Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 18:22:36 GMT
What do we think of the idea whereby each county/Scottish and Welsh region equivalent/other sensible division elects 5-12 MPs on an either open or closed list? It's a system I think I like but obviously it makes the system more partisan. I also like AMS and FPTP - anything else wouldn't have my support as I would only support a system if it is reasonably simple and has a constituency link.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 29, 2018 18:27:03 GMT
We take very different positions on the whole PR question but we could conceivably make some common ground on this - I would agree that top-up list systems formed from the best of the losers has quite a lot to recommend it and I don't much like list systems designed for list system specialists - almost by definition people less keen on direct contact with their voters. Don't misunderstand me- I am coming at this from the point of view that having a government which reflects how people really want to vote trumps any other concern, and that I suspect is not where you are coming from, but the most appealing way of achieving that we can find the better. More legitimacy, less donkey dick is fine.
I don't think we're that far apart really. I'm actually in favour of things being more proportional - just very much against the specific voting systems currently in widespread use.
What I'd *really* like is if a FPTP election just happened to deliver a proportional outcome.
And then they say its us lot who indulge in wishful thinking..... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 29, 2018 18:45:07 GMT
What do we think of the idea whereby each county/Scottish and Welsh region equivalent/other sensible division elects 5-12 MPs on an either open or closed list? It's a system I think I like but obviously it makes the system more partisan. I also like AMS and FPTP - anything else wouldn't have my support as I would only support a system if it is reasonably simple and has a constituency link. Yes but 1)at the lower end of that range of numbers, so eg a big county like Kent would need at least two, maybe even 3 constituencies. (and yes, I do realise that would probably work less well for the Lib Dems these days than working with bigger numbers) 2) definitely an open system- don't like closed systems 3) I do like the idea of top up lists filled from candidates who don't get in on the first basis but who reach a certain quota - a variant on the Sir Benjamin idea above. If we take the Kent example, we might have in that case two constituencies (East Kent, West Kent) with about 5 members each by STV and then maybe 2,3,4 list members from the "fastest losers" designed to make sure it was proportional overall. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 29, 2018 18:46:07 GMT
It is far easier for the electorate to sack a bad representative at a Westminster level than on the Regional List. Their names don’t even appear on the ballot! I suspect the numbers of people who can name their List MSPs (I’ll use Scotland for my examples since I’m Scottish) are even lower. Most people go to their constituency MSP if they have a problem. Most of my own List MSPs are utterly invisible and only show up at election time. So most of your list MSPs are pretty much the same as my local councillors and MP, elected by FPTP. And, again, I'm not seeing any difference from what we have at the moment. Surely the main consequence of PR would be that huge swathes of the country would go completely ignored by politicians? Again, that's what is currently happening under FPTP. Policy is centred on urban areas because that's where people actually live. You would have to deliberately skew the system in favour of rural areas (something similar to the US system) in order to avoid that. Interesting to know that you have a religious devotion to FPTP. And it frequently doesn't allow voters to make a clear choice between two parties. There are a couple of hundred constituencies where voters currently have a clear choice between one party who can actually win the seat and whichever other parties have no chance at all. And, of course, there are all those seats where it is, or has been, a three-way or even four-way contest. And that's assuming that a clear choice between two parties is somehow better than a clear choice between three, four, or five. Furthermore, there have been studies that showed that voters who want to vote tactically (i.e. vote to keep a party out, rather than to get one in) are more likely to vote for the party that is not best placed to keep out the other one than they are to vote for the party that is. It's been an obstacle to all sorts of people, organisations, and beliefs. It's almost certainly a major contributing factor to us being way behind the rest of Europe on environmental issues, for example. And in the post-war period, there are plenty of countries with PR who have had more time with stable government than we have (Germany being the first example that comes to mind). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 19:14:43 GMT
It is far easier for the electorate to sack a bad representative at a Westminster level than on the Regional List. Their names don’t even appear on the ballot! I suspect the numbers of people who can name their List MSPs (I’ll use Scotland for my examples since I’m Scottish) are even lower. Most people go to their constituency MSP if they have a problem. Most of my own List MSPs are utterly invisible and only show up at election time. So most of your list MSPs are pretty much the same as my local councillors and MP, elected by FPTP. Well personally I'm perfectly satisfied with the job done by Jamie Stone MP who is diligent in standing up for our area. Despite our vast political differences, Gail Ross MSP is also visible at a local level and appears to be a worker. On the other hand; most of my List MSPs are utterly useless and totally invisible; and my councillors are almost as bad (although my admiration has risen for them slightly since they blocked a ludicrous and controversial local planning proposal). The only ones who are in any way visible are Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. Others are nowhere to be seen. Maree Todd and David Stewart are probably the best argument against PR that I can think of. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 19:30:39 GMT
So most of your list MSPs are pretty much the same as my local councillors and MP, elected by FPTP. Well personally I'm perfectly satisfied with the job done by Jamie Stone MP who is diligent in standing up for our area. Despite our vast political differences, Gail Ross MSP is also visible at a local level and appears to be a worker. On the other hand; most of my List MSPs are utterly useless and totally invisible; and my councillors are almost as bad (although my admiration has risen for them slightly since they blocked a ludicrous and controversial local planning proposal). The only ones who are in any way visible are Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. Others are nowhere to be seen. Maree Todd and David Stewart are probably the best argument against PR that I can think of. Side point - David Stewart is impressive in the fact he has virtually no profile despite being in politics as long as he has. Hanzala Malik is a similar story. I think part of it may be due to the fact there is a combination of FPTP and List rather than just having a proportional element - they are more concerned about party than region, particularly in such a large region. It is considerably easier to be a well-known list MSP in Glasgow or Lothian - take Andy Wightman and Neil Findlay for example. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 29, 2018 20:21:48 GMT
I'm sorry, but what utter rubbish. Holyrood elections have FPTP constituencies in addition to proportional top-ups. I've watched Irish election result programmes, there's excitement in each round of counting. There's valid reasons for not accepting proportional voting systems: 'fun' isn't one of them. Perhaps not, but if it's enough to disengage members of this site what will it do the general public? People are already politically disengaged enough as it is, we shouldn't be encouraging apathy. You only need to look at the turnout differences between Westminster and Holyrood elections for example to see the problem here. The difference between Westminster and Holyrood is unlikely to be anything to do with the voting system. Holyrood is simply perceived as less important
Germany has a AM PR system - turnout there has never dropped below 70% Ireland has STV - the average of the last three elections there is a fraction more than that of the UK..
