The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 13, 2016 11:17:43 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! I don't know how many "Tory rebels" there will be when it comes to the crunch (there weren't that many last time, after all) What may be significant, however (and little noticed) is that the DUP recently declared its dissatisfaction with the review and that they would vote against in due course.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 13, 2016 11:24:24 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. Ah! Yes. What a difference there is between hearing and listening and comprehending?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 13, 2016 11:27:50 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! I don't know how many "Tory rebels" there will be when it comes to the crunch (there weren't that many last time, after all) What may be significant, however (and little noticed) is that the DUP recently declared its dissatisfaction with the review and that they would vote against in due course. If the NI Commission were to adopt my proposed amendments, the DUP would be a bit less dissatisfied. As it is they would have no choice to vote against what is a de facto Sinn Fein/IRA gerrymander
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 13, 2016 12:15:37 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 regionsParty lists are the spawn of the devil, encouraging obedience, conformity and docility to the party bigwigs.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 13, 2016 12:37:12 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 regionsParty lists are the spawn of the devil, encouraging obedience, conformity and docility to the party bigwigs. Try telling that to the UKIP MEPs..
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 13, 2016 13:57:59 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 regionsParty lists are the spawn of the devil, encouraging obedience, conformity and docility to the party bigwigs. Not overly keen on them myself, which is why if we have to use them, make them open.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 13, 2016 14:41:38 GMT
Open lists are fine in theory, but in practice what percentage of the electorate are actually going to know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision for one over the other?
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,532
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Dec 13, 2016 14:59:43 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. AV is a pointless waste of time for pedantic tactical voters who already vote tactically but want their vote to count anyway just in case they get it wrong. It's certainly not worth reforming the system over. The net change in seats would be negligible for the cost of it; it would also most likely confuse voters, lengthen the count process and be open to manipulation. How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. The only coherent mainstream systems are AMS and FPTP (both have their own relative merits and drawbacks). STV does not exclude constituency representation, that is a ridiculous statement. In what way would having multiple MPs make them unaccountable? Seems an odd statement. I don't mind AMS, but dislike the use of party lists, and the way in which an MP could lose their seat due to their party doing well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 13, 2016 15:10:46 GMT
Open lists are fine in theory, but in practice what percentage of the electorate are actually going to know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision for one over the other? Better than just straight up letting the party bosses decide who gets priority on the lists. Also, I would support investing some time & resources into educating the electorate about the mechanics of any new electoral system, should we ever switch away from straight FPTP.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 13, 2016 15:16:39 GMT
How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. I was a councillor in a 3-member ward for eleven years and am currently a councillor in a 2-member ward, and at no time felt unrepresentative or unaccountable.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 13, 2016 15:20:43 GMT
How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. What a stupid remark. AMS is obviously terrible because it is mixed. People arrive in the assembly through different routes. That's objectionable in itself. STV has almost nothing to do with AMS. It scores over AMS in that the voter gives preference to individual candidates not party lists, and the voter gets the chance to express preferences. The voter gets more control all round. AMS without constituency representation is just a party list system.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 13, 2016 16:57:58 GMT
How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. What a stupid remark. AMS is obviously terrible because it is mixed. People arrive in the assembly through different routes. That's objectionable in itself.A matter of opinion I daresay, though I will concede that the "AMS enables candidates to get in via the back door" arguement does hold some weight if the rules enable simultaneous participation on both the constituencies and the list, it doesn't mean that the list members are any less legitimate than those elected to the constituencies*. But, I will argue that being a mixed member system does not objectively make AMS inherently bad, and though whilst it can be argued that it's essentially a bastard compromise system, I think that if properly implemented, it can still sufficiently provide the more laudable aspects of proportionality, and the local representation that FPTP-esque systems give. * Now, is it just me, or does there seem be some sort of "prestige" attached to winning a constituency in a legislature that utilises MMPR? (At least over here in the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly.)
