My proposal for reform RETAINING FPTP.
Two ballots split by a couple of weeks in each constituency.
First as now .... If a candidate achieves 50%+1, elected no second ballot in the constituency ...
Second between all candidates achieving over 10% in the first ballot, typically The big three parties plus the Nats in Scotland and Wales. Winner takes the seat. Candidates seen to be trailing a poor third or fourth in the first ballot could choose publicly to ask their supporters to vote tactically for one of the other candidates, however this would be entirely up to the elector whether to 'play' along.
The big advantage would be that candidates of 'extreme parties wouldn't stand a chance of getting representation in Parliament, unless they achieve the threshold to go into ballot two.
Proportional Representation
I can't imagine that being too popular, I thought the point was to try and make it easier to vote? If you've got two separate polling days it doesn't help much - and in a country where you don't have compulsory voting (this is an unusual thing for an Australian) it probably won't do too much for turnout either. The system we use works much the same way, but off the back of one ballot. Hence it's often called "instant runoff" voting.
Australia has had PR since 1901 and it makes far more sense to me than first-past-the-post, especially when you need to delve into tactical voting to avoid inadvertently supporting someone you dont' want to. Candidates here need to secure either an absolute majority (50%+1) of the primary vote, or a majority after preferences.
In practice it means I can vote for the Greens, who probably won't win, but then support Labor, who might, and then leave the Liberals and all the rest to lower numbers. There's a pretty good guide as to how votes are counted here on the ABC, which has a good explanation of what happens when you end up with two candidates on 40% and the rest made up by minor parties.
Australia has had PR since 1901 and it makes far more sense to me than first-past-the-post, especially when you need to delve into tactical voting to avoid inadvertently supporting someone you dont' want to. Candidates here need to secure either an absolute majority (50%+1) of the primary vote, or a majority after preferences.
In practice it means I can vote for the Greens, who probably won't win, but then support Labor, who might, and then leave the Liberals and all the rest to lower numbers. There's a pretty good guide as to how votes are counted here on the ABC, which has a good explanation of what happens when you end up with two candidates on 40% and the rest made up by minor parties.
The more I think about moving to PR, the less I support it. Whilst on the face of it an 'every vote counts' system sounds much fairer than the current system, as I see it it seems to be flawed in concept.
Under the current system, whichever party gets the most votes compared to all other parties wins the seat. Simple enough. The 'problem' with this system though is that in many cases this means the majority of people in the constituency don't get what they want. But a fundamental flaw in that kind of analysis is that it tries to lump together this 'majority' as if they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. In fact, the only thing the 'majority' have in common is that their preferred candidate didn't win. Whilst the winning candidate may have been selected by a minority of people, his/her selection is 'wrong' for the least number of people, and allowing any other candidate to win the seat only increases the majority of people who don't get what they want.
Under a PR system, every vote will count and seats will be awarded with respect to vote share. This is certainly fairer in deciding the actual number of seats a party gets (and thus fairer in deciding who gets to run the country), but I can't see any fair way of deciding which party gets what seat. Trying to looking at vote share in individual constituencies will quickly become exhausted as a method of fair allocation; the fringe party MPs (including the 12 seats the BNP would hold) have got to be put somewhere, and inevitably you are going to end up with a lot of constituencies with MPs who secured a smaller amount of the local vote than others did.
Trying to add qualifications like minimal thresholds just complicates matters further and will continue to make it almost impossible for small parties to get any MPs.
I'm not pro FPTP either - it too is an inherently flawed system, but replacing one flawed system with another flawed system is not progress. I believe that there either needs to be another way, or FPTP has to stay.
This *doesn't* mean that you can't bring in electoral reform. Two changes I believe in are:
* Much of the country (including myself) has never gotten past the issue of Gordon Brown essentially being an unelected prime minister. Although parliamentary elections are for local MPs, surely changing the leader of the party in power, and thus changing the prime minister is too significant a change to make to a sitting government for it to continue to govern under that mandate? Thus, I belive that when a sitting prime minister resigns a general election *must* be called. The situation we have had over the last 3 years should not be allowed to happen.
