|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 22, 2021 21:55:13 GMT
I honestly don't see why they don't add 4 seats to the regional list regions, quick and simple. The reason appears to be that Labour are steadfastly opposed to any changes that would make the system more proportional on the wholly principled grounds that they are the main beneficiaries of the current system's bias. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850 
|
Post by johng on Nov 22, 2021 22:14:58 GMT
I honestly don't see why they don't add 4 seats to the regional list regions, quick and simple. The reason appears to be that Labour are steadfastly opposed to any changes that would make the system more proportional on the wholly principled grounds that they are the main beneficiaries of the current system's bias. There are a lot of very valid arguments against some of the ideas proposed in this thread. Some just pretend that all of those issues are totally meaningless in the pursuit of getting their party elected.
STV - A hell of a lot of downsides actually. It makes both parties and voters play guessing games which isn't fair. The larger the seat, the worse those games are. Look at the recent Irish election and tell us all how fair the system is. Large seats would disenfranchise communities and make community/ independent led campaigns impossible - It would by like MEP elections all over again. Voters in Wales have never used such a system and the confusion of the system would disenfranchise voters (I know some don't care about that).
An all-Wales national list - Well, the thought just makes me shudder. Only those with a strong anti-democratic tendency and want parties run under Stalinist tendencies or those with weird psephological tendencies could ever support such an idea. AMS - Allows oddball parties to be elected on tiny vote shares. Creates a two tier system of MSs (no list member has ever been FM or presiding officer). Residents don't know who their MS is - is their constituency one the real one and regional just someone extra? Confusing for voters - even six elections in, some people still think it's their second preference or something.
Plus, in Britain, we are not used to coalition government. It is not seen as the standard, but something unusual. A 'more proportional' system would condemn us to eternal coalition. Almost certainly an eternal Labour-Plaid (the two parties have always won above 50% combined) which is not what voters will vote for on the ballot on election day. Is that 'fair'?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 22, 2021 23:27:30 GMT
The reason appears to be that Labour are steadfastly opposed to any changes that would make the system more proportional on the wholly principled grounds that they are the main beneficiaries of the current system's bias. There are a lot of very valid arguments against some of the ideas proposed in this thread. Some just pretend that all of those issues are totally meaningless in the pursuit of getting their party elected.
STV - A hell of a lot of downsides actually. It makes both parties and voters play guessing games which isn't fair. The larger the seat, the worse those games are. Look at the recent Irish election and tell us all how fair the system is. Large seats would disenfranchise communities and make community/ independent led campaigns impossible - It would by like MEP elections all over again. Voters in Wales have never used such a system and the confusion of the system would disenfranchise voters (I know some don't care about that).
An all-Wales national list - Well, the thought just makes me shudder. Only those with a strong anti-democratic tendency and want parties run under Stalinist tendencies or those with weird psephological tendencies could ever support such an idea. AMS - Allows oddball parties to be elected on tiny vote shares. Creates a two tier system of MSs (no list member has ever been FM or presiding officer). Residents don't know who their MS is - is their constituency one the real one and regional just someone extra? Confusing for voters - even six elections in, some people still think it's their second preference or something.
Plus, in Britain, we are not used to coalition government. It is not seen as the standard, but something unusual. A 'more proportional' system would condemn us to eternal coalition. Almost certainly an eternal Labour-Plaid (the two parties have always won above 50% combined) which is not what voters will vote for on the ballot on election day. Is that 'fair'?
Constituency and list MSs are only two-tiered if the MSs themselves treat them that way. Residents and voters are confused under virtually all systems - look at the number of people who think that votes in Westminster elections elect a Prime Minister, for example. So the most substantial argument against expanding the number of list seats would seem to be a desire to keep certain parties from being elected, a dislike of coalition governments, or a preference for majority Labour government on a minority of the vote over coalition governments. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Nov 22, 2021 23:45:52 GMT
Labour and Plaid Cymru's executives have agreed a three year confidence and supply arrangement which will see: Therefore, what do members make of that? Are we going to have an 80 member Senedd (40 constituencies, 40 regionals), a 90 member Senedd (15 constituencies electing six members or 18 constituencies electing five members by STV) or a 100 member Senedd (50 men, 50 women) elected en masse with the whole of Wales being a single constituency? All three options are very unlikely to pass muster as all three with be very disadvantageous for Labour and would relight the fire of devosceptic/ oddball parties allowing them to get members elected on tiny vote shares. It would also likely mean we'd have eternal Labour - Plaid coalitions.