I am afraid I am quite happy for a few Tory supporters to lose interest in politics (tragic though that would be, of course!) if it means fair representation
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 29, 2018 20:25:08 GMT
I don't treat the electorate like idiots, which you seem to do. "Oh they don't even think before voting!". It is only thanks to PR that your party is returning to the local councils of Scotland so please rethink your blinkered "We're winning, you're not" yaa-boo attitude. Let us agree to differ. I prefer FPTP in all circumstances whatever the results because I am blinkered by success. Never a truer word was spoken |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 29, 2018 20:31:36 GMT
It's unutterably loopy to claim that you can't have a democracy unless you have PR. Makes you sound like a nutter. FPTP is a partial democracy.
It is somewhat better than the days when women did not have the vote, but so many countries are ahead of us these days that it does make us a bit of a laughing stock, even if not exactly "nutters"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 20:44:04 GMT
It's unutterably loopy to claim that you can't have a democracy unless you have PR. Makes you sound like a nutter. FPTP is a partial democracy.
It is somewhat better than the days when women did not have the vote, but so many countries are ahead of us these days that it does make us a bit of a laughing stock, even if not exactly "nutters"
Oh don't talk crap, and don't call carlton "blinkered" when you come out with statements like that minutes later. It's only "partial democracy" if you don't like the result. No voting system is perfect; STV for instance is a horrible system which is near impossible to understand and encourages parties to under nominate even in their strong areas. This is the only reason the Lib Dems did reasonably well in Aberdeenshire for instance in the locals. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on May 29, 2018 21:21:28 GMT
PR elections are mind numbingly dull. Bollocks. Having finally come to grips with the Swiss PR system I think it's the most fascinating, exciting way to elect MPs. Open list cumulative voting, panachage, apparentment, run-offs, constituency links - you name it. Fantastic. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on May 29, 2018 21:22:53 GMT
Tories on Glasgow Council could hardly be elected until the advent of PR for local councils. Before PR, they could not make any progress because it was so UNPOPULAR! A system of PR, used in almost every country in the world and for the London Assembly, provides for results which match as far as possible the will of the wider electorate. FPTP means that only a few hundred people in marginal constituencies really matter, nobody else does. This country needs a great big red reset button switching on: votes at 16, PR at local, county and national level, improved local councils with teeth, an elected second chamber: so much could be done to drag this sad little moany island into the 21st century. I hope beyond hope that it happens. I agree with the second post but not the first, because you need to pick your examples better. At the last Glasgow City Council elections held under FPTP in 2003, the local Tories won a single seat. At the first two such elections to take place with STV in place in 2007 and 2012, the Conservative & Unionist Party took, er... 1 seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 21:43:54 GMT
PR elections are mind numbingly dull. Bollocks. Having finally come to grips with the Swiss PR system I think it's the most fascinating, exciting way to elect MPs. Open list cumulative voting, panachage, apparentment, run-offs, constituency links - you name it. Fantastic. I have no interest in Swiss politics, and coming to grips with a hopelessly complicated election system isn’t my idea of “fantastic”. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on May 29, 2018 21:54:09 GMT
Bollocks. Having finally come to grips with the Swiss PR system I think it's the most fascinating, exciting way to elect MPs. Open list cumulative voting, panachage, apparentment, run-offs, constituency links - you name it. Fantastic. I have no interest in Swiss politics, and coming to grips with a hopelessly complicated election system isn’t my idea of “fantastic”. Indeed. Switzerland is one of the last places we should be taking lessons from. Cumulative voting and apparentement (I had to look up the latter) are obscene. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 21:54:14 GMT
Bollocks. Having finally come to grips with the Swiss PR system I think it's the most fascinating, exciting way to elect MPs. Open list cumulative voting, panachage, apparentment, run-offs, constituency links - you name it. Fantastic. I have no interest in Swiss politics, and coming to grips with a hopelessly complicated election system isn’t my idea of “fantastic”. even so the best electoral system isnt the most exciting one |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on May 29, 2018 22:08:13 GMT
Just accept that AMS is the best electoral system and be done with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 29, 2018 22:22:50 GMT
SNTV is the way to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 22:25:47 GMT
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on May 29, 2018 22:40:39 GMT
Just accept that AMS is the best electoral system and be done with it. As long as you specifically mean the Ba-Wü variant (with no lists), then I'm all for it. I'm becoming more convinced of its merits in relation to multi-member FPTP for parish and district elections, but not for any higher level of government than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 29, 2018 22:46:47 GMT
I think the LDs shouldn't have agreed to the AV vote when most people in the party thought it wasn't much of an improvement on FPTP and losing the referendum would set back the cause of any other type of electoral reform for many years.
|
|