* Whilst majority governments are of course always preferrential, they shouldn't be a pre-requisite to winning an election outright. The present situation, when the Labour party have lost the election but remain in power for the time being, and of the Conservatives having to seek a deal with the Lib Dems, potentially giving the party who came a distant third a voice in government whilst the party who came second gets nothing (or worse, allowing the 2nd and 3rd place loosers to form a government, kicking aside the party who came 1st) is ridiculous. The party with the most seats has to be recognised as the winner and that party's leader has to have the right to be prime minister whether he/she has a majority or not. Thus, I believe that a minority government has to be recognised as a legitimate outcome to a general election and sufficient mandate to govern. The situation going on now, when who has power is going to be decided by politicians and not the people should not be allowed to happen.
Under the current system, whichever party gets the most votes compared to all other parties wins the seat. Simple enough. The 'problem' with this system though is that in many cases this means the majority of people in the constituency don't get what they want. But a fundamental flaw in that kind of analysis is that it tries to lump together this 'majority' as if they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. In fact, the only thing the 'majority' have in common is that their preferred candidate didn't win. Whilst the winning candidate may have been selected by a minority of people, his/her selection is 'wrong' for the least number of people, and allowing any other candidate to win the seat only increases the majority of people who don't get what they want.
Under a PR system, every vote will count and seats will be awarded with respect to vote share. This is certainly fairer in deciding the actual number of seats a party gets (and thus fairer in deciding who gets to run the country), but I can't see any fair way of deciding which party gets what seat. Trying to looking at vote share in individual constituencies will quickly become exhausted as a method of fair allocation; the fringe party MPs (including the 12 seats the BNP would hold) have got to be put somewhere, and inevitably you are going to end up with a lot of constituencies with MPs who secured a smaller amount of the local vote than others did.
Trying to add qualifications like minimal thresholds just complicates matters further and will continue to make it almost impossible for small parties to get any MPs.
I'm not pro FPTP either - it too is an inherently flawed system, but replacing one flawed system with another flawed system is not progress. I believe that there either needs to be another way, or FPTP has to stay.
This *doesn't* mean that you can't bring in electoral reform. Two changes I believe in are:
* Much of the country (including myself) has never gotten past the issue of Gordon Brown essentially being an unelected prime minister. Although parliamentary elections are for local MPs, surely changing the leader of the party in power, and thus changing the prime minister is too significant a change to make to a sitting government for it to continue to govern under that mandate? Thus, I belive that when a sitting prime minister resigns a general election *must* be called. The situation we have had over the last 3 years should not be allowed to happen.
* Whilst majority governments are of course always preferrential, they shouldn't be a pre-requisite to winning an election outright. The present situation, when the Labour party have lost the election but remain in power for the time being, and of the Conservatives having to seek a deal with the Lib Dems, potentially giving the party who came a distant third a voice in government whilst the party who came second gets nothing (or worse, allowing the 2nd and 3rd place loosers to form a government, kicking aside the party who came 1st) is ridiculous. The party with the most seats has to be recognised as the winner and that party's leader has to have the right to be prime minister whether he/she has a majority or not. Thus, I believe that a minority government has to be recognised as a legitimate outcome to a general election and sufficient mandate to govern. The situation going on now, when who has power is going to be decided by politicians and not the people should not be allowed to happen.
-
DVB Cornwall
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Fri 24 Jun, 2005 21.42
Given the choice I'd retain FPTP as it is, Any form of PR gives undue influence over the Government by centrist parties, probably more than FPTP gives to parties on the Left or Right.
The problem with this is that as things currently stand there is no guarantee that the Conservatives would be able to pass their Queens Speech and Budget. It maybe ideal that the party with the largest number of seats forms the Government but if other parties were to work together and prevent that happening we would be forced into another election. If the numbers worked out differently the Conservatives could have remained the largest party but Labour and Lib Dems together could have had an overall majority together. The two parties could then easily vote down any item in the Commons that they chose. In that case would a minority Government really be ideal; it would hardly be stable.cwathen wrote:The party with the most seats has to be recognised as the winner and that party's leader has to have the right to be prime minister whether he/she has a majority or not. Thus, I believe that a minority government has to be recognised as a legitimate outcome to a general election and sufficient mandate to govern. The situation going on now, when who has power is going to be decided by politicians and not the people should not be allowed to happen.