There's going to have to be a compromise. Look at what Adam Price said - the system will have to be at least as proportional as it is now. The compromise is already there.
The previous review led by Dawn Bowden was very supportive of STV and I imagine the next one will be too. The summary is here.
I still think the most viable solution with STV is with the 32 new Westminster seats each electing three members and Ynys Mon electing 2 as it is 2/3 the size of the others.
It's also very likely Drakeford will want to see this pushed through during his term as FM so that's within the next two years or so.
its inevitable increasing the size of the chamber and maintaining the proportionality of it will inevitably hurt labour. At the moment having less than half a dozen regional AMs limits the number of Greens and other smaller parties getting on which in turn helps the bigger parties |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Nov 23, 2021 0:24:26 GMT
Except that the Senedd has a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Parliament has two but they both vote unless they're in the chair at decision time which seems to be basically never. I take the Welsh Deputy PO doesn't vote similar to the Westminster Deputy Speakers?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2021 0:53:48 GMT
I used to be pro devolution far less sure now I want to be pro devolution, to an extent that I almost long for it but in practice, it invariably disappoints me. This is not a party political point, at least I don't think so. It is simply invariably as stupid as mud, invariably legislates for the sake of hearing its own voice and never in any circumstances moves towards subsidiarity. I find myself very reluctantly moving in the direction of wishing to remove tiers of government with almost no preferences as to which we removed as long as we ended up with fewer of them That was a party political broadcast by the Abolish Westminster Party. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Nov 23, 2021 1:08:17 GMT
The reason appears to be that Labour are steadfastly opposed to any changes that would make the system more proportional on the wholly principled grounds that they are the main beneficiaries of the current system's bias. There are a lot of very valid arguments against some of the ideas proposed in this thread. Some just pretend that all of those issues are totally meaningless in the pursuit of getting their party elected.
STV - A hell of a lot of downsides actually. It makes both parties and voters play guessing games which isn't fair. How so? There are many criticisms of preferential voting available, but actually they are the systems that best avoid guessing games. The larger the seat, the worse those games are. Look at the recent Irish election and tell us all how fair the system is. Large seats would disenfranchise communities and make community/ independent led campaigns impossible - It would by like MEP elections all over again. Again, a very odd argument. Voters in Ireland have had no trouble at all (arguably too little) in electing Independents. Voters in Wales have never used such a system and the confusion of the system would disenfranchise voters (I know some don't care about that).
An all-Wales national list - Well, the thought just makes me shudder. Only those with a strong anti-democratic tendency Certainly not the system I would advocate, but I would struggle to call a national list system 'un-democratic' and want parties run under Stalinist tendencies or those with weird psephological tendencies could ever support such an idea. AMS - Allows oddball parties Aren't oddballs as entitled to representation as much as anyone else? to be elected on tiny vote shares. Creates a two tier system of MSs (no list member has ever been FM or presiding officer). Residents don't know who their MS is - is their constituency one the real one and regional just someone extra? Confusing for voters - even six elections in, some people still think it's their second preference or something.
Plus, in Britain, we are not used to coalition government. It is not seen as the standard, but something unusual. So what? All cultures have a whole heap of silly ideas - if it's a bad one then it should go, regardless of how long it has been an enforced bad idea. If you have something against this then make that arguement, don't fall back on 'well we've always been idiots, why should we change now?' A 'more proportional' system would condemn us to eternal coalition. Almost certainly an eternal Labour-Plaid (the two parties have always won above 50% combined) which is not what voters will vote for on the ballot on election day. Is that 'fair'? So your argument is that voters won't vote for it, therefore it will inevitably happen? If enough people don't want a Labour-Plaid coalition then, under a proportional system, it will be impossible to form one. If voters continue to make that an option, then they obviously don't mind it that much. Under a FPTP system we'd get an eternal Labour government (until, of course, something snapped and we wouldn't), but I doubt you'd be so upset at that idea ... |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on Nov 23, 2021 1:31:24 GMT
I want to be pro devolution, to an extent that I almost long for it but in practice, it invariably disappoints me. This is not a party political point, at least I don't think so. It is simply invariably as stupid as mud, invariably legislates for the sake of hearing its own voice and never in any circumstances moves towards subsidiarity. I find myself very reluctantly moving in the direction of wishing to remove tiers of government with almost no preferences as to which we removed as long as we ended up with fewer of them That was a party political broadcast by the Abolish Westminster Party. Abolish Westminster? Get's my vote! |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 23, 2021 4:03:50 GMT
How about AMS - using Wales 32 constituencies - but with regions based on pairs of seats which have 3 topup seats per pair (one less for YM).
