|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 11, 2017 12:39:36 GMT
Those of us on here would all like more people to vote Not all of us. There are some of us who think that a low turnout is a good thing, because it means the decision is made by a self-selected informed élite group of people who have bothered to inform themselves of the issues and read the relevant material. The collective decision is not therefore swamped by a vast mass of ignoramuses who follow a party label like sheep, without any informed knowledge of the candidates or issues. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 11, 2017 12:40:54 GMT
The idea of a "None of the Above" option, supposedly making it acceptable to force such people to go and vote when they don't want to, is like having a Compulsory Attendance At Football Matches law, with a neutral option. If I don't care about football, and if I don't give a toss about whether Crystal Palace wins or whether Somewhere Else United wins, I don't take kindly to politicians who tell me that I must nevertheless got to Selhurst Park every Saturday afternoon just to queue up to sign the "I'm not interested" form as a way of avoiding prosecution for non-attendance. I think being forced to go to Selhurst Park at the moment might constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". Palace originally took over their ground from a team called Croydon Common btw. The only time I have ever been to Selhurst Park was for the reception after the funeral of a local councillor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 17:48:35 GMT
If I could change one thing? The weather for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 11, 2017 20:30:34 GMT
If I could change one thing? The weather for sure. From what to what? It was I think implicit in this thread that we were speaking of the general conduct of politics. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 11, 2017 23:20:26 GMT
Not really... if you're forcing people to vote then None of the Above is a valid choice: it represents support for the system but not the candidates. No it doesn't. It undermines the system. The principle of democracy is that people who make government decisions are accountable to the people, and the people can choose who to put in power. The principle of compulsory voting is to go a stage further and say that the people have a collective and individual duty to decide who should be in power. If you then provide voters with a null option it nullifies the principle. Quite right. (Though, for the avoidance of doubt, I utterly oppose cv.) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 11, 2017 23:23:00 GMT
better than donkey voting? I don't think donkeys should vote. Same for all other species in the equus genus really. Especially Przewalski's Horses. Bloody Eastern Europeans, coming over here, taking over our zoos and then voting! |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 12, 2017 16:49:18 GMT
Putting a "none of the above" option on ballot papers is a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem. It's also impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure. There are occasions where a voter could genuinely believe that none of the candidates are up to the job, and that it would be better to leave the post unfilled. For example, at the most recent West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Election, there were no candidates on the ballot paper who I felt I could support. The Labour incumbent had been embroiled in what, as far as I could see, were very dodgy dealings relating to his deputy, and the alternatives consisted of three candidates whose positions on policing were, as far as I could tell, the polar opposite to mine. In those circumstances, I didn't have an option that I even regarded as the "least worst". |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 12, 2017 17:00:52 GMT
Putting a "none of the above" option on ballot papers is a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem. It's also impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure. There are occasions where a voter could genuinely believe that none of the candidates are up to the job, and that it would be better to leave the post unfilled. For example, at the most recent West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Election, there were no candidates on the ballot paper who I felt I could support. The Labour incumbent had been embroiled in what, as far as I could see, were very dodgy dealings relating to his deputy, and the alternatives consisted of three candidates whose positions on policing were, as far as I could tell, the polar opposite to mine. In those circumstances, I didn't have an option that I even regarded as the "least worst". You were free to spoil your ballot in any manner that you wished. Perhaps by writing "none of the above" or "The Green Party". |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 12, 2017 20:10:14 GMT
There are occasions where a voter could genuinely believe that none of the candidates are up to the job, and that it would be better to leave the post unfilled. For example, at the most recent West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Election, there were no candidates on the ballot paper who I felt I could support. The Labour incumbent had been embroiled in what, as far as I could see, were very dodgy dealings relating to his deputy, and the alternatives consisted of three candidates whose positions on policing were, as far as I could tell, the polar opposite to mine. In those circumstances, I didn't have an option that I even regarded as the "least worst". You were free to spoil your ballot in any manner that you wished. Perhaps by writing "none of the above" or "The Green Party". Which is, in the end, what I did. However, if enough voters had exactly the same point of view that none of the candidates are suitable for the job, then it would be more democratic for there to be an explicit none of the above option that would take effect. There are, as with most things, arguments on both sides. I was objecting to Davıd Boothroyd's view that the idea is "a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem" and that it's "impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure". Which suggests a chronic lack of understanding of what one side of this debate are saying. The difference between an explicit none of the above option and the ability to spoil your ballot paper is the ability of the electoral system to bring about a democratic outcome when the electorate genuinely believe that none of the candidates are suitable for the post. With the PCC elections, the large number of spoilt ballots were interpreted as voters "not understanding the role/post" on regional TV, when a very large number of those spoils were explicit rejection of either the existence of the post or the candidates on offer. With an explicit none of the above option that takes effect if it either wins or wins with over 50% of the vote (you could argue for either option), there is the chance for voters who explicitly reject what is on offer to have their votes count. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 23:16:41 GMT
If I could change one thing? The weather for sure. From what to what? It was I think implicit in this thread that we were speaking of the general conduct of politics. Oh sorry. I will remember that.  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 23, 2017 20:31:24 GMT
You were free to spoil your ballot in any manner that you wished. Perhaps by writing "none of the above" or "The Green Party". Which is, in the end, what I did. However, if enough voters had exactly the same point of view that none of the candidates are suitable for the job, then it would be more democratic for there to be an explicit none of the above option that would take effect. There are, as with most things, arguments on both sides. I was objecting to Davıd Boothroyd's view that the idea is "a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem" and that it's "impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure". Which suggests a chronic lack of understanding of what one side of this debate are saying. The difference between an explicit none of the above option and the ability to spoil your ballot paper is the ability of the electoral system to bring about a democratic outcome when the electorate genuinely believe that none of the candidates are suitable for the post. With the PCC elections, the large number of spoilt ballots were interpreted as voters "not understanding the role/post" on regional TV, when a very large number of those spoils were explicit rejection of either the existence of the post or the candidates on offer. With an explicit none of the above option that takes effect if it either wins or wins with over 50% of the vote (you could argue for either option), there is the chance for voters who explicitly reject what is on offer to have their votes count. My problem with this is that it assumes that voters are entitled to have a candidate they want to vote for. Obviously candidates should want to win their support, but if they don't, I don't see why it is society's problem that a voter is not happy with the options on offer, or why a particular effort should be made to let them flag up this unhappiness in a non-constructive manner. If nobody speaks up for what you believe in, you have an option - you can stand for election, or find somebody else who'll do it. (In any case, where's your evidence that people thought the PCC spoils were about "not understanding the role"? Given that turnout was less than you'd expect in a November by-election in a super-safe ward, it's fairly clear that there was a high degree of active opposition to the existence of the posts.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 23, 2017 20:38:43 GMT
Which is, in the end, what I did. However, if enough voters had exactly the same point of view that none of the candidates are suitable for the job, then it would be more democratic for there to be an explicit none of the above option that would take effect. There are, as with most things, arguments on both sides. I was objecting to Davıd Boothroyd 's view that the idea is "a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem" and that it's "impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure". Which suggests a chronic lack of understanding of what one side of this debate are saying. The difference between an explicit none of the above option and the ability to spoil your ballot paper is the ability of the electoral system to bring about a democratic outcome when the electorate genuinely believe that none of the candidates are suitable for the post. With the PCC elections, the large number of spoilt ballots were interpreted as voters "not understanding the role/post" on regional TV, when a very large number of those spoils were explicit rejection of either the existence of the post or the candidates on offer. With an explicit none of the above option that takes effect if it either wins or wins with over 50% of the vote (you could argue for either option), there is the chance for voters who explicitly reject what is on offer to have their votes count. My problem with this is that it assumes that voters are entitled to have a candidate they want to vote for. Obviously candidates should want to win their support, but if they don't, I don't see why it is society's problem that a voter is not happy with the options on offer, or why a particular effort should be made to let them flag up this unhappiness in a non-constructive manner. If nobody speaks up for what you believe in, you have an option - you can stand for election, or find somebody else who'll do it. (In any case, where's your evidence that people thought the PCC spoils were about "not understanding the role"? Given that turnout was less than you'd expect in a November by-election in a super-safe ward, it's fairly clear that there was a high degree of active opposition to the existence of the posts.) That's what the successful candidate for Warwickshire said in a TV interview. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054 
|
Post by jamie on Feb 23, 2017 20:56:15 GMT
Just noticed this thread. I would have single member AV wards for local councils with much smaller electorates. For Parliament I would have STV varying between 3 and 7 members per constituency. I would abolish the HoL with no replacement.