The thing with PR is each of the systems have their own flaw, I happen to like the AMS system used for Holyrood elections as it is reasonably simple and provides the possibility for smaller party support but also keeps a tidy constituency system. Course it also leads to confusion as to which MSP you go to, Dundee West or one of the North East ones.
I think the main issue is to keep a system where you have a local representative. Ones where people are picked off of party lists accordig to overall percentage may seen good but they remove the ability to go and moan at your local MP. Also quite why the Lib Dems want to reduce the number of MPs is beyond me. I don't get that idea. It'll hardly save money and will just mean each one has a larger, less representative patch to deal with, and given the size of some Scottish constituencies I don't think it's a good idea.
I think the main issue is to keep a system where you have a local representative. Ones where people are picked off of party lists accordig to overall percentage may seen good but they remove the ability to go and moan at your local MP. Also quite why the Lib Dems want to reduce the number of MPs is beyond me. I don't get that idea. It'll hardly save money and will just mean each one has a larger, less representative patch to deal with, and given the size of some Scottish constituencies I don't think it's a good idea.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
I think broadly, in the real world, people are enticed by PR in the same way that they were enticed with a hung Parliament. It seems to me it's because they forsee the short-term impact of their vote but don't see how that'd transfer into Westminster.
Proportional Representation, with the figures at the start of the thread, would lead to an awfully fragmented Parliament, with back-door deals in the corridors of power and actually an impedence of democracy - in a similar way the HP may well give us now.
FPTP needs to change. My proposal would be instead of having 5/6 seats for a city like Glasgow or Newcastle, having ONE MP to cover the city, and then their proposal of a team backing them - a team who ultimately will be held accountably primarily to the MP who governs. This is why I'm also backing Cam's 10% MP cuts - it would also forge the way for a boundary review
Proportional Representation, with the figures at the start of the thread, would lead to an awfully fragmented Parliament, with back-door deals in the corridors of power and actually an impedence of democracy - in a similar way the HP may well give us now.
FPTP needs to change. My proposal would be instead of having 5/6 seats for a city like Glasgow or Newcastle, having ONE MP to cover the city, and then their proposal of a team backing them - a team who ultimately will be held accountably primarily to the MP who governs. This is why I'm also backing Cam's 10% MP cuts - it would also forge the way for a boundary review
You don't have to "see any fair way". There are already a multitude of PR systems available to choose from without you having to think up your own. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages but none is as simplistic as what m-in-m has done, which is basically to multiply percentage share by 650. The Lib Dems' stated preferred method is the Single Transferable Vote. Under this system, there are multi-party constituencies and voters place candidates in order of preference. I won't try to paraphrase the Wikipedia article here but do read it. It explains the system very well.cwathen wrote:Under a PR system, every vote will count and seats will be awarded with respect to vote share. This is certainly fairer in deciding the actual number of seats a party gets (and thus fairer in deciding who gets to run the country), but I can't see any fair way of deciding which party gets what seat. Trying to looking at vote share in individual constituencies will quickly become exhausted as a method of fair allocation; the fringe party MPs (including the 12 seats the BNP would hold) have got to be put somewhere, and inevitably you are going to end up with a lot of constituencies with MPs who secured a smaller amount of the local vote than others did.
A fundamental flaw in your analysis is to assume that people only favour one candidate, with the rest being unacceptable or 'wrong' to them. The reality is that most people will have some kind of order of preference and certainly most voters will know who they don't want in power.cwathen wrote:Under the current system, whichever party gets the most votes compared to all other parties wins the seat. Simple enough. The 'problem' with this system though is that in many cases this means the majority of people in the constituency don't get what they want. But a fundamental flaw in that kind of analysis is that it tries to lump together this 'majority' as if they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. In fact, the only thing the 'majority' have in common is that their preferred candidate didn't win. Whilst the winning candidate may have been selected by a minority of people, his/her selection is 'wrong' for the least number of people, and allowing any other candidate to win the seat only increases the majority of people who don't get what they want.
Voters can, for example, rank their favoured candidate No.1, their second-favourite No. 2 and all of the other parties 3,4,5 etc, to the exclusion of parties like the BNP. This means that no matter what the outcome of the vote, the voter will have in some way voted against the BNP. It also means that if they back a winning candidate with a surplus of votes, their second preference vote will be taken into account. In this manner STV actually provides a very good means for voters to ensure they are voting against extreme parties, and minimises the need for tactical voting.
