|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 14, 2016 19:55:25 GMT
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. That would mean for a party like UKIP you would end up with one person controlling 80-odd votes. Just think of the mess that would happen when that one person inevitably defects a year later  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 14, 2016 20:00:50 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.Why? Because it's wrong and divisive to have equal status in a legislature to those who have come through different routes. Because it's wrong and divisive to have the same voters represented by two different classes of representative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 20:08:57 GMT
Because it's wrong and divisive to have equal status in a legislature to those who have come through different routes. Because it's wrong and divisive to have the same voters represented by two different classes of representative. I guess I could ask "why?" again, but apparently its just based on your gut feeling and idiosyncratic beliefs. Its hard to see why its divisive. Its standard practice in a lot of countries without causing problems, and there is no rational reason why it should be wrong to have the voters represented in two different ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 14, 2016 20:12:15 GMT
Shock horror, forum poster expresses personal opinion tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 14, 2016 20:51:31 GMT
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. That would mean for a party like UKIP you would end up with one person controlling 80-odd votes. Just think of the mess that would happen when that one person inevitably defects a year later I'm warming to the idea...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 20:58:32 GMT
Shock horror, forum poster expresses personal opinion tragedy. Of course not, but you have a way of expressing opinions as if they were indisputable facts; and while "moral" is a matter of opinion the "divisive" part isn't and there is a large amount of empirical evidence disproving that claim. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 14, 2016 21:17:58 GMT
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. That would mean for a party like UKIP you would end up with one person controlling 80-odd votes. Just think of the mess that would happen when that one person inevitably defects a year later Well, yes, last year's election would've produced the most extreme example possible. Although elected Kippers do have a habit of ratting, there would have to be some sort of rule against that (and to ensure the delegate would be automatically replaced if they allowed their party membership to lapse). In larger parties, it would be prurient to make the delegate in charge of all those extra votes a senior whip. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 14, 2016 21:46:45 GMT
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[.] People of a certain age in the east can remember a different system, but that's another matter. All six eastern Länder adopted MMP following reunification even though there are 3 states (Bremen, Hamburg and the Saarland) in the west that don't use it. I have witnessed the Saxon Landtag in action and there was no indication that list members were 'second-class' deputies. The current Welsh system was partly designed with British political traditions and sensibilities in mind, and of course also with Labour partisan advantage as a consideration too. It did cause Nick Bourne to lose his seat when his party did too well, true, but I can see how a lot of people would find it worse that Portillo and Balls would still have had a place in the Commons in 1997 and 2015 respectively under most variants of the system. This is similar to how Helmut Kohl initially carried on as CDU leader after losing in Ludwigshafen in 1998, although Germans did not bat an eyelid at the fact that he no longer had a constituency seat. Shock horror, forum poster expresses personal opinion tragedy. Of course not, but you have a way of expressing opinions as if they were indisputable facts; and while "moral" is a matter of opinion the "divisive" part isn't and there is a large amount of empirical evidence disproving that claim. This is one of those cases when David would be better off sticking to facts and being a fount of knowledge, I'm afraid. I think "objectionable", immoral and "divisive" are far too strong as terms to use when talking about a reasonable electoral system. Germans have lived under AMS at the federal level for decades and there is nothing to suggest that it has made politics more divisive there. I find it more peculiar and inefficient for the electorate to be represented twice in the same way within a legislature (as in 49 US states, and in the Australian state of Victoria until 2004) than for them to be represented twice differently in one chamber. Upper houses in particular can often work best as hybrids. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 14, 2016 21:53:14 GMT
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).
The CDU has never won an absolute majority in the Bundestag. It was 61 seats short of a majority in its own right in 2013. If you're talking about the CDU and CSU combined, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 14, 2016 23:09:06 GMT
Because it's wrong and divisive to have equal status in a legislature to those who have come through different routes. Because it's wrong and divisive to have the same voters represented by two different classes of representative. I guess I could ask "why?" again, but apparently its just based on your gut feeling and idiosyncratic beliefs. Its hard to see why its divisive. Its standard practice in a lot of countries without causing problems, and there is no rational reason why it should be wrong to have the voters represented in two different ways. I think it can be advantageous |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 15, 2016 8:09:42 GMT
The irrational cleaving to the FPTP system, as beautifully illustrated by Davıd Boothroyd , has always been a feature of certain parts of the Labour Party. There is of course a rational element - that is it enables us to rule over people, even though we are a minority. While it's understandable that Conservatives should take this instrumental line, Labour is supposed to be a party of fairness, so this has never sat well. However there is a deep emotional attachment to FPTP as well, as David shows. This is a form of conservative nostalgia - it looks back to the "good old days" and sees change as something to be avoided if at all possible. Again this is odd for a party that in theory promotes change, although anyone who knows the history of the Labour Party will know that this isn't really the story, and a golden age of working-class community cohesion is part of the myth.
