|
Post by stb12 on Jul 29, 2023 14:30:40 GMT
Also I think the other problem with any sort of formal Recall Act , like the case of some sort of 6-month rule likeDok mentioned; then all an MP of such an indolent mind would need to do is turn up once every6 months, "sign in", then clear off again to do something they consider more "important", and they would be in the clear for another 6 months! Thinking about it, how similar would that be to those "noble Lords and Ladies" who merely have to "sign in" to get their daily allowance and are not obliged to otherwise even so much as lift a finger work-wise. That would be my concern, where does the line get drawn and realistically how could any rule be made so clear that it couldn’t be worked around by someone just turning up for one vote every few months or something?
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 14:48:56 GMT
Also I think the other problem with any sort of formal Recall Act , like the case of some sort of 6-month rule likeDok mentioned; then all an MP of such an indolent mind would need to do is turn up once every6 months, "sign in", then clear off again to do something they consider more "important", and they would be in the clear for another 6 months! Thinking about it, how similar would that be to those "noble Lords and Ladies" who merely have to "sign in" to get their daily allowance and are not obliged to otherwise even so much as lift a finger work-wise. That would be my concern, where does the line get drawn and realistically how could any rule be made so clear that it couldn’t be worked around by someone just turning up for one vote every few months or something? One system which I have invented is a version of Public Voting. Everybody’s vote is private, because it’s a secret ballot. But under this system, each individual voter would have the option to choose to have a Public Vote, i.e. they declare publicly who they have voted for, and their vote (for candidate A) is publicly recorded. Then, during the course of the Parliament, they are allowed to change their mind. They can revoke their vote for A and decide to vote for B instead. In marginal constituencies, an incumbent MP could be unseated relatively quickly if enough people switch. As a safeguard against chaos, the opportunity to change one’s vote can only be exercised after a period of (say) 6 months after a general election, and thereafter you have to wait for (say) 3 months before changing your mind again. If enough people got into the habit of opting for a Public Vote, it would evolve into a recall system. A similar system would be to say that the 50 MPs with the smallest majorities have to submit themselves for re-election in a by-election during the course of the Parliament. After an initial period of (say) 3 months, the marginal MPs’ by-elections happen once a month, starting with the one with the smallest majority.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,404
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 29, 2023 14:53:58 GMT
That would be my concern, where does the line get drawn and realistically how could any rule be made so clear that it couldn’t be worked around by someone just turning up for one vote every few months or something? One system which I have invented is a version of Public Voting. Everybody’s vote is private, because it’s a secret ballot. But under this system, each individual voter would have the option to choose to have a Public Vote, i.e. they declare publicly who they have voted for, and their vote (for candidate A) is publicly recorded. Then, during the course of the Parliament, they are allowed to change their mind. They can revoke their vote for A and decide to vote for B instead. In marginal constituencies, an incumbent MP could be unseated relatively quickly if enough people switch. As a safeguard against chaos, the opportunity to change one’s vote can only be exercised after a period of (say) 6 months after a general election, and thereafter you have to wait for (say) 3 months before changing your mind again. If enough people got into the habit of opting for a Public Vote, it would evolve into a recall system. A similar system would be to say that the 50 MPs with the smallest majorities have to submit themselves for re-election in a by-election during the course of the Parliament. After an initial period of (say) 3 months, the marginal MPs’ by-elections happen once a month, starting with the one with the smallest majority. If everyone’s vote is private, I could say then that I voted Conservative, whilst actually voting Labour. The Conservatives win by 500. I then revoke my ‘vote’ for the Conservatives and switch to Labour?
