flint, could you please remove those who do not wish to be courteous?"..."Katy Clark, Scottish Labour Party" gets more name checks than the Selection thread on this forum.) A digression but one that amuses.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 18, 2019 17:05:52 GMT
That sounds like an interesting dissertation, is it available online anywhere? No - in those days we did it with quill on clay tablets I thought unis were scanning in all their former students' papers. I found a dissertation on the history of shipping in Whitby from 1982 online link All manually-typed with hand-annotated page numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 18, 2019 17:07:59 GMT
A electoral official should have the power of discretion, to prevent confusion, that would prevent Literal Democrats etc. But other than that trust people. 👽 Discretion is a mess because different ROs start giving different rulings and then in subsequent elections find it hard to undo things when challenged with what has been allowed before. The mess in this election with the independents who added "Brexit" to their surname shows just why individual officials shouldn't be making potential different rulings on this. Another thing that needs reforming are the number of sheets of paper in nomination packs. There's way too many, it should not be required to submit copies of purely information pages and can anyone point to any way in which this inflated packs have improved the quality of candidates standing?! The purely informational sheets exist only for local elections, not for general ones (at least in England, I haven't ever looked at any differences in rules elsewhere in the UK), and the insistence on handing those pages in provides precisely no benefit to anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 18, 2019 20:35:12 GMT
There's a Notes page (page 5 in the file on the Electoral Commission site) which really doesn't need to be printed & handed in. But yeah, the local pack is worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 18, 2019 21:21:02 GMT
Although despite not being a candidate this always brings my memories to James McGuire Smith, returning officer of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale in 1997. ("Mr Flint, could you please remove those who do not wish to be courteous?"..."Katy Clark, Scottish Labour Party" gets more name checks than the Selection thread on this forum.) A digression but one that amuses. Not Flint but Flynn. Not "remove", but the more Orwellian & Kafkaesque "assist". I have often wondered what "assistance" he in fact gave. |
|
