J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 20, 2024 3:00:05 GMT
543 seats in the Lok Sabha! Well yes, some constituencies there have population figures far closer to 2 million than 200,000 - but India is a much bigger country. Arguably the lower house should be a bit larger there, but the same ratio of electors to seats here would mean a House of Commons way smaller than the Senedd! Each nation needs to find a formula that works for it, and I don't think ours involves just 325 FPTP seats. Cube Root Law? |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 20, 2024 6:19:16 GMT
Do we know the Starmer government’s views on changing the way we vote in general elections, and whether there is any prospect of history repeating itself and a commission being set up to consider the issue by the end of the year? As we know, the Jenkins Commission ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Blair never genuinely supported the idea of moving away from FPTP. Just after the 2010 exit poll was released, however, figures such as Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson were voicing an interest, presumably to try to win over the Lib Dems in coalition talks. Surely the case for electoral reform is far stronger than it was back in ‘97. Blair got well over 40 percent of the vote; two weeks ago Labour got just over a third. The party system has become more fragmented, with the rise of Reform, and to a smaller extent, the Greens. Notwithstanding Labour’s huge majority, a swing of 5 percent would be enough to wipe it out next time. If the government isn’t keen on discussing the issue, their hand may well be forced by a hung Parliament situation in the future. Well, whenever this question is raised, people (as in the thread above) jump in to advocate their own preferred option.
But they never ask the question that should come first.
Confining it to Parliamentary elections (because other considerations may apply to other types of election), the question that should be answered first is this: What is a General Election for? Why do we have it at all? What purpose is it meant to achieve?
(All right, that's actually three different ways of asking the same question.)
I'm betting that once you've decided what you're trying to achieve, it will be obvious which system is best for the purpose.
So: what is a GE seeking to achieve?
(I have my own answer to this question, but I'll let others go first.)
There are a variety of purposes. In my priority order: 1. To allow citizens to have their say. Elections are, to an extent, a means of obtaining a reasonable reflection of diverse opinions on how they should be governed. If elections aren’t held or don’t adequately reflect opinion then alternative ways of expressing dissent will be found (or those citizens disengage from the process). 2. To choose a cohort of people to pass or repeal laws and to hold any executive to account. 3. To allow the formation of a government. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 20, 2024 9:26:27 GMT
Not sure he did/does, don't think easy to find anything on record about him supporting it My understanding is that as soon as Blair got into unfettered power, he suddenly became very sceptical about all the huge constitutional changes that had been promised, with electoral reform and Prescott's hobby horse of regional assemblies being the only two he managed to put the brakes on sufficiently. The smaller bits of tinkering in his third term, however, he was fully on board with. He definitely issued a statement about the Jenkins Commission that appeared broadly positive, if not explicitly supportive. Paddy Ashdown's diaries confirm that Blair was sympathetic back then, but Ashdown also knew that Labour's big majority was a major blow to chances of reform. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 20, 2024 11:48:17 GMT
With this election having been the most unproportional in history, I think it will be impossible to ignore electoral reform yet knowing how Con and Lab love the constituency link, there is only one to way to go. MMP. 325 directly elected constituency members (the current constituencies paired) and 325 regional list seats (calculated on a regional / county basis where suitable) using the constituency votes and constituency members as the calculation method This election PROVED the immense superiority of FPTP to any other system by delivering what most of us wanted. There was a desire for a beachhead by Reform but not not too big, and a better beachhead for the Greens but a modest one; a reward to the levelling effect of the LDs for decades of hard work of a very localist nature; a severe evisceration for the incompetence and gormless apology for a party that is the Conservatives still heartily loathed by a large majority; and an upwelling of hope and support around a reconstructed Labour in the image of Starmer. It achieved all that to a considered nicety. PR would have delivered a whole lot more gobshite stupid, alarmingly odd and totally unworthy Greens, Reforms and Independents to beslime the green benches with inanity, incompetence and possible corruption and criminality. The Conservatives would have saved many more of their utter dross and Labour would have been sorely hampered by a small or no majority and a chamber of minor horrors to negotiate. Well done FPTP for coming up trumps yet again. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,125
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 20, 2024 15:14:18 GMT
Again, the fact that an electoral system that is neither designed nor intended to produce a proportional outcome has failed to produce a proportional outcome proves precisely nothing. What it does prove it that whatever result it was designed to produce is no longer fit for purpose itself. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 20, 2024 15:19:48 GMT
With this election having been the most unproportional in history, I think it will be impossible to ignore electoral reform yet knowing how Con and Lab love the constituency link, there is only one to way to go. MMP. 325 directly elected constituency members (the current constituencies paired) and 325 regional list seats (calculated on a regional / county basis where suitable) using the constituency votes and constituency members as the calculation method This election PROVED the immense superiority of FPTP to any other system by delivering what most of us wanted. There was a desire for a beachhead by Reform but not not too big, and a better beachhead for the Greens but a modest one; a reward to the levelling effect of the LDs for decades of hard work of a very localist nature; a severe evisceration for the incompetence and gormless apology for a party that is the Conservatives still heartily loathed by a large majority; and an upwelling of hope and support around a reconstructed Labour in the image of Starmer. It achieved all that to a considered nicety. PR would have delivered a whole lot more gobshite stupid, alarmingly odd and totally unworthy Greens, Reforms and Independents to beslime the green benches with inanity, incompetence and possible corruption and criminality. The Conservatives would have saved many more of their utter dross and Labour would have been sorely hampered by a small or no majority and a chamber of minor horrors to negotiate. Well done FPTP for coming up trumps yet again. Plus recent elections have given the lie to the idea some seats are 'forever safe', a line often peddled by the PR fanatics |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 20, 2024 19:11:48 GMT
It's a long-running sore in local government that in response to the wishes of the electorate, suburbs and commuter belts that are clearly part of a conurbation are permitted to declare that they are not.
If perhaps you charged everyone £1000 pa to work in whichever local authority they worked in, but allowed them to claim it back if they were a council taxpayer in that local authority, this would stop pronto.
|
|
