cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 14:39:52 GMT
Absolutely!. Simple system "if party X gets n% of the votes it gets n% of the MPs". If the current mix of MPs indeed represent the views of the public, we'd expect to see the same proportion of MPs under this new system, but I'm sure we wouldn't - we'd get far more on the fringes (far-right, far-left) and probably more coalition governments. Coalition governments where very small fringe parties potentially get to call a lot of the shots... That never strikes me as overly democratic! Is it any less democratic than the DUP's current position?
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 15:03:45 GMT
As a newly minted Belgian, I can tell you about the system here and in NL, and I think this would be an improvement for the UK.
In each constituency, rather than there being one candidate for each party, the parties put up a short list of candidates ranked in order of the party's preference, i.e. they want the No.1 on the list elected. But you can choose no.2 or 3 on your favoured party's list and if they get more votes, they get in if your party has won.
This would go far to address cb & dandy's complaint about 'Remainers' representing 'Leave' constituencies, for instance. If the party puts up a Remainer in 1st place, but there is a Leaver in 3 and enough people feel strongly enough that this is the defining feature of the MP you want to represent you, they would go to 1st place on the list and be the MP if that party won. Or maybe no3 gets most votes through having the nicest hair. Whatever.
This also leads to more political engagement at local level, as party candidates campaign individually to raise their profiles. It's why, in election season, you see posters with the candidates faces everywhere, and underneath, for instance "[Their Name] PvDA, No.3"
I used to live in Woking where the tories scarcely bothered to campaign as their vote was weighed rather than counted. There was no point in turning out to vote for any other party. No wonder people were politically unengaged and dismissive of politicians. Woking was where the most useless Tory ex-MPs who had lost other safe seats but the party still wanted in were sent to get elected. I grew up knowing the British system was unfit for purpose.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 15:21:47 GMT
captainconfident I'm not sure the 'preferred candidate' system on its own would be enough to reshape UK politics, given MPs in each of the two main parties are expected to (and generally do) follow the party line. Simply choosing Ms A of Party X rather than Mr B of Party X wouldn't affect things much imo.
Wikipedia suggests Belgium uses a PR system. If so, is that better/worse than the UK's FPTP system?
btw I live in a safe Tory seat that had a bigger majority in 2017 than the Woking Tory MP. I've never seen candidates/supporters 'on the knock' for general elections here, only for local elections.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 15:39:30 GMT
Good question, cb25 . No, in my opinion. The PR system leads to too many parties going into coalition with each other. It leads to wrangling about how to form a government that lasts forever and for lack of will in decision making when a coalition is in power, because the (too many) individual parties know they will face off with each other in the next elections, and don't want to be associated with ambitious policies they would jointly have to take the blame for if they went wrong. In my opinion, the AV system we were offered in that referendum was the best least worst system, as it preserved the constituency system of one MP to represent you, but made sure that each MP went off with the support of at least 50.001% of those who voted. In Woking, it would have been worth turning up to vote. That AV system (ranking the choices 1,2,3 rather than putting a tick) was, I remember, described as "too confusing to voters" by David Cameron in one speech during the referendum. In the last UK election the Conservative Party got 37% of the vote, and are essentially handed total power over the electorate for 5 years. You can see why he held that opinion. Whatever, the current muffled megaphone of a representative democracy that we have is not fit for purpose when people are used to being consulted and voting all the time on their internet & TV affairs. As I have been saying, this place needs cleaning up first before any powers are returned from the EU , which is far better democratically constructed than the UK is.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,439
Likes: 2,899
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 28, 2019 15:42:38 GMT
I dont think anyone that advocates "no deal" believes there would never be a deal - just that no deal is the starting point for a "fair" deal. I sort of agree with this, kind of like falling down the stairs and breaking your leg is a good starting point for people to focus on your recovery. Yes but you forgot to mention these are the last steps of the fire escape you're running down to escape a burning building.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 28, 2019 16:35:18 GMT
Interesting Topic this (?!), with lots of learned comments by some very informed peeps, unfortunately the subject matter got too much for my tiny brain and left me behind ages ago. I do have an honest Question though, which vexes me somewhat:- We still have our Pound, so, In or Out of The EU, we don't have to pay into the inevitable bail out of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, xxxx, yyyyy, etc??
