I thought I would start this one off for people to discuss the pros and cons of possible changes to our voting system should the election result in a well-hung parliament....
For what it's worth, I think that our first-past-the-post system was fine when 95% of the votes were cast either for the Tories or Labour, but it is producing increasingly distorted results now we have three parties all with substantial shares of the vote but achieving wildly different outcomes in terms of seat numbers.
A very good summary of the alternatives can be found on the website of the Electoral Reform Society here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm
There are some other alternatives: I rather liked the suggestion in a national newspaper that voters should be given the option of either voting for a candidate, or against one. The against scores for each candidate would be deducted from their positive votes to achieve a net total. That would probably get a lot more people in the polling booths
Then there's the radically different delegate system, which has some features which appeal to me.
Over to you....
I'm not sure what 'delegate system' you have in mind Tony?Originally Posted by Tony Williams
I'd favor something of that nature.
A system where communities had a spokesperson who was delegated to voice their concerns and not that of a party. Instantly recallable. Truly democratic. Perhaps even selected from the community randomly, like jury service, on expenses only, for a 6 month period. Then another selected.
For such a system to work people would need to feel engaged and get involved. Perhaps people would if they felt it made a difference and that they had a real say in the running of their community.
I expect the best we are likely to get is some form of PR. A step in the right direction perhaps.
You're pretty close, Smudge.
What I had in mind was something like this:
1. The country is divided up into small areas, each with about 80-100 voters (numbers could be flexible to match village or street sizes). They would meet once a month (supported by an official clerk) to discuss any matters of local, regional or national interest. I would make attendance on at least 9 occasions per year compulsory, with a fine if more are missed. Each of these groups would select a delegate to represent their views to the next level.
2. The next level would consist of 80-100 delegates (therefore representing 6,400-10,000 people) which would be similar to a town council, with responsibilities and budgets for certain local issues. They would also elect a delegate to the next level.
3. The next level (you're getting the idea) would represent 500,000-1,000,000 people, therefore similar to a major local government body.
4. The final level would represent 40-100 million, so would be a national UK parliament.
In a UK context, this could form (for instance) an English Parliament (with similar arrangements for the other nations) with a separate UK Upper House with major strategic responsibilities for budget, foreign affairs & defence - which with the geographical representation having been taken care of could perhaps be elected by straight party-political proportional representation (with a cut-off of a minimum 5% of the total vote for representation to keep out the nutters).
This delegate system would have the major advantage of ensuring that everyone was fully involved in politics, not just at local level but via delegation at regional and national level too. It would have the side-benefit of reinstating a sense of society which is acknowledged as having broken down in many areas - how many of you know a lot of your neighbours? This could have benefits in dealing with local social problems, among other things.
The main argument against it which I can see is that the small numbers involved at each level could provide more potential for corruption, so measures would have to be taken to deter that as strenuously as possible.
Any observations, anyone?
good peice in recent new scientist on why no system can be entirely fair.
main problem with prop rep is no clear winner and govt then detemined by negotiation - although first past post system may now give us that same situation,
why not go for a proportionally elected commons, then a another vote , as in the USA, on who becomes prime minister (or president)?
We are not realy a democracy anyway - just an elected oligarchy. US probably come closer to democrcy, but the Swiss system seems the best of all
Let's vote for more politicians. In the past thirteen years, we've added the costs of a Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly to the budget deficit.
Pure genius.
That could be regarded as a solution rather than a problem. Blair only gained the support of 22% of the electorate at the last election, but that gave him the power to ignore everyone else's wishes and take us to war, for instance. Looked at objectively, what we have is a bizarre and increasingly dysfunctional system.
Because that only works for a US-style presidential system. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister have to command majority support within the Parliament, or he'll just be ignored.why not go for a proportionally elected commons, then a another vote , as in the USA, on who becomes prime minister (or president)?
Switzerland is certainly the closest to a democracy, but I disagree about the USA - that has some really strange features and is in some ways a lot less democratic than the UK.We are not realy a democracy anyway - just an elected oligarchy. US probably come closer to democrcy, but the Swiss system seems the best of all
Given the delegation of powers down to the other UK nations and up to the EU, I can't understand why the House of Commons has to remain anything like the same size. The Tories are offering a 10% cut in numbers of MPs, but I think that should be at least 50%.
I like the tier system, I see a potential problem in the level of bureaucracy it may generate.
I feel it's important to get rid of the idea of politics as a career. To establish the idea that it is a duty we all must be involved with. I'd favor a system where delegates were selected for a short (year max) term only and on expenses only, like jury service. It must be established that they are selected to represent their community's and not their own (or Party's) view.
I'm not happy with the Party system at Parliament level. I feel this is where corruption would creep in. I'd like to see a radical system with regional representatives from local federations. I envisage various boards of advisers and experts from specific fields (scientists, teachers, health workers etc). Perhaps retired people. Again, on expenses only. These boards would have deciding votes on areas of expertise and would be turned to for general advice.