That would give 77 seats (about right) and keep strong community ties. No seperate vote for Addional members but to be selected by actual votes cast in seats for first two seats and then from nominated party list.
A little more proportionate than now - but not enough to frighten Labour) - and should limit minor parties (ATWA, UKIP).
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 23, 2021 4:53:01 GMT
It is, I confess, one option. But nobody, but nobody, in devolved politics is offering me a vision of a smaller less intrusive government. So equally, it is a party political broadcast for the Abolish Holyrood Party why not both? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 23, 2021 4:56:22 GMT
How about AMS - using Wales 32 constituencies - but with regions based on pairs of seats which have 3 topup seats per pair (one less for YM). That would give 77 seats (about right) and keep strong community ties. No seperate vote for Addional members but to be selected by actual votes cast in seats for first two seats and then from nominated party list. A little more proportionate than now - but not enough to frighten Labour) - and should limit minor parties (ATWA, UKIP). 79 and I don't follow on why you want to abolish vote splitting, but it would probably work. Though you'll inevitably get some oddish microregions. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 23, 2021 10:11:25 GMT
There are a lot of very valid arguments against some of the ideas proposed in this thread. Some just pretend that all of those issues are totally meaningless in the pursuit of getting their party elected.
STV - A hell of a lot of downsides actually. It makes both parties and voters play guessing games which isn't fair. How so? There are many criticisms of preferential voting available, but actually they are the systems that best avoid guessing games. The larger the seat, the worse those games are. Look at the recent Irish election and tell us all how fair the system is. Large seats would disenfranchise communities and make community/ independent led campaigns impossible - It would by like MEP elections all over again. Again, a very odd argument. Voters in Ireland have had no trouble at all (arguably too little) in electing Independents. Voters in Wales have never used such a system and the confusion of the system would disenfranchise voters (I know some don't care about that).
An all-Wales national list - Well, the thought just makes me shudder. Only those with a strong anti-democratic tendency Certainly not the system I would advocate, but I would struggle to call a national list system 'un-democratic' and want parties run under Stalinist tendencies or those with weird psephological tendencies could ever support such an idea. AMS - Allows oddball parties Aren't oddballs as entitled to representation as much as anyone else? to be elected on tiny vote shares. Creates a two tier system of MSs (no list member has ever been FM or presiding officer). Residents don't know who their MS is - is their constituency one the real one and regional just someone extra? Confusing for voters - even six elections in, some people still think it's their second preference or something.
Plus, in Britain, we are not used to coalition government. It is not seen as the standard, but something unusual. So what? All cultures have a whole heap of silly ideas - if it's a bad one then it should go, regardless of how long it has been an enforced bad idea. If you have something against this then make that arguement, don't fall back on 'well we've always been idiots, why should we change now?' A 'more proportional' system would condemn us to eternal coalition. Almost certainly an eternal Labour-Plaid (the two parties have always won above 50% combined) which is not what voters will vote for on the ballot on election day. Is that 'fair'? So your argument is that voters won't vote for it, therefore it will inevitably happen? If enough people don't want a Labour-Plaid coalition then, under a proportional system, it will be impossible to form one. If voters continue to make that an option, then they obviously don't mind it that much. Under a FPTP system we'd get an eternal Labour government (until, of course, something snapped and we wouldn't), but I doubt you'd be so upset at that idea ...
Your comments show you have no sense of tradition or place in how politics should operate which is sad IMO. I believe voters should have and make a clear choice. Whether that's Labour, Tory or someone else. They shouldn't vote X and guess they will get X and Y.
On STV, the recent Irish election showed how many guessing games parties and voters had to make. Sinn Fein should have won the most seats but under-nominated as they didn't think they'd do as well as they did. If they'd done as well as polls predicted and had nominated more candidates, they would have won fewer seats. Voters have to make silly guessing games. Which Labour candidate should I put number 1 when I don't have a personal opinion on either? If there are three seats and two Labour candidates, do I stop at two choices or do I risk letting someone I really don't want in? Ireland has also developed quite a unique set of rural politics over the last century. Now rural Wales is known for its oddities, but, at least to start with, STV would cement the position of party candidates over independents.