|
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Feb 23, 2017 21:10:25 GMT
Scrap local government nomination forms. Colossal waste of effort for volunteers outside of a party's strongest areas and I don't really see the need. Even your weakest areas are likely to have 10 supporters of your party it's just that you don't necessarily know where they live; so you end up knocking on random doors trying to find them.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 23, 2017 22:08:46 GMT
Just noticed this thread. I would have single member AV wards for local councils with much smaller electorates. For Parliament I would have STV varying between 3 and 7 members per constituency. I would abolish the HoL with no replacement. The first suggestion is quite possibly not a bad idea at all. A 7-member constituency for a 600-member (or even 650-member) Commons would be huge. I like having an upper house, just not the way it's constituted at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 23, 2017 22:47:24 GMT
My problem with this is that it assumes that voters are entitled to have a candidate they want to vote for. Obviously candidates should want to win their support, but if they don't, I don't see why it is society's problem that a voter is not happy with the options on offer, or why a particular effort should be made to let them flag up this unhappiness in a non-constructive manner. If nobody speaks up for what you believe in, you have an option - you can stand for election, or find somebody else who'll do it. (In any case, where's your evidence that people thought the PCC spoils were about "not understanding the role"? Given that turnout was less than you'd expect in a November by-election in a super-safe ward, it's fairly clear that there was a high degree of active opposition to the existence of the posts.) That's what the successful candidate for Warwickshire said in a TV interview. Do I really need to quote Mandy Rice-Davies at you? I highly doubt anybody else found that to be a credible argument. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Feb 23, 2017 23:33:15 GMT
The first suggestion is quite possibly not a bad idea at all. A 7-member constituency for a 600-member (or even 650-member) Commons would be huge. I like having an upper house, just not the way it's constituted at the moment. I think if councils are to be local democracy then the wards must be broken down to the smallest level. 3 would be for super rural districts while 7 would be for urban districts where they are too large for 5/6 members and allow us to avoid having 3 and 4 members split. Taking into account local factors, 5 would be the ideal number. Im pretty relaxed about increasing the size of the commons. 50000 electors per member seems a good target to me which would be just under 1000 members. I would abolish the HoL because I don't like the legislative block that can happen when you have 2 chambers. Since it would likely have a different electoral system/constituencies to the HoC it could have a different composition and block legislation. I think if you have a proportionally elected HoC then they should be able to get on with governing without a less legitimate and representative chamber blocking them. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 24, 2017 0:07:41 GMT
The first suggestion is quite possibly not a bad idea at all. A 7-member constituency for a 600-member (or even 650-member) Commons would be huge. I like having an upper house, just not the way it's constituted at the moment. 3 would be for super rural districts while 7 would be for urban districts where they are too large for 5/6 members and allow us to avoid having 3 and 4 members split. Taking into account local factors, 5 would be the ideal number. Im pretty relaxed about increasing the size of the commons. 50000 electors per member seems a good target to me which would be just under 1000 members. I would abolish the HoL because I don't like the legislative block that can happen when you have 2 chambers. Since it would likely have a different electoral system/constituencies to the HoC it could have a different composition and block legislation. I think if you have a proportionally elected HoC then they should be able to get on with governing without a less legitimate and representative chamber blocking them. I think in the far north of Scotland and the Islands you'd still probably need to go down to 2-member constituencies, at which point there is no real proportionality. Yes, a 5-member urban seat isn't remote in terms of the surface area covered. I'm not against an increase in the number of professional politicians, but that's often a very difficult sell... and the Commons chamber itself would be even less physically accommodating to that many members as well. I believe that when you put it like that, there was a case for unicameralism before devolution. Do you believe in the continuation of a unitary state, including the abolition of devolved bodies? I would prefer some form of federalism, for which an upper house is frequently considered desirable. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 24, 2017 0:14:28 GMT
3 would be for super rural districts while 7 would be for urban districts where they are too large for 5/6 members and allow us to avoid having 3 and 4 members split. Taking into account local factors, 5 would be the ideal number. Im pretty relaxed about increasing the size of the commons. 50000 electors per member seems a good target to me which would be just under 1000 members. I would abolish the HoL because I don't like the legislative block that can happen when you have 2 chambers. Since it would likely have a different electoral system/constituencies to the HoC it could have a different composition and block legislation. I think if you have a proportionally elected HoC then they should be able to get on with governing without a less legitimate and representative chamber blocking them. I think in the far north of Scotland and the Islands you'd still probably need to go down to 2-member constituencies, at which point there is no real proportionality. Yes, a 5-member urban seat isn't remote in terms of the surface area covered. I'm not against an increase in the number of professional politicians, but that's often a very difficult sell... and the Commons chamber itself would be even less physically accommodating to that many members as well. I believe that when you put it like that, there was a case for unicameralism before devolution. Do you believe in the continuation of a unitary state, including the abolition of devolved bodies? I would prefer some form of federalism, for which an upper house is frequently considered desirable. I think we're too far gone to be reasonably considered a true unitary state anymore. Should we go down the route of a full federalism, then I think maintaining a bicameral parliamentary setup would be sound; gut and replace the Lords and replace it with a chamber where most of its members are selected by the regional parliaments*, with each constituent nation afforded equal representation here to serve as a partial counter to England's overwhelming dominance in the Commons. * Of course with measures in place to ensure that a single party can't dominate a province's delegation... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 24, 2017 0:16:49 GMT
I think we're too far gone to be reasonably considered a true unitary state anymore. Should we go down the route of a full federalism, then I think maintaining a bicameral parliamentary setup would be sound; gut and replace the Lords and replace it with a chamber where most of its members are selected by the regional parliaments*, with each constituent nation afforded equal representation here to serve as a partial counter to England's overwhelming dominance in the Commons. * Of course with measures in place to ensure that a single party can't dominate a province's delegation...I'm not sure about that last point, but I can see why someone living in Wales would say that.  There are plenty of off-the-shelf ways we could take from other countries to ensure delegations are not dominated by a single party. |
|
