Independent++ [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Their front page says it very well

Mood::

political

←

→

There are 64 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Is this one of those arguments for Proportional Representation?

Err, yes.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It is the few BNP/UKIP/Other scary people that we would have that make me dislike this idea.

Plus I did the Weimar republic in history and it bored me to tears and it didn't work.

It is the few BNP/UKIP/Other scary people that we would have that make me dislike this idea.

It depends on how the system is set up as to what the threshold for having a seat is. I think the Additional Member system as used in Wales and Scotland works well although there are those who feel that the party lists result in people who toe the party line getting in (because they're the ones who'll get onto the list).

[link] [parent] [reply]

The Additional Member system also keeps some idea of "your MP" (/AM/MSP/whatever) which I think is a good thing. I say we should keep constituency MPs but move to Single Transferable Vote for electing them.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

yrieithydd.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

meirion.livejournal.com

The additional member system in Scotland is dreadful. 2 reasons. 1) it's a list system, so is controlled by the partie hierarchy, and 2) it creates second class MSPs: non-contsituency MSPs.

The only proper answer is multi-member STV constituencies.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

yrieithydd.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

hoiho.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

fluffymormegil.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

rmc28

(no subject) —

emperor

(no subject) —

marnanel.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

fluffymormegil.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

marnanel.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

rmc28

(no subject) —

fluffymormegil.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

ci5rod.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

fluffymormegil.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

smhwpf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

ghoti.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

hoiho.livejournal.com

1930s Germany was messed up in ways that Britain isn't (and wasn't at the time) - I don't think you can conclude from Weimar that PR is inherently broken.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I don't realy concude that at all (even though it probably sounded like I do); I just think that it does make for very messy politics to have more parties than most people can actually remember the names of. I don't think that PR is inherenty a bad idea, I'm just not sure it is all that practical.

[link] [parent] [reply]

> It is the few BNP/UKIP/Other scary people that we would have that make me dislike this idea.

So it's OK to have the people that the clever people approve of, but we can disenfranchise the thickies because they vote for the loons?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes, I came to the conclusion that you either had to be honest, and make democracy unfair (some sort of voting test, to weed out mad and bad voters, to go with the ideas of driving and parenting tests) or you had to make democracy what the people wanted. As you'd be mad to put the power of who can vote in the hands of the government that option is out. Especially as "mad and bad" often mean "don't agree with me".

I still can't see (aside from buerocratic d00m) too many flaws in the idea of having to prove you know your parties policies before you're allowed to vote for them. A short number of multichoice questions on the main issues to which the parties get to write their own answer, and you have to be able to tick the answers of the people you're voting for. And you can have as many goes as you like until you've proved you know what you're voting for and can go and vote. However, a combination of burocratic d00m and Bad People probably makes it impossible, and if people had to spend any more time voting the turnout would be ever lower. Although personally I don't mind if we loose the "Can't be bothered to educate myself" vote... :-/

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

new-brunette.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

emperor

(no subject) —

emperor

(no subject) —

robert-jones.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

antinomy.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

antinomy.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

simont

(no subject) —

atreic.livejournal.com

In some ways maybe we should. If it were put to the public the death penalty would be reinstated; however, in parliament there is no way that would get a majority regardless of the party politics also going on. I don't want to disenfranchise people but I do think that subjecting everyone to a local barrier before they arive at Westminster is quite a good idea. People can express their views by voting for these smaller parties that act more like pressure groups and if the larger parties want their votes they have to adapt to what the public wants.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think what we need is some way of making the demos think that they have power, in order to keep them reasonably contented and maintain public order, while actually keeping real power in the hands of a professional governing class who will run the country competently. In theory it should be fairly easy to disenfranchise thickies without their noticing because they are ex hypothesi thick.

This may already happen.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The way to deal with scary BNP/UKIP etc people isn't to muzzle them but to debate with them and show the poor quality of their argument. Once you start down the road of "this person can't speak their opinion because it is unpleasant", it is hard to justify stopping anywhere. Where do you draw the line?

Also, if they're really good at banging on about the brown people but shit at constituency work, they will get thrown out in the next election. It's happened in at least one local council.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Give them rope they'll hang themselves - the few councillors that the BNP have are notorious for their abysmal quality.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that if 1% of the electorate want a UKIP MP, then they should probably be entitled to one. I broadly agree with

rmc28 on this.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that if 1% of the electorate want a UKIP MP, then they should probably be entitled to 6.

[ sorry, I know what you mean, but couldn't resist ].

[link] [parent] [reply]

Possibly even 6 of them? :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

scary people

Well we already have IRA terrorists with seats in parliament so I don't think "but scary people will get elected" is a valid argument.

One alternative which I read about recently on Chris Lightfoot's blog is called PR-squared in which the proportion of seats is allocated according to the square of the votes, specifically in order to make a parliamentary majority more likely. I remain to be convinced that this is actually a benefit.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

sparrowsion

I see yet another paper is saying just how much Sudoku there is one the puzzle page...

yes, indeed!

-m-

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ok. Let us put this way: If myself (Currently a LibDem voter) and my Conservative friend can both agree we don't want Labour, and that we would rather see each other's governments than Labour's (as long as the majorities were slim), it would be nice to be able to say this.

On the other hand, I don't think a 'voting test' would help. To be perfectly frank, voting for the prettyest logo isn't a bad way to choose between the parties at some points, so why should one not?

I might, in my heart of hearts, desire that the electorate be made up of people who are not frighteningly stupid; however, if I felt the system actually in some way reflected 'the will of the people', I would be at least able to shrug and say, "I disagree, but your option". As it is, I feel that the government is the will of a third of the country, giving us a majority that don't want it. That is what I resent; not 'not-winning', but feeling voiceless.

It's been asserted at me (probably by

edith_the_hutt) that FPTP was set up with the intention of providing a government, even when the electorate was divided. A Hung Parliament was deemed worse than providing a government only a third of the electorate voted for.

[link] [parent] [reply]

For those who haven't seen it, here is what the Electoral Reform Society has to say on voting systems. Note in particular the difference between closed and open list (or partial list) systems.

Yes, I do rather like that front page.

Their front page says it alarmingly craply; they'd have been much better working left->right than top->bottom. Whatever happened to decent graphic design?

October