On national PR, for a party that supports localism, it's hard to see how any member can support a national list controlled by supreme leader Ed Davey (or whoever). It would centralise power dramatically. It also goes totally against British political tradition.
Oddballs do have the right to representation, but not on some of the tiny vote shares that AMS makes possible. As such a PR lover, do you think it's fair that party A gets 30/60 seats on 450,000 votes whilst party z gets one on not much more than 10,000 on a ballot which many don't understand?
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 23, 2021 10:24:03 GMT
79 and I don't follow on why you want to abolish vote splitting, but it would probably work. Though you'll inevitably get some oddish microregions. If we are going to be lumbered with AMS for any longer, the second ballot paper simply must go.
Voters don't understand it and it produces weird results.
It should allow people to vote for their preferred party/ candidate in each seat whilst ensuring their vote is still counted if there are enough votes across the region.
One feasible solution retaining AMS (and retaining the same 2/3 FPTP to AMS ratio) would be to split the 32 Westminster constituencies into two making 64 FPTP seats. Then split Wales into eight regions with the eight FPTP seats in each region electing 4 AMS members using the regional totals of the constituency ballot. That would make 96 members in total. Of course, it does lead to the issue of what do you do with a problem like Ynys Mon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 23, 2021 10:29:42 GMT
79 and I don't follow on why you want to abolish vote splitting, but it would probably work. Though you'll inevitably get some oddish microregions. If we are going to be lumbered with AMS for any longer, the second ballot paper simply must go.
Voters don't understand it and it produces weird results.
It should allow people to vote for their preferred party/ candidate in each seat whilst ensuring their vote is still counted if there are enough votes across the region. One feasible solution retaining AMS (and retaining the same 2/3 FPTP to AMS ratio) would be to split the 32 Westminster constituencies into two making 64 FPTP seats. Then split Wales into eight regions with the eight FPTP seats in each region electing 4 AMS members using the regional totals of the constituency ballot. That would make 96 members in total. Of course, it does lead to the issue of what do you do with a problem like Ynys Mon.
Sink it. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 23, 2021 10:41:13 GMT
I honestly don't see why they don't add 4 seats to the regional list regions, quick and simple. Constituency Element: Lab 27, Con 8, Plaid 5, Lib Dem 0, Green 0 Regional Element: Lab 8, Con 16, Plaid 14, Lib Dem 1, Green 1 Biggest beneficiery would be the Conservatives, something I don't think Lab or Plaid would want. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Nov 23, 2021 11:38:21 GMT
Your comments show you have no sense of tradition or place in how politics should operate which is sad IMO. I believe voters should have and make a clear choice. Whether that's Labour, Tory or someone else. They shouldn't vote X and guess they will get X and Y.
This makes zero sense. People don't get who they vote for all the time, and there is guessing involved in all systems. Preference systems reduce the amount of guessing required, as voters can rank their choices and the system does the work.
On STV, the recent Irish election showed how many guessing games parties and voters had to make. Sinn Fein should have won the most seats but under-nominated as they didn't think they'd do as well as they did. If they'd done as well as polls predicted and had nominated more candidates, they would have won fewer seats. Finally a valid criticism. Yes, this is an issue. However, as I'd rather parties put up more candidates so voters can have a choice between them, I don't mind parties being penalised for trying to foist only their one approved choice on voters. Voters have to make silly guessing games. Which Labour candidate should I put number 1 when I don't have a personal opinion on either? Yes, this is a limitation. If there are three seats and two Labour candidates, do I stop at two choices or do I risk letting someone I really don't want in? Clearly you do not understand the system at all. Your third choice would not count against your first and second choices. Ireland has also developed quite a unique set of rural politics over the last century. Now rural Wales is known for its oddities, but, at least to start with, STV would cement the position of party candidates over independents. How many independents are there in the Welsh Parliament at the moment? How many Welsh MPs were elected as independents? I am not generally a fan of independents so wouldn't mind a system that weeds them out, but actually the evidence of STV is that, if anything, it is easier to get elected as one.
On national PR, for a party that supports localism, it's hard to see how any member can support a national list controlled by supreme leader Ed Davey (or whoever). It would centralise power dramatically. It also goes totally against British political tradition. I wouldn't support this, and agree it goes against British tradition. I have never said otherwise.
