|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 15, 2016 17:25:07 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. Whilst I don't doubt that there'll be some teething problems with the overhaul of and/or addition of new elements to an electoral system, I think the bulk of these problems can be ironed out by simply ensuring that plenty of information on how the new system(s) work is provided to the public. In the long run, this should be a minor issue at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 16, 2016 3:15:03 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. Whilst I don't doubt that there'll be some teething problems with the overhaul of and/or addition of new elements to an electoral system, I think the bulk of these problems can be ironed out by simply ensuring that plenty of information on how the new system(s) work is provided to the public. In the long run, this should be a minor issue at worst. I presume the reason why London and Scotland have this double vote system is to avoid the distortions of tactical voting etc at constituency level. To a large extent using AV at constituency level would avoid that and you would simply allocate the list seats based on the first preference votes at constituency level. (which to be honest I would have done anyway in Scotland and London, although I guess the Greens would not like it...) But like I say, AMS is probably the only proportional system that has a chance of being adopted since it already works pretty well in many places, and keeps the mystical constituency link... The regional version in Scotland is a good thing..., although less proportional |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 16, 2016 11:41:25 GMT
I think London and Wales were given AMS simply for consistency with the system Labour and the Lib Dems had agreed for Scotland in the belief it would make it impossible for the SNP to win (how many are now cursing that?). To an extent it really reflects the institutional widespread attitude in Labour that devolution was about smashing the nats and securing their power base.
(Northern Ireland got STV instead but that system had a long history there and IIRC was finally decided in the talks themselves.)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 16, 2016 12:45:05 GMT
I think it is fair to say both the LibDems and Nats were rather keener on AMS than an internally divided Labour in both cases.
(the Tories were opposed, of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Dec 22, 2016 16:01:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 22, 2016 20:14:53 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. Whilst I don't doubt that there'll be some teething problems with the overhaul of and/or addition of new elements to an electoral system, I think the bulk of these problems can be ironed out by simply ensuring that plenty of information on how the new system(s) work is provided to the public. In the long run, this should be a minor issue at worst. Locally the last two council elections have both seen three ballot papers on one day - single cross, multiple crosses in a single column and multiple crosses in multiple columns. Despite good publicity campaigns we've still had bucketloads of spoils. And election system change campaigners cry out at the suggestion that change could lead to increased costs so would we actually get this nationally? Or would we instead see loads of parties taking advantage of the confusion about how many votes people have (hello "second vote" parties)? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 22, 2016 20:15:27 GMT
I think it is fair to say both the LibDems and Nats were rather keener on AMS than an internally divided Labour in both cases. (the Tories were opposed, of course) Neither the Conservatives nor the SNP were involved with drawing up the proposals. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 23, 2016 0:47:20 GMT
So-called 'cumulative voting' has no place in any form of election on these isles. Other than the USA, Switzerland is the only country from which we have no lessons about democracy to take. (Yes, even Canada is basically where we took the Electoral Commission, citizenship ceremonies and a stricter line on double-jobbing from.) |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Dec 23, 2016 13:18:59 GMT
Other than the USA, Switzerland is the only country from which we have no lessons about democracy to take. What an utterly bizarre unfounded statement. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 23, 2016 18:21:11 GMT
Other than the USA, Switzerland is the only country from which we have no lessons about democracy to take. What an utterly bizarre unfounded statement. It is neither of those things from my point of view. Both produce a high volume of electoral events in terms of both elections and plebiscites (though not the latter at the national level in the case of the USA, obviously) without any discernible quality of outcomes to match the sheer quantity. The shifts in the Swiss party landscape are at least somewhat interesting, if largely inconsequential federally. The two-party system in the States doesn't even have that going for it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Dec 23, 2016 22:13:18 GMT
What an utterly bizarre unfounded statement. It is neither of those things from my point of view. Both produce a high volume of electoral events in terms of both elections and plebiscites (though not the latter at the national level in the case of the USA, obviously) without any discernible quality of outcomes to match the sheer quantity. The shifts in the Swiss party landscape are at least somewhat interesting, if largely inconsequential federally. The two-party system in the States doesn't even have that going for it. I take your point re rather pointless plebiscites (caused by ridiculously low signature thresholds - you only need 50,000 to force a referendum on a new federal law), but I was merely talking about the electoral system for elections to the National Council. These only take place once every 4 years (fixed terms), and you don't necessarily have to couple such a system with referenda year in, year out. The Swiss electoral system offers proportional representation, constituencies based on strong historical regional identities, and a strong personality factor comparable to FPTP as people cast their votes for individual candidates, and seats are allocated 1) proportionally according to party strength and 2) based on votes cast for individual candidates. If we're taking Cornwall as an example, the Cornwall constituency would have 5 seats. Most parties will therefore put up 5 candidates. Now let's say the Tories get 2 seats, the LDs 2, and Labour 1, then the Labour candidate and the 2 Tory/LD candidates receiving most individual votes will get elected, regardless of their party list position. I can't think of a better system. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 23, 2016 22:53:19 GMT
