|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 14:41:05 GMT
You're right. All those people who voted for a C/LD coalition in 2010... That's if you think that its better for a minority to govern a majority, rather than a majority constructed of different minorities. I prefer the latter and it works much better than FPTP in terms of providing good governance. Its interesting how FPTP is rejected for all the devolved parliaments yet retained for Westminster! If it was so great, wonder why it wasn't chosen there? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 12, 2016 14:44:33 GMT
You're right. All those people who voted for a C/LD coalition in 2010... That's if you think that its better for a minority to govern a majority, rather than a majority constructed of different minorities. I prefer the latter and it works much better than FPTP in terms of providing good governance. Its interesting how FPTP is rejected for all the devolved parliaments yet retained for Westminster! If it was so great, wonder why it wasn't chosen there? A minority is better than 0%. And it's allowed for the toy town parish councils, as they are not taken seriously. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679 
|
Post by Jack on Dec 12, 2016 15:44:48 GMT
Actually quite a few of us do care about that!  Well, of course- you're a member of the party that obsesses about electoral reform and the EU above all else. Shame that those are the only two things to have been explicitly rejected in nationwide referendums in my lifetime. The reason the AV referendum lost was because it was a referendum on AV. The kind of electoral reform people want is a form of PR. Not FPTP with a hat on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 15:51:36 GMT
Well, of course- you're a member of the party that obsesses about electoral reform and the EU above all else. Shame that those are the only two things to have been explicitly rejected in nationwide referendums in my lifetime. The reason the AV referendum lost was because it was a referendum on AV. The kind of electoral reform people want is a form of PR. Not FPTP with a hat on. And not bloody preferential voting. Non-preferential PR only. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679
|
Post by Jack on Dec 12, 2016 16:06:42 GMT
The reason the AV referendum lost was because it was a referendum on AV. The kind of electoral reform people want is a form of PR. Not FPTP with a hat on. And not bloody preferential voting. Non-preferential PR only. Yes, I'm not sure why would want your third preference winning the seat just so your vote counts for more. If we had another referendum with something like AMS as the option, it would be much more likely to win. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 12, 2016 16:13:35 GMT
AMS is still a crap system which produces 'representatives' that don't really represent anybody.
AV is a perfectly good system. STV can work as long as the number of members in each constituency is low.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 12, 2016 16:41:22 GMT
And any post-election coalition formation will ignore them all. Don't agree at all How else could a government be formed Mike? Many parties represented in the HOC. No one party has anything near to a majority. Informal and formal talks on linking up to form a coalition. Already a degree of compromise required in teaming up and conceding ministries to another party or parties. Then formal negotiations on a programme where considerable compromise of principles, sacred cows and manifesto policies will be required. All away from public gaze and no control or input by the public. That is why I much prefer big broad church parties where the compromises are done in an element of public stare and all seen BEFORE the GE, not after. And why I much prefer FPTP which strongly militates against a proliferation of smaller parties. I prefer a broad-based binary system and I think is has served us well. I loath coalitions. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 12, 2016 16:53:35 GMT
And not bloody preferential voting. Non-preferential PR only. Yes, I'm not sure why would want your third preference winning the seat just so your vote counts for more. It can be argued that seeing your third preference winning it better than not seeing any of them winning. Also, if you really don't want to see your third preference win, then don't give out a third preference. I've honestly never understood this argument. Also, it doesn't take into account things such as perceptions of candidate quality; for all one knows, there could very well be loads candidates on the ballot that the voter in this scenario considers to be top grade and all worthy of winning, but he can give one of them his top preference; granted, in this day and age that is highly unlikely, but still. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 12, 2016 17:06:22 GMT
Well, of course- you're a member of the party that obsesses about electoral reform and the EU above all else. Shame that those are the only two things to have been explicitly rejected in nationwide referendums in my lifetime. The reason the AV referendum lost was because it was a referendum on AV. The kind of electoral reform people want is a form of PR. Not FPTP with a hat on. The reason the AV referendum was lost was because it was promoted by Nick Clegg. The fact that AV wasn't as comprehensive a reform as, say, STV, merely failed to counter the negative effect of being endorsed by the aforementioned man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 18:39:08 GMT
AV failed for many, many reasons. It was not merely a grubby little compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 12, 2016 20:35:34 GMT
AMS is still a crap system which produces 'representatives' that don't really represent anybody. AV is a perfectly good system. STV can work as long as the number of members in each constituency is low. The main problem with AMS is that like FPTP it still produces, in practice, two-party dominance, even if other parties are given a greater voice than under strict FPTP. In German Bundestag elections either the CDU or SPD is guaranteed to dominate whichever coalition results, even if neither can gain an outright majority (the CDU has done so only once since 1945; they nearly did so in 2013 but fell five seats short).