Oddballs do have the right to representation, but not on some of the tiny vote shares that AMS makes possible. As such a PR lover, do you think it's fair that party A gets 30/60 seats on 450,000 votes whilst party z gets one on not much more than 10,000 on a ballot which many don't understand? If 450,000 votes is roughly half those cast then yes it is fair that party a gets half the seats. If 'not much more than 10,000' is roughly 1/60 of those cast, then yes it is fair that they get roughly 1 in 60 seats. You might argue that voting systems should push people into voting for a 'choice of government' rather than representing all choices equally, but there is nothing 'unfair' about the latter. That is a truly bizarre argument to make.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 23, 2021 12:44:55 GMT
Your comments show you have no sense of tradition or place in how politics should operate which is sad IMO. I believe voters should have and make a clear choice. Whether that's Labour, Tory or someone else. They shouldn't vote X and guess they will get X and Y.
This makes zero sense. People don't get who they vote for all the time, and there is guessing involved in all systems. Preference systems reduce the amount of guessing required, as voters can rank their choices and the system does the work.
Zero sense!? When people vote Conservative in this country, they expect they'll get a Conservative government. They don't expect a coalition or something else. Obviously, one's party doesn't always win. I thought that was so obvious it didn't need stating.
On STV, the recent Irish election showed how many guessing games parties and voters had to make. Sinn Fein should have won the most seats but under-nominated as they didn't think they'd do as well as they did. If they'd done as well as polls predicted and had nominated more candidates, they would have won fewer seats. Finally a valid criticism. Yes, this is an issue. However, as I'd rather parties put up more candidates so voters can have a choice between them, I don't mind parties being penalised for trying to foist only their one approved choice on voters. First of all you say that voters and parties don't have to play guessing games and now you agree that they do... Voters have to make silly guessing games. Which Labour candidate should I put number 1 when I don't have a personal opinion on either? Yes, this is a limitation. If there are three seats and two Labour candidates, do I stop at two choices or do I risk letting someone I really don't want in? Clearly you do not understand the system at all. Your third choice would not count against your first and second choices.I do understand the system. You don't understand the point. I am saying that I might be forced to vote for someone I don't want as my third choice to keep out someone I really don't want.
Oddballs do have the right to representation, but not on some of the tiny vote shares that AMS makes possible. As such a PR lover, do you think it's fair that party A gets 30/60 seats on 450,000 votes whilst party z gets one on not much more than 10,000 on a ballot which many don't understand? If 450,000 votes is roughly half those cast then yes it is fair that party a gets half the seats. If 'not much more than 10,000' is roughly 1/60 of those cast, then yes it is fair that they get roughly 1 in 60 seats. You might argue that voting systems should push people into voting for a 'choice of government' rather than representing all choices equally, but there is nothing 'unfair' about the latter. That is a truly bizarre argument to make. How can 450,000 be roughly half and 10,000 be 1/60?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 23, 2021 14:01:54 GMT
How about AMS - using Wales 32 constituencies - but with regions based on pairs of seats which have 3 topup seats per pair (one less for YM). That would give 77 seats (about right) and keep strong community ties. No seperate vote for Addional members but to be selected by actual votes cast in seats for first two seats and then from nominated party list. A little more proportionate than now - but not enough to frighten Labour) - and should limit minor parties (ATWA, UKIP). 79 and I don't follow on why you want to abolish vote splitting, but it would probably work. Though you'll inevitably get some oddish microregions. Yes 79 sorry. And Wales is full of oddish microregions...unavoidable... |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Nov 23, 2021 15:27:01 GMT
1) I misunderstood what you were saying here. Personally though I think a party should have to win a majority to win a majority government. What could be fairer? 2) I said that voters don't have to play guessing games. Which they don't. If a party only gets one candidate elected when they would be 'entitled' to two, that is because their second candidate is not popular enough. I don't have a problem with that. The issue I accepted was that parties 'have' to play guessing games. Apart from they don't 'have' to, they choose to. 3) This is the same under every voting system? Definitely FPTP. At least this way you get to vote for someone you want to first, rather than just voting for someone you dislike to stop the candidate you really dislike as under our current system. 4) Well it depends how rough roughly is and how much 'a bit' over is. I'd rather it was proportional, but I think top-up lists should be regional to allow for regional parties. That shouldn't affect many seats, and is a payoff I'd be willing to make. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Nov 23, 2021 15:35:59 GMT
A Senedd with the same proportionality as Holyrood should have an additional 11 regional seats. 2 additional seats per region seems the simplest thing to do.
|
|