AMS is in my view the best system available for representing people, given that there is no perfect system. In a proper democracy governments need to reflect a majority in order to maintain public confidence in the system, and to command acceptance for their actions. While forming such a majority may well be difficult, and may well lead to sub-optimal outcomes, particularly when the huge egos of most politicians come into play, it is still the best reflection of the popular will available. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 12:21:53 GMT
John, you've hit in something I've said for a tidy while. Some of the most conservative opinions on constitutional reform has come from Labour figures. It's most clearly articulated by David, who seems to bristle at the very thought of reform. FPTP for the Commons is utterly bust, and utterly bust for Labour in particular. Holding on to such a cracked system is blindsided nostalgia of the most conservative, and the most British, kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 15, 2016 12:41:38 GMT
Very odd that only three days after posting this: AV is a perfectly good system. STV can work as long as the number of members in each constituency is low. ... I am now accused of "irrational cleaving" to FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 15, 2016 14:24:55 GMT
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. There's an idea floating around for a combined STV/AMS version - i.e. use STV for constituency members with a top-up list. I suspect this is an attempt to get as many parties onboard - in particular the 2015 projections for the Greens do not give them much to get excited about STV. Ukip would also benefit though electoral changers have got to make their mind up whether they're actually interested in the right or if the whole thing is just a power grab for the metropolitan liberal elite. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 15, 2016 14:35:13 GMT
Well, yes, last year's election would've produced the most extreme example possible. Although elected Kippers do have a habit of ratting, there would have to be some sort of rule against that (and to ensure the delegate would be automatically replaced if they allowed their party membership to lapse). New Zealand had a law against "waka jumping" but it wound producing farces such as Jim Anderton's Progressives staying in the Alliance in parliament even whilst simultaneously campaigning against them in the country, or a court case to decide if an MP expelled from ACT had lost her seat - the supreme court ruled she had, which is probably a step too far towards central control for even many advocates of these rules. The law only lasted a few years. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 15, 2016 14:38:59 GMT
John, you've hit in something I've said for a tidy while. Some of the most conservative opinions on constitutional reform has come from Labour figures. It's most clearly articulated by David, who seems to bristle at the very thought of reform. FPTP for the Commons is utterly bust, and utterly bust for Labour in particular. Holding on to such a cracked system is blindsided nostalgia of the most conservative, and the most British, kind. Your lot have been saying FPTP is bust and cracked for a while - since about 30th October 1924. The fact that the system has lasted, has seen off many a whinge and attempt to change it and has survived a referendum so magnificently suggests that not everyone agrees it is bust or cracked. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,561
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 15, 2016 14:39:56 GMT
STV + AMS is doubleplusridiculous. STV alone is perfectly adequate for representing minorities (political or geographical). Having been a member of ERS for 20 years (but not any more), I find the last few pages of this thread dreary and off-putting (a few years ago I would have been excited).
But unlike many STVers, I recognise that FPTP has its own logic, and (according to local circumstances) can work reasonably well. The House of Commons is one example where it works better than most. I am less concerned about the disproportional representation of minor parties like UKIP and Lib Dems; I am more concerned about the balance between the two main parties. 2015 and 2010 were OK; 2005 was not.
David's "cleaving" (whatever that means) to FPTP has always been rational, whether you agree with him or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 15, 2016 16:27:47 GMT
STV + AMS is doubleplusridiculous. STV alone is perfectly adequate for representing minorities (political or geographical). Having been a member of ERS for 20 years (but not any more), I find the last few pages of this thread dreary and off-putting (a few years ago I would have been excited). But unlike many STVers, I recognise that FPTP has its own logic, and (according to local circumstances) can work reasonably well. The House of Commons is one example where it works better than most. I am less concerned about the disproportional representation of minor parties like UKIP and Lib Dems; I am more concerned about the balance between the two main parties. 2015 and 2010 were OK; 2005 was not. David's "cleaving" (whatever that means) to FPTP has always been rational, whether you agree with him or not. John, like you I am a supporter of STV.. people should choose MP's, not just parties. However I am very surprised that people seem to have forgotten AV+ in this discussion. That was the system favoured by the Jenkins Commission after all. I guess after the AV referendum debacle and in this post-truth era anything with AV in the title would be a mistake. I would go for AMS and STV in a second house if I had my autocratic way with our Constitution! Reading the Wikipedia page on the Jenkins Commission is a depressing illustration of how Labour cannot be trusted on Electoral Reform however..... |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 15, 2016 17:09:08 GMT
I've never understood how AV+ is better than AMS in any meaningful way that would outweigh the confusion. (Constituency to list ratios and list area sizes aren't a specific feature.) In London there are real problems with combining preferential and proportional elections and there's real risk AV+ would lead to all manner of bizarre vote splits and confusions.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,690
|
Post by Jack on Dec 15, 2016 17:16:03 GMT
Another downside for AV+ is that it isn't used anywhere.
So it's hard to say how great it is if no country has implemented it.
|
|