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 29, 2023 15:23:43 GMT
I was about to point out that obvious flaw in the plan.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 15:24:28 GMT
One system which I have invented is a version of Public Voting. Everybody’s vote is private, because it’s a secret ballot. But under this system, each individual voter would have the option to choose to have a Public Vote, i.e. they declare publicly who they have voted for, and their vote (for candidate A) is publicly recorded. Then, during the course of the Parliament, they are allowed to change their mind. They can revoke their vote for A and decide to vote for B instead. In marginal constituencies, an incumbent MP could be unseated relatively quickly if enough people switch. As a safeguard against chaos, the opportunity to change one’s vote can only be exercised after a period of (say) 6 months after a general election, and thereafter you have to wait for (say) 3 months before changing your mind again. If enough people got into the habit of opting for a Public Vote, it would evolve into a recall system. A similar system would be to say that the 50 MPs with the smallest majorities have to submit themselves for re-election in a by-election during the course of the Parliament. After an initial period of (say) 3 months, the marginal MPs’ by-elections happen once a month, starting with the one with the smallest majority. If everyone’s vote is private, I could say then that I voted Conservative, whilst actually voting Labour. The Conservatives win by 500. I then revoke my ‘vote’ for the Conservatives and switch to Labour? No, your vote is not private. It’s public, because you have opted to have a public vote. Under this system, the public record has a list which explicitly states that andrewp of 23 Acacia Gardens, Plophampton XY3 5ZQ voted for the Labour candidate. If you want to change your mind, then you can switch your vote to Conservative, in which case the public record states that on 32nd Octember 2025, andrewp switched his vote to Conservative- and that the Conservative MP therefore now has a majority of 502. If you choose to keep your vote secret, then you’re not allowed to change your mind. Under this proposed system, there would be a balance between the people wanting to keep their secret ballot, and the people who want to have the opportunity to change their mind.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 15:28:34 GMT
I was about to point out that obvious flaw in the plan. There is no such thing as “that flaw in the plan”. The only dilemma, for each individual voter, is: do I want to keep my vote secret and private, as it has hitherto always been since 1872? or do I want to have the opportunity to change my mind some time within the next five years, in which case my vote has to be declared publicly and listed officially in the public record of who has voted? The potential power of people to overturn their votes which they cast in the general election, and thereby oust their MP without needing to wait for a by-election or a recall petition, might result in many thousands of people opting for the public-vote option - but they would do so in the knowledge that their vote is no longer secret.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 15:34:03 GMT
Indeed. Dosent another idler, Geoffrey Cox, spend most of his time somewhere in the Windies? Windies? Would that be the Windward Islands? I think it means “West Indies” (as in the abbreviation people sometimes use in cricket)
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 29, 2023 18:52:12 GMT
Windies? Would that be the Windward Islands? I think it means “West Indies” (as in the abbreviation people sometimes use in cricket) John, you have really come on.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 29, 2023 19:38:28 GMT
I was about to point out that obvious flaw in the plan. There is no such thing as “that flaw in the plan”. The only dilemma, for each individual voter, is: do I want to keep my vote secret and private, as it has hitherto always been since 1872? or do I want to have the opportunity to change my mind some time within the next five years, in which case my vote has to be declared publicly and listed officially in the public record of who has voted? The potential power of people to overturn their votes which they cast in the general election, and thereby oust their MP without needing to wait for a by-election or a recall petition, might result in many thousands of people opting for the public-vote option - but they would do so in the knowledge that their vote is no longer secret.
Did you not read the post by andrewp immediately before mine, which highlighted said flaw, but which you failed to address?
I just want to make sure I have this clear though, I think you are still proposing (I hope) that the initial ballot - on GE day - is private,but that, at some later date, a voter can "announce"that he voted for Party A but now wants to vote for Party B. If the original ballot was secret, how could an election officer know that he is telling the truth about his original vote? Multiply this by 1000 (a campaign to do this could easily be dreamt up by those with malevolent intent) and you can see the potential chaos which could ensue.
An alternative interpretation could be that you're saying the casting of the vote itself is still private, but the voter could "choose to have a public vote...and their vote is publicly recorded" - do you mean at the time of voting, rather than at a later date? Surely this results in the same possible scenario observed in the previous paragraph? The only way to avoid this would be for the vote literally to be public, i.e. it is filmed as they make their pencil mark on the ballot paper, and I'm sure this isnt allowed in electoral law and possibly breaks other laws too? Furthermore, how would this work with postal and proxy votes??
I admire the creative thinking, but think this needs to go back to the drawing board.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 20:55:46 GMT
There is no such thing as “that flaw in the plan”. The only dilemma, for each individual voter, is: do I want to keep my vote secret and private, as it has hitherto always been since 1872? or do I want to have the opportunity to change my mind some time within the next five years, in which case my vote has to be declared publicly and listed officially in the public record of who has voted? The potential power of people to overturn their votes which they cast in the general election, and thereby oust their MP without needing to wait for a by-election or a recall petition, might result in many thousands of people opting for the public-vote option - but they would do so in the knowledge that their vote is no longer secret. Did you not read the post by andrewp immediately before mine, which highlighted said flaw, but which you failed to address? I just want to make sure I have this clear though, I think you are still proposing (I hope) that the initial ballot - on GE day - is private No I’m not; that’s the whole point,but that, at some later date, a voter can "announce"that he voted for Party A but now wants to vote for Party B. If the original ballot was secret, how could an election officer know that he is telling the truth about his original vote? because your “if” does not apply, because the voter has chosen for it not to Multiply this by 1000 (a campaign to do this could easily be dreamt up by those with malevolent intent) and you can see the potential chaos which could ensue. An alternative interpretation could be that you're saying the casting of the vote itself is still private, but the voter could "choose to have a public vote...and their vote is publicly recorded" - do you mean at the time of voting, Yes rather than at a later date? No Surely this results in the same possible scenario observed in the previous paragraph? The only way to avoid this would be for the vote literally to be public, Yes - that’s the whole point i.e. it is filmed as they make their pencil mark on the ballot paper, and I'm sure this isnt allowed in electoral law Of course it isn’t allowed in electoral law currently, which is why this suggested proposal would be a change in the law (just as the Secret Ballot Act of 1872 was a change in the law and possibly breaks other laws too? Furthermore, how would this work with postal and proxy votes?? The same way - it would,actually be easier with PVs because the identity of the voter is more directly linked to the vote in the first place I admire the creative thinking, but think this needs to go back to the drawing board.No it doesn’t, because I was very precise in the first place (although your comprehension of what I wrote may be somewhat lacking)
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. You (and possibly andrewp as well) have completely misunderstood virtually everything I wrote. There is no flaw in the plan (at least, not anything like the flaw that you seem to be perceiving). I am proposing that the system would work as follows: On general election day, each voter chooses whether he wants to (A) vote privately / secretly (in the way that has been universal since 1872), or (B) publicly. (A) If the voter wants to vote privately, he males his mark on the ballot paper in the normal way, and puts it in the ballot box in the normal,way, and it is counted in the normal way, so that it is a secret ballot. Those votes are counted in the normal way, and the total is announced in the normal way. (B) if the voter wants to vote publicly, he gets a different type of ballot paper. - it has space on it on which is recorded his name, address, and electoral register number. Those details can be verified and officially written on the paper by the staff in the polling station. Those votes are counted separately, and at the end of the count, an official declaration is made that the number of votes cast for each candidate is bla bla bla. The two types of total numbers are added together to get the result. Along with the second total, an official list is published, which states publicly that Andrew P of 23 Acacia Avenue has voted for Candidate X, and that Manchester Man of Flat 537, Victory Mansions, Grimbly Road has voted for Candidate Y. (I am imagining that initially the number of private votes in each constituency will be the usual 50,000 and that the number of public votes in each constituency might be a few hundred). The official declaration of the result states that Candidate X has 23,456 votes, of which 23,403 votes are private and 53 votes are public. The declaration includes, as an official annex / appendix, a list of the 53 people who have voted for Candidate X, and their names and addresses. This list can be publicly inspected just as the nomination papers can be inspected. If, a year after the general election, Andrew P changes his mind and wishes that he had voted for Candidate Y instead, he can write to the Returning Officer and fill in an official form which changes his vote from X to Y. The total number of votes for X is reduced to 23,455 and the number of votes for Y is increased by 1. In marginal constituencies, if enough people have chosen to use the public option, the number of votes might change sufficiently to elect Y instead of X. Then, X would be unseated as MP, and Y would become MP instead. No need for a by-election, no need for a recall petition. Within a reasonable limit, each public voter can change their mind as may times as they like within a parliament. Perhaps there is a limit of at least 3 months in between each change. (I am envisaging that over time, the number of people opting for the public option will increase to many thousands, so that it will be easier to oust the Nadine Dorrieses and not just the marginal people.)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 29, 2023 21:07:46 GMT
What would happen then in the event that Y has died since the election?
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2023 21:14:23 GMT
What would happen then in the event that Y has died since the election? A by-election caused by the death of the MP
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jul 29, 2023 22:05:00 GMT
It would certainly be interesting if Y had been booted out if the party that they originally stood for.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 29, 2023 22:18:30 GMT
or what about if Candidate Y , having "lost" that election, went on the be successful in a "normal" by-election 4 months later? or what happens if some of those "public voters" change their vote (as proposed) but then subsequently move out of this constituency..thereby they are no longer being represented by either Candidate X or Y anymore? * I'm sure we can all think up more 'glitches' with the plan, but nice try ** I moved from Grimbley Road a year ago as Acacia Avenue is much nicer
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,078
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 30, 2023 0:05:58 GMT
or what about if Candidate Y , having "lost" that election, went on the be successful in a "normal" by-election 4 months later? or what happens if some of those "public voters" change their vote (as proposed) but then subsequently move out of this constituency..thereby they are no longer being represented by either Candidate X or Y anymore? * I'm sure we can all think up more 'glitches' with the plan, but nice try ** I moved from Grimbley Road a year ago as Acacia Avenue is much nicer Y is no longer eligible to be elected as MP for the constituency in which they stood in the general election, so there would be a vacancy, so there would be a by-election. (Remember that this scenario would be very rare, because it depends on the result of the general election being overturned by a sufficient number of voters changing their mind, and Y having been elected in a different by-election, both at the same time in the same parliament. It would be like (frig zample) the local election in South Croydon ward in 2022: Jason Perry was one of the top three candidates, but he wasn’t declared elected as a councillor because he wasn’t eligible because he had already been elected as Mayor (i.e. he wasn’t elected as a councillor and then disqualified; he just wasn’t declared elected at all). An elector who has moved out of the constituency is no longer eligible to vote in that same constituency, so is not eligible to change his vote. There may be a few minor “glitches” in this Modest Proposal, but the elephant in the room of the current system is that the voter who changes his mind has to feel frustrated, possibly for years, until the next general election, and can’t do anything about it in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 30, 2023 7:26:53 GMT
or what about if Candidate Y , having "lost" that election, went on the be successful in a "normal" by-election 4 months later? or what happens if some of those "public voters" change their vote (as proposed) but then subsequently move out of this constituency..thereby they are no longer being represented by either Candidate X or Y anymore? * I'm sure we can all think up more 'glitches' with the plan, but nice try ** I moved from Grimbley Road a year ago as Acacia Avenue is much nicer Y is no longer eligible to be elected as MP for the constituency in which they stood in the general election, so there would be a vacancy, so there would be a by-election. (Remember that this scenario would be very rare, because it depends on the result of the general election being overturned by a sufficient number of voters changing their mind, and Y having been elected in a different by-election, both at the same time in the same parliament. It would be like (frig zample) the local election in South Croydon ward in 2022: Jason Perry was one of the top three candidates, but he wasn’t declared elected as a councillor because he wasn’t eligible because he had already been elected as Mayor (i.e. he wasn’t elected as a councillor and then disqualified; he just wasn’t declared elected at all). An elector who has moved out of the constituency is no longer eligible to vote in that same constituency, so is not eligible to change his vote. There may be a few minor “glitches” in this Modest Proposal, but the elephant in the room of the current system is that the voter who changes his mind has to feel frustrated, possibly for years, until the next general election, and can’t do anything about it in the meantime. My own feeling about said elephant is that voters ought to be more careful with their votes in the first place. I can't help feeling this whole wonderful scheme relates to sledgehammers and nuts. Or maybe just nuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2023 7:34:16 GMT
What is Nadine waiting for? Party conferences? 2024 local elections?
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jul 30, 2023 7:35:04 GMT
My own feeling about said elephant is that voters ought to be more careful with their votes in the first place. Too true ...
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 30, 2023 7:38:01 GMT
What is Nadine waiting for? Party conferences? 2024 local elections? Expulsion for bringing the House into disrepute?
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jul 30, 2023 7:39:09 GMT
What is Nadine waiting for? Party conferences? 2024 local elections?
More publicity!
|
|