STV constituencies still should not have too few members-3 or 4 per constituency (the norm in Ireland) is too low. 5 or 6 is about right at parliamentary level.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 12, 2016 21:06:09 GMT
It only produces two-party dominance if the voters choose to vote for those two parties. In Germany the CDU/SPD consistently get over 2/3 of the vote between them so it is hardly suprising that one or the other is always in government. I don't see that as a flaw in the voting system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 12, 2016 21:32:40 GMT
It must also be worth noting that the German electoral system has a 5% (or 3 constituency seats) threshold for its lists, which probably also helps ensure that there are fewer small parties in the Bundestag.
As far as PR (or semi-proportional) systems go, I'd go for a Mixed-Member system, preferably one with open-lists, and IRV for the constituencies (or, AV+ as some are taken to calling it). STV is a decent system, but not one I'd deem practical for a country with an electorate as large as ours. Definitely use STV for local government, but not AMS, the use of party lists just doesn't seem appropriate for any level of government beneath that of sub-national* legislatures (I feel that they take too much away from the "local representative" aspect, which I'd argue is less of a concern for national/sub-national legislative bodies, but definitely an important aspect for any local government body).
* i.e. A state unit in a Federal nation, or closer to home, any of the devolved regions
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 12, 2016 21:34:21 GMT
There are a clear minority of people who are really not doing very well at all. The cliched term of 'left behind' is used rather too often, but not without reason - and in an increasingly competitive environment there's no sign of them catching up, and I don't think its possible to increase their chances without very definite programmes which will cost. And the reality of our society is huge inequality and yes, it does mean the fortunate having to recognise their good fortune - and be willing to do something to help others who haven't been so favoured by the way society operates. There are a clear minority of people who aren't doing very well, but you're assuming that they all vote for us anyway. Which is bollocks - plenty of them are exactly the sort of Lab/Con swing voters you're so resistant to targeting. And many of them are swing voters precisely because we don't offer them very much. AMS is still a crap system which produces 'representatives' that don't really represent anybody. AV is a perfectly good system. STV can work as long as the number of members in each constituency is low. The main problem with AMS is that like FPTP it still produces, in practice, two-party dominance, even if other parties are given a greater voice than under strict FPTP. In German Bundestag elections either the CDU or SPD is guaranteed to dominate whichever coalition results, even if neither can gain an outright majority (the CDU has done so only once since 1945; they nearly did so in 2013 but fell five seats short). This is only a problem if you support unpopular parties. The reason such systems have two big parties is that the electorate wants two main parties. Where that isn't the case (e. g. in quite a lot of the länder), AMS produces multi-party systems quite happily. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Dec 13, 2016 0:13:31 GMT
I find it a bit irritating that so many commentators on here - and in the media generally - are assuming that the new boundaries are 'a done deal' and will definitely happen. Yet that is far from being the case ! The key Parliamentary vote will not happen until Autumn 2018 and we know that there will be Tory rebels on this - as indeed there were in the last Parliament.The Government's majority is now down to 10 , and a couple of further by election reverses could easily mean that it is down to 6 in 18 months time.There is a distinct likelihood of Tory rebels being into double figures which would probably be sufficient to scupper the proposals. Back in September a senior Tory suggested that there was a 60% chance of the changes not happening!
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 13, 2016 1:10:01 GMT
The AV referendum failed not because it was an unpopular idea: it failed because despite noises to the contrary, most people are pretty much OK with the current set up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 13, 2016 10:58:26 GMT
The reason the AV referendum lost was because it was a referendum on AV. The kind of electoral reform people want is a form of PR. Not FPTP with a hat on. And not bloody preferential voting. Non-preferential PR only. Absolutely on both counts. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 13, 2016 11:05:11 GMT
The AV referendum failed not because it was an unpopular idea: it failed because despite noises to the contrary, most people are pretty much OK with the current set up. Actually polls regularly show sizeable support for changing our electoral system at Westminster. Needless to say, there is less agreement on what that change should be. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301
|
Post by maxque on Dec 13, 2016 11:13:55 GMT
But I think quite a few will be more comfortable with it being that way. When the electorate are no longer able to voice their opinion? Yes, I'm sure there will be many who find it infinitely preferable. I suspect the electorate doesn't want to "voice its opinion". It wants to be listened. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 13, 2016 11:16:21 GMT
It's strange how the very simple English verb "to listen" has surreptitiously acquired a different meaning. Originally it meant to attentively hear someone and understand what they were communicating. Now it means to agree with them and proceed without delay to do anything they want.
|
|