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,532
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Dec 13, 2016 17:12:10 GMT
I was a councillor in a 3-member ward for eleven years and am currently a councillor in a 2-member ward, and at no time felt unrepresentative or unaccountable. But that is effectively the EXACT same thing as AMS Regional representatives... I'd say over half of my town's STV and AMS regional members are arrogant and/or incompetent (including some Conservatives)... Not accountable in my opinion. The fact that they are arrogant and incompetent does not make them unaccountable.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 13, 2016 19:39:06 GMT
How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. I was a councillor in a 3-member ward for eleven years and am currently a councillor in a 2-member ward, and at no time felt unrepresentative or unaccountable. I was going to say something similar. In fact there are representational advantages to multi-member wards/ constituencies: (These examples are actual cases from my time as a councillor) 1. One of my constituents had a housing issue which was a tad sensitive. She didn't want to approach me, since we had known each other since childhood and our mothers were close friends. She approached a ward colleague who dealt with it discreetly and effectively. 2. Residents in the village of Church Minshull (a single member ward) were concerned about a major planning application. "Talk to your councillor" they were advised. "But he's the applicant" they replied. 3. For a few years my ward was split LD/Labour. Boy did they get good service ... ! 4. Add in cases of single member wards where the councillor suffers long-term illness or b***ers off to Peru on holiday for months at a time.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 14, 2016 7:02:55 GMT
Party lists are the spawn of the devil, encouraging obedience, conformity and docility to the party bigwigs. Try telling that to the UKIP MEPs.. UKIP are hardly the norm in terms of party organisation. But even if they were, it's worth noting the high numbers of UKIP MEPs who only serve one term and the ease with which the party hierarchy is able to deselect those it finds awkward. You can have your own opinion, it's just that if you do you won't be able to acquire the seniority to do anything about it.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 14, 2016 11:14:35 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. But in the one poll that mattered, they said no change.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 14, 2016 11:27:17 GMT
Yes, because they didn't like the (ahem) alternative offered. (let's pass over the at times rather unscrupulous campaigning tactics of No2AV, shall we )
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 14, 2016 19:08:53 GMT
What a stupid remark. AMS is obviously terrible because it is mixed. People arrive in the assembly through different routes. That's objectionable in itself. * Now, is it just me, or does there seem be some sort of "prestige" attached to winning a constituency in a legislature that utilises MMPR? (At least over here in the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly.)Only in Britain and possibly NZ, yes, because of political culture and traditions. In West Germany where most Länder have used AMS since the late 1940s, the idea that constituency and list members could be treated differently does not even occur to commentators, politicians or the public. I think open lists are a red herring here and a barrier to reform (as appears to have been the case in Canada recently). How about some Johnloonyesque outside-the-box thinking? Try this for starters: a single delegate is awarded to each party winning additional seats, who controls just the extra votes of that party in the plenary session and the Committee of the Whole House. If that member sits on any other committees, they obviously still only have one vote there (or perhaps just speaking rights). Therefore the number of seats only rises slightly whereas the number of votes in the chamber could still be about twice the number of FPTP members. This would mean almost no 'second-class' members who represent "nowhere" (but not no body!) and would also prevent the cost of professional politicians rising excessively. I was a councillor in a 3-member ward for eleven years and am currently a councillor in a 2-member ward, and at no time felt unrepresentative or unaccountable. I was going to say something similar. In fact there are representational advantages to multi-member wards/ constituencies: (These examples are actual cases from my time as a councillor) 1. One of my constituents had a housing issue which was a tad sensitive. She didn't want to approach me, since we had known each other since childhood and our mothers were close friends. She approached a ward colleague who dealt with it discreetly and effectively. 2. Residents in the village of Church Minshull (a single member ward) were concerned about a major planning application. "Talk to your councillor" they were advised. "But he's the applicant" they replied. 3. For a few years my ward was split LD/Labour. Boy did they get good service ... ! 4. Add in cases of single member wards where the councillor suffers long-term illness or b***ers off to Peru on holiday for months at a time. These are good examples why multi-member wards become more acceptable the further down the layers of government you go. I'd still only advocate them for parish/community councils, and at that point I'm not bothered whether STV or multi-member FPTP is used. Try telling that to the UKIP MEPs.. UKIP are hardly the norm in terms of party organisation. But even if they were, it's worth noting the high numbers of UKIP MEPs who only serve one term and the ease with which the party hierarchy is able to deselect those it finds awkward. You can have your own opinion, it's just that if you do you won't be able to acquire the seniority to do anything about it. UKIP MEPs who resign (or are kicked out) to sit as independents or form their own micro-parties are the biggest disgraces of all as they have absolutely no personal mandate whatsoever. The same applied to Bill Newton Dunn and Edward McMillan-Scott, who did everything they could to make people who noticed their defections suspicious of list systems (especially but not exclusively closed ones). 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. But in the one poll that mattered, they said no change. Most people in that one poll said nothing at all. On the one hand that's disappointing, but on the other hand, both campaigns were shameful and both options on the ballot paper uninspiring to say the least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 19:12:18 GMT
How can you think that AMS is a "crap system" but STV works? STV is basically just a worse version of AMS which excludes constituency representation altogether! Having more than one representative over any given area often makes those representatives unaccountable regardless of whether the election is held under AMS or STV. What a stupid remark. AMS is obviously terrible because it is mixed. People arrive in the assembly through different routes. That's objectionable in itself.Why?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 14, 2016 19:45:24 GMT
* Now, is it just me, or does there seem be some sort of "prestige" attached to winning a constituency in a legislature that utilises MMPR? (At least over here in the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly.) Only in Britain and possibly NZ, yes, because of political culture and traditions. In West Germany where most Länder have used AMS since the late 1940s, the idea that constituency and list members could be treated differently does not even occur to commentators, politicians or the public. Figured it'd be something along those lines. In Germany, they've been using that system pretty much since they got going again after the war, and thus the current generations know little different; in the UK the AM systems utilised by Wales and Scotland were a new invention to a nation whose people knew only FPTP, and where winning constituencies was (and still is for Westminster) the only way into parliament. I daresay that this is somewhat reinforced in Wales in particular, where the Assembly has a 2:1 ratio of constituency to list members, thus any election here is pretty much won or lost on the constituencies; in Scotland there are slightly more list MSPs to constituency members, but the constituencies still make up most of the seats (c.f. last May, where some people thought that the SNP could've won another absolute majority based on their constituency strength alone); in Germany, it's 1:1 (before any overhang and/or levelling seats are added).
|
|