The system most likely to go through if we did have any kind of reform would be the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) system. This sees people selecting their first choice candidate along with a second choice should their candidate not get enough votes. It can also allow you to simply rank the cadidates you like in order of preference.
Then to win each seat, the winning candidate must have 50% of the vote. If they don't then the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are the distributed to the remaining candidates. Again, if no candidate then has 50% based on first and second preferences votes then the process continues. It's the same kind of process used to elect a party leader and is generally seen as the fairest way of electing a single candidate as it ensures they can't win by a wafer thin majority.
Of course, this would still result in a "First Past The Post" style winner and may lead to accusations that it doesn't recognise the smaller parties - so the idea of AV+ is that there would be around 100 top up MPs who are given seats based on the number of votes polled by their party. This is determined by a second vote which is cast at the same time as the first but instead you vote a single party rather than a candidate. The relevant vote share is then worked out for each party and they receive the relevant number of seats extra equivalent to their vote share - so this would benefit a party like the Lib Dems who may only win a couple of constituencies in a particular region but does well in the popular vote.
The problem is, you end up with the system in Scotland - which although is relatively fair - results in a lot of extra MPs who don't really represent anywhere because people will simply go to the constituency MP they elected on polling day. However, extra MPs would ensure that the views of each party is fairly represented when it comes to voting in the House of Commons.
Then to win each seat, the winning candidate must have 50% of the vote. If they don't then the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are the distributed to the remaining candidates. Again, if no candidate then has 50% based on first and second preferences votes then the process continues. It's the same kind of process used to elect a party leader and is generally seen as the fairest way of electing a single candidate as it ensures they can't win by a wafer thin majority.
Of course, this would still result in a "First Past The Post" style winner and may lead to accusations that it doesn't recognise the smaller parties - so the idea of AV+ is that there would be around 100 top up MPs who are given seats based on the number of votes polled by their party. This is determined by a second vote which is cast at the same time as the first but instead you vote a single party rather than a candidate. The relevant vote share is then worked out for each party and they receive the relevant number of seats extra equivalent to their vote share - so this would benefit a party like the Lib Dems who may only win a couple of constituencies in a particular region but does well in the popular vote.
The problem is, you end up with the system in Scotland - which although is relatively fair - results in a lot of extra MPs who don't really represent anywhere because people will simply go to the constituency MP they elected on polling day. However, extra MPs would ensure that the views of each party is fairly represented when it comes to voting in the House of Commons.
Good Lord!
Single transferable vote is load of old SHITE, and has buggered up our Local councils, I have a choice of 4 people and none are local to me, and still end up doing what the hell there like.
Extra MPs in the Scottish government system is not bad, if you live in Glasgow, lothains or Central Scotland areas.
Out side these area, you start getting area which are 50 - 100 miles end to end, and you get MPS which really not linked to the area you voted in, because people 50 miles away voted for the other party more, thus we get less of the party we voted for more.
Extra MPs in the Scottish government system is not bad, if you live in Glasgow, lothains or Central Scotland areas.
Out side these area, you start getting area which are 50 - 100 miles end to end, and you get MPS which really not linked to the area you voted in, because people 50 miles away voted for the other party more, thus we get less of the party we voted for more.
Before the addition of the top-up 100 seats, this is pretty much the single-seat constituency version of STV, aka instant runoff voting as timgraham described above. Is AV+ what the Lib Dems are actually aiming for? Martin Stanford mentioned they were looking for STV in one of his newswall lectures the other day.Isonstine wrote:The system most likely to go through if we did have any kind of reform would be the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) system. This sees people selecting their first choice candidate along with a second choice should their candidate not get enough votes. It can also allow you to simply rank the cadidates you like in order of preference.
Then to win each seat, the winning candidate must have 50% of the vote. If they don't then the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are the distributed to the remaining candidates. Again, if no candidate then has 50% based on first and second preferences votes then the process continues. It's the same kind of process used to elect a party leader and is generally seen as the fairest way of electing a single candidate as it ensures they can't win by a wafer thin majority.