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Jan 28, 2019 16:51:30 GMT
Interesting Topic this (?!), with lots of learned comments by some very informed peeps, unfortunately the subject matter got too much for my tiny brain and left me behind ages ago. I do have an honest Question though, which vexes me somewhat:- We still have our Pound, so, In or Out of The EU, we don't have to pay into the inevitable bail out of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, xxxx, yyyyy, etc?? Correct. [Edit: effectively correct...compensated in full for any liability of non-repayment] July 2015: The following paragraph 2a is inserted in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010: '2a. Where the beneficiary Member State is a Member State whose currency is the euro, the granting of Union financial assistance shall be conditional upon legally binding provisions guaranteeing that the Member States which do not participate in the single currency are fully compensated for any liability they may incur as a result of any failure by the beneficiary Member State to repay the financial assistance in accordance with its terms.' ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu_borrower/documents/2015-07-22_proposal_council_regulation_efsm_en.pdf#page=4
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 28, 2019 17:23:10 GMT
Good question, cb25 . No, in my opinion. The PR system leads to too many parties going into coalition with each other. It leads to wrangling about how to form a government that lasts forever and for lack of will in decision making when a coalition is in power, because the (too many) individual parties know they will face off with each other in the next elections, and don't want to be associated with ambitious policies they would jointly have to take the blame for if they went wrong. In my opinion, the AV system we were offered in that referendum was the best least worst system, as it preserved the constituency system of one MP to represent you, but made sure that each MP went off with the support of at least 50.001% of those who voted. In Woking, it would have been worth turning up to vote. That AV system (ranking the choices 1,2,3 rather than putting a tick) was, I remember, described as "too confusing to voters" by David Cameron in one speech during the referendum. In the last UK election the Conservative Party got 37% of the vote, and are essentially handed total power over the electorate for 5 years. You can see why he held that opinion. Whatever, the current muffled megaphone of a representative democracy that we have is not fit for purpose when people are used to being consulted and voting all the time on their internet & TV affairs. As I have been saying, this place needs cleaning up first before any powers are returned from the EU , which is far better democratically constructed than the UK is. We had a whole commission headed by Roy Jenkins to look at this after the 1997 election. They came up with an excellent plan to elect 500 constituencies by AV - so that every MP would have been elected by at least 50% of their constituency, and so that we kept the historical link and valuable role of a constituency MP - with a top of of 150 MPs on party lists to make the composition of the HoC proportional - so that minority party votes aren't wasted, and elect MPs (Green, UKIP, Lib Dem etc). With a threshold to cross (3 or 5% or so) so that it isn't too fragmented. I think it was a very good hybrid solution that built on our Parliamentary history whilst modernising the voting system and improving the democratic system so that every vote does count, unlike now where most peoples votes don't count because they are in a safe seat. But because Labour won with such a landslide in 1997, they changed their previously expressed support for a PR system and ditched it for self interested purposes and won two more large majorities on +/- 40% of the vote. The country is now paying the price for their cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 28, 2019 17:29:41 GMT
.... We still have our Pound, so, In or Out of The EU, we don't have to pay into the inevitable bail out of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, xxxx, yyyyy, etc?? Correct. [Edit: effectively correct...compensated in full for any liability of non-repayment] July 2015: The following paragraph 2a is inserted in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010: '2a. Where the beneficiary Member State is a Member State whose currency is the euro... Correct, no exposure as a consequence of any obligations/commitments/liabilities arising from our EU membership.
However, we do / did/ will continue to have exposure (loans) through our obligations/commitments arising from our membership of the international (i.e. non-EU) body the IMF. As we do/did/will have to other countries outside of the EU.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 17:49:26 GMT
Well remembered! I edited "least worst" into my last answer because the best system imaginable will always be a compromise between the fine grain democracy of PR, where there can be a party for every issue, and the blunt instrument of the winner takes all that we now have. But it's not the whole picture to blame the Labour Party. It wasn't their cowardice, it was their naked self-interest, as they had just won in a winner takes all system. But Cameron did the same when he broke the coalition agreement he had with the LDs and campaigned against even the modest change of AV. All AV would have done in practice is to put into play a few Rotten Borough constituencies, but the winners in the current system just won't let go. Next thing to plan then is how we burst out of the p2pindependentforum and storm the gates of Parliament clutching a copy of the 1997 Jenkins Report. We need a catchy slogan like "500 constituencies by AV - so that every MP would have been elected by at least 50% of their constituency, and so that we kept the historical link and valuable role of a constituency MP - with a top of of 150 MPs on party lists to make the composition of the HoC proportional - so that minority party votes aren't wasted, and elect MPs (Green, UKIP, Lib Dem etc). With a threshold to cross (3 or 5% or so) so that it isn't too fragmented."Sorry, I'm at home with a cold today so I'm all over the forum like a bad suit.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 28, 2019 18:30:54 GMT