All very well in theory!
It's a danger, but it doesn't necessarily follow - it would replace the existing local government structures which already have lots of bureaucrats. The main additional demand would be for supporting the first-tier monthly meetings, but one officer could cover many of those groups (rather like providing admin support to school governing bodies, which is what I used to do for several schools on top of a full-time day job).
The problem with that is that the delegates would be inexperienced and ignorant of the realities of government. The consequences of that would be that the full-time officials would become far more powerful.I feel it's important to get rid of the idea of politics as a career. To establish the idea that it is a duty we all must be involved with. I'd favor a system where delegates were selected for a short (year max) term only and on expenses only, like jury service. It must be established that they are selected to represent their community's and not their own (or Party's) view.
How many politicians do we really need? Given the whacking salaries they "earn" and the expenses they claim, can they really justify their existence? My MP claims as much for food expenses as I get to live on every month. That's on top of his generous salary and everything else the taxpayer coughs up for.
The US system is crazy. The President basically has 2 years to do his thing, after which the electorate hands over Congress to the opposition. At least the PM has up to 5 years of a parliamentary majority in the UK.
I like the system in The Netherlands. You get x% of the national vote, you get x% of the seats. It's not as chaotic as some would believe with coalitions. Every few years a far right-wing party gets a number of seats in parliament and the members are inevitably exposed as kooks and/or criminals and get turfed out at the next election.
Interesting article in the Indy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1960378.html
The STV does seem to have attractions, but I have no expert knowledge. Surely the FPTP system has had its day.
Australia has 3 tiered system of Federal ,State and local government. We are still a parliamentary democracy and part of the British Commonwealth, with Queen Elizabeth our constitutional Head Of State.
OUR main system of voting is called 'preferential'.Voting in so far as registering and having your name crossed off on election day,is mandatory.
Today I vote against the bigger bunch of venal incompetents vying for the opportunity to fuck up my country.
The Australian electoral system has evolved over nearly 150 years of continuous democratic government, and has a number of distinctive features including compulsory voting, preferential voting (known elsewhere as instant-runoff voting) and the use of proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Australian Senate.[1]
Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference. The preferential system was introduced in 1918, in response to the rise of the Country Party, a party representing small farmers. The Country Party split the anti-Labor vote in conservative country areas, allowing Labor candidates to win on a minority vote. The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk. It was first used at the Corangamite by-election on 14 December 1918.[11][12] It had previously been introduced as a result of the work of Thomas Hare and Andrew Inglis Clark in the Tasmanian House of Assembly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ectoral_system
Yes, I agree that's a problem. You either have inexperienced delegates or paid full time politicians. Though flawed, I still feel the former idea has merit and the later is also undoubtably flawed. Perhaps apropriate support, cheks and balances, could be set up to compensate for the inexperience.
Any truly grass roots democratic system is going to tend to be somewhat unweildy. It's a question of priorities. Dictatorships, on the other hand, can be very descisive! There is a downside though.....
Yes, the STV system does seem to come the closest to ticking all (or at least most) of the boxes. The description on the Electoral Reform Society's website:
It's that final point that clinches it for me. If the politicians hate it....How the System Works:
Each constituency would elect between 3 and 5 MPs depending on its size. Voters rank the candidates, putting a '1' for their favourite, a '2' for the next, and so on. If the voter's first choice candidate does not need their vote, either because he or she is elected without it, or because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter's second choice candidate, and so on.The system is used:
In this way, most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted. An important feature of STV is that voters can choose between candidates both of their own and of other parties, and can even select candidates for reasons other than party affiliation. Thus, a voter, wishing for more women MPs could vote for a woman from their own party and then all other women candidates, whatever party they stand for.
in the Australian Senate, the Republic of Ireland, Tasmania, Malta and Northern Ireland for local elections and elections to the European Parliament.Arguments used in favour:STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is done by their elected representatives. STV is the best option for:Weaknesses:
- Putting the power in the hands of the voters.
- Keeping MPs linked to the people who voted for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.
- Making parliament reflect the views of the voters.
- Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.
- It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.
- It is simple for voters to use.
- There is no need for tactical voting . Voters can cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
- It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.
- The system does not produce such accuracy in proportional representation of parties as the party list or additional member systems.
- It breaks the link between an individual MP and his or her constituency.
- Constituencies would be 3-5 times larger than they are now but with 3-5 MPs.
- MPs may have to spend an excessive amount of time dealing with constituency problems and neglect the broader issues.
- There are critics who say that this system could lead to permanent coalition governments, but this would only happen if the voters as a whole want it.
- It is disliked by politicians, since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors, and many MPs with safe seats would lose the security they feel now.
As a matter of interest, that handy little BBC News seat calculator reveals that if all three parties each won exactly 30% of the vote, the result in seats would be likely to be:
Labour 314
Conservative 207
Lib Dems 100
How can that be defended?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks