...does what it says on the tin. Independent++ : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25 |
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Plus I did the Weimar republic in history and it bored me to tears and it didn't work.
(no subject)
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).
(no subject)
(no subject)
Does RON get to stand?
(no subject)
it is frightening how many people believe that single winner STV will elect the compromise candidate, although perhaps slightly heartening that they believe that that is what ought to be elected in the absence of overwhelming support for one candidate. maybe condorcet doesn't have as far to go as is sometimes thought in winning over the hearts/minds of the electorate.
-m-
(no subject)
The only proper answer is multi-member STV constituencies.
(no subject)
Why? I used to be pro-STV but I've gone off it for electing representatives for parliament. I think it works well for electing people for committee posts (although given that in the society which uses it even having contested posts is rare it is a bit pointless really!) but I think my objection to it on the national scale is the fact that you have to have larger multi-member consituencies which I think reduces the link between electors and MPs. I think that is worse than having non-consituency represenatives. In the other discussion I've been reading on this point (on Purgatory on the Ship of Fools someone pointed to a situation in which she had found having the list MSPs useful in that on a matter relating to Gaelic education (IIRC) she'd been able to go her regional SNP MSP who was interested in the matter rather than through her constituency MSP.
As to the list being controlled by the Party hierarchy, I think that this is a flaw in the way in which the list is nominated. I do not see that inherently a list system would be more likely to be controlled by the party hierarchy than nominating local MPs. People are parachuted into safe seats these days or the wishes of the local party are ignored in the interest of 'all women short lists'. Yes, the electorate can chose not vote for them, but why can they not do that with the list candidates? And given that most MPs follow the party line anyway, what does it matter? Secondly, why could the list not be nominated by the constituency parties in a similar way to the way candidates for constituencies are chosen? For example each constituency could nominate one person for the list in that region and there could be some system for reducing the number ranking them after that.
(no subject)
And this is the strength om Multi-member contituencies. Suppose you care pasionately about debt relief for the developing world, but your MP doesn't. Or perhaps you object to a government policy, but your MP is of the government party - or even in the government -- I've been in both situations; it's a total waste of time. There is always an alternative representative. And, as you say, the parties parachute candidates in, so the "local bonds" argument is also errant nonsense.
Regarding the list system, the problem, to my mind, is voting for a party not a person. It's a person that will represent you, not a party. And for manupulation of party lists systems look at the SNP and Margo MacDonald's place on the Lothian list.
(no subject)
exactly one of my arguments in favour; it provides government with a number of people who don't have to juggle constituency duties and ministerial duties, because ministers don't have constituencies.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
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?
(no subject)
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... :-/
(no subject)
How would you feel if the line was arbitrarily drawn above you and you were consequentially disenfranchised? It's an arbitrary line after all - you've just said "main issues" - your main issues are almost certainly very different from the one which decided the way I'd cast my vote this time. So what if the only thing which came above my horizon was an irrational fear of being taken over by Europe or swamped by immigrants?
Let me put it another way. A lot of people were pissed off when we went to war on the basis of government leaders who said "Trust us - we know what we're doing, and we believe that what we're doing is in your best interests, and we know more than you do". Isn't what you're proposing pretty much the same thing, with a line drawn in a different place?
(no subject)
These people will rather fall into your 'Can't be bothered to educate myself' category. I don't think we have any right to nick these people's votes, and the more complex the system, the more that's exactly what we're doing, whether we put them through multi-guess exams or not.
And before you say 'but hardly anyone's illiterate in this country' think again. Think of the number of kids who leave school with no qualificiations. Think how many more there were thirty or so years ago. I always come back to something we were told in a 'how not to get sued' session at the vet school - that you should be reading the consent form to all your clients, because a good proportion of them won't actually be able to read it.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
This may already happen.
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
[ sorry, I know what you mean, but couldn't resist ].
(no subject)
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)