The Swiss electoral system offers proportional representation, constituencies based on strong historical regional identities, and a strong personality factor comparable to FPTP as people cast their votes for individual candidates, and seats are allocated 1) proportionally according to party strength and 2) based on votes cast for individual candidates. [...]I can't think of a better system. I can. The variant of AMS used just across the border in BaWü has all the advantages you describe without all the cumulative voting and open list rubbish. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 23, 2016 23:09:50 GMT
The Swiss electoral system offers proportional representation, constituencies based on strong historical regional identities, and a strong personality factor comparable to FPTP as people cast their votes for individual candidates, and seats are allocated 1) proportionally according to party strength and 2) based on votes cast for individual candidates. [...]I can't think of a better system. I can. The variant of AMS used just across the border in BaWü has all the advantages you describe without all the cumulative voting and open list rubbish. You prefer closed to open lists? |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Dec 23, 2016 23:11:27 GMT
The Swiss electoral system offers proportional representation, constituencies based on strong historical regional identities, and a strong personality factor comparable to FPTP as people cast their votes for individual candidates, and seats are allocated 1) proportionally according to party strength and 2) based on votes cast for individual candidates. [...]I can't think of a better system. I can. The variant of AMS used just across the border in BaWü has all the advantages you describe without all the cumulative voting and open list rubbish. We'll have to agree to disagree then - I for one think open lists are a great thing, and the BaWü system has serious flaws. I don't like the idea of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate anyway, and Regierungsbezirke with a high number of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate get more seats compared to other Regierungsbezirke which seems highly unfair. With all Cornish seats currently held by the Tories, we'd then get something like 3 Uberhang seats for the LDs and another for Labour and UKIP. That way we'd end up with a 1100 seat HoC. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 23, 2016 23:46:43 GMT
I can. The variant of AMS used just across the border in BaWü has all the advantages you describe without all the cumulative voting and open list rubbish. You prefer closed to open lists? Essentially, yes, though I prefer no lists at all over both variants. I can. The variant of AMS used just across the border in BaWü has all the advantages you describe without all the cumulative voting and open list rubbish. We'll have to agree to disagree then - I for one think open lists are a great thing, and the BaWü system has serious flaws. I don't like the idea of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate anyway, and Regierungsbezirke with a high number of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate get more seats compared to other Regierungsbezirke which seems highly unfair. With all Cornish seats currently held by the Tories, we'd then get something like 3 Uberhang seats for the LDs and another for Labour and UKIP. That way we'd end up with a 1100 seat HoC. Yeah, we'll have to disagree about overhang and extra compensatory seats, although I do think adding proportional seats at Regierungsbezirk level for a Landtag election is a tad unnecessary. Obviously under AMS there'd only be 3 FPTP constituencies in Cornwall, so probably 7 seats overall for that county, only 1 more than at present in a chamber with 650 MPs. A 1,100-member Commons would almost be acceptable in terms of cost if the Lords were massively reduced in size, but that's another matter, and I still wouldn't advocate that the lower house should ever get that bloated. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 24, 2016 17:32:44 GMT
You prefer closed to open lists? Essentially, yes, though I prefer no lists at all over both variants. We'll have to agree to disagree then - I for one think open lists are a great thing, and the BaWü system has serious flaws. I don't like the idea of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate anyway, and Regierungsbezirke with a high number of Uberhang and Ausgleichsmandate get more seats compared to other Regierungsbezirke which seems highly unfair. With all Cornish seats currently held by the Tories, we'd then get something like 3 Uberhang seats for the LDs and another for Labour and UKIP. That way we'd end up with a 1100 seat HoC. Yeah, we'll have to disagree about overhang and extra compensatory seats, although I do think adding proportional seats at Regierungsbezirk level for a Landtag election is a tad unnecessary. Obviously under AMS there'd only be 3 FPTP constituencies in Cornwall, so probably 7 seats overall for that county, only 1 more than at present in a chamber with 650 MPs. A 1,100-member Commons would almost be acceptable in terms of cost if the Lords were massively reduced in size, but that's another matter, and I still wouldn't advocate that the lower house should ever get that bloated. You'd have more AMS seats than FPTP constituency ones? That's interesting. Personally I'm not that bothered by a constituency link, although I favour preserving it in some form. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 25, 2016 8:17:17 GMT
Other than the USA, Switzerland is the only country from which we have no lessons about democracy to take. I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the Swiss system, but surely there are plenty of lessons about democracy to take from the USA. The fact that every single one of those lessons can be summarised in the phrase "don't do it like the Americans do" doesn't mean they aren't valid lessons to learn. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 25, 2016 8:21:08 GMT
If anything that makes them especially important lessons!
|
|