Well remembered! I edited "least worst" into my last answer because the best system imaginable will always be a compromise between the fine grain democracy of PR, where there can be a party for every issue, and the blunt instrument of the winner takes all that we now have. But it's not the whole picture to blame the Labour Party. It wasn't their cowardice, it was their naked self-interest, as they had just won in a winner takes all system. But Cameron did the same when he broke the coalition agreement he had with the LDs and campaigned against even the modest change of AV. All AV would have done in practice is to put into play a few Rotten Borough constituencies, but the winners in the current system just won't let go. Next thing to plan then is how we burst out of the p2pindependentforum and storm the gates of Parliament clutching a copy of the 1997 Jenkins Report. We need a catchy slogan like "500 constituencies by AV - so that every MP would have been elected by at least 50% of their constituency, and so that we kept the historical link and valuable role of a constituency MP - with a top of of 150 MPs on party lists to make the composition of the HoC proportional - so that minority party votes aren't wasted, and elect MPs (Green, UKIP, Lib Dem etc). With a threshold to cross (3 or 5% or so) so that it isn't too fragmented."Sorry, I'm at home with a cold today so I'm all over the forum like a bad suit.PR is ok as long as you don’t get the minority’s holding the balance of power to disproportionately further their agendas In exchange for their vote. As demonstratesd by the Greens in Scotland and DUP in Westminster.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 28, 2019 19:09:34 GMT
Well remembered! I edited "least worst" into my last answer because the best system imaginable will always be a compromise between the fine grain democracy of PR, where there can be a party for every issue, and the blunt instrument of the winner takes all that we now have. But it's not the whole picture to blame the Labour Party. It wasn't their cowardice, it was their naked self-interest, as they had just won in a winner takes all system. But Cameron did the same when he broke the coalition agreement he had with the LDs and campaigned against even the modest change of AV. All AV would have done in practice is to put into play a few Rotten Borough constituencies, but the winners in the current system just won't let go. Next thing to plan then is how we burst out of the p2pindependentforum and storm the gates of Parliament clutching a copy of the 1997 Jenkins Report. We need a catchy slogan like "500 constituencies by AV - so that every MP would have been elected by at least 50% of their constituency, and so that we kept the historical link and valuable role of a constituency MP - with a top of of 150 MPs on party lists to make the composition of the HoC proportional - so that minority party votes aren't wasted, and elect MPs (Green, UKIP, Lib Dem etc). With a threshold to cross (3 or 5% or so) so that it isn't too fragmented."Sorry, I'm at home with a cold today so I'm all over the forum like a bad suit.PR is ok as long as you don’t get the minority’s holding the balance of power to disproportionately further their agendas In exchange for their vote. As demonstratesd by the Greens in Scotland and DUP in Westminster. 1) that happens in all systems 2) smaller parties get smaller influence, even if they hold the balance of power. In fact, given a wider spread (number of parties and number of seats) of smaller parties under PR, each party arguably has a lot less influence under PR than under FPTP. Under PR, the DUP would hold less power. 3) Under FPTP the disproportionate influence is for the larger parties, who get huge majorities on minority votes, which for me is a worse problem democratically (elected dictatorships).
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 28, 2019 21:09:53 GMT
Edit: We'll probably need a proportional representation system (the simpler the better) before we get a HoC that really aligns with how people really think. Can't see FPTP MPs agreeing to that for obvious reasons.
Members of Parliament approved a referendum on replacing the current FPTP system - in this case with the AV system. While not truly proportional, it would arguably lead to a more balanced and more proportional system than the current.
In 2011 the referendum was duly held and resoundingly rejected in favour of retaining the existing FPTP system. And none of your slim margins here: a whopping 68/32 split.
Sounds like you would be in favour of retesting the democratic will of the people to see if that position still held true. I'd not have any quibble with that.
If I've interpreted your post correctly then that is naughty bracknellboy.... but I like it
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 23:25:00 GMT
Members of Parliament approved a referendum on replacing the current FPTP system - in this case with the AV system. While not truly proportional, it would arguably lead to a more balanced and more proportional system than the current.
In 2011 the referendum was duly held and resoundingly rejected in favour of retaining the existing FPTP system. And none of your slim margins here: a whopping 68/32 split.
Sounds like you would be in favour of retesting the democratic will of the people to see if that position still held true. I'd not have any quibble with that.
If I've interpreted your post correctly then that is naughty bracknellboy .... but I like it I'm happy to support revisiting each of these - PR and Brexit - each generation or so.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 29, 2019 9:47:33 GMT
If I've interpreted your post correctly then that is naughty bracknellboy .... but I like it I'm happy to support revisiting each of these - PR and Brexit - each generation or so. When you have the PM now whipping her party to vote to change the deal she personally negotiated 3 months earlier, which she said was not renegotiable and had whipped her party to support but lost in the biggest ever parliamentary defeat in history - I reckon we can revisit it a bit sooner rather than having to wait a generation. If TM can change her mind in 3 months, I reckon we can in 3 years. (Or not of course - we can restate our determination to plough on if we still believe in it after this utter shambles).
|
|