Independent++ : comments [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

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).

[parent entry] [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]

Is that STV for the consituency MPs in an AM system? STV for a single member consituency on its own strikes me as potentially being less proportional overall.

Does RON get to stand?

[link] [parent] [reply]

single winner STV is a disaster and far worse than FPTP. (i think you all knew i'd say that!)

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-

[link] [parent] [reply]

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]

The only proper answer is multi-member STV constituencies.

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

go her regional SNP MSP who was interested in the matter rather than through her constituency MSP

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm all for enacting a law saying that you have to have been normally resident in the constituency you're planning to represent for not less than twelve months before you're allowed to stand for that seat.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hum. My mother wouldn't have been able to stand in the unwinnable seat she stood in under that rule, having only been asked to do so (and able to do so) about two months ahead of time. While she's probably going to be moving to somewhere in the area in the next couple of years, there's no guarantee she'd find or want to find a house within the exact constituency she stood for.

The alternative in that case this year would have been no LibDem candidate, and given she got 20% of the vote without huge effort I think that would have been unfair on the LibDem voters. While I think that the local party concerned could have been more organised, it's actually quite hard to get people committed enough to stand for parliament at all. I think forcing them to move house every time they're asked to stand in an unwinnable seat is a bit much. (Winnable seats are a different matter).

As there are a lot more people standing for seats they won't win than people standing with a chance of winning, your suggestion would simply reduce the number of candidates in every seat, and the ability for people to register "protest" votes.

Living somewhere for a year doesn't magically make you a perfect expert on it, it's a lot more to do with how much effort you are willing to put in to learn from the locals, and your commitment to move to the area if you do well. I'd also say it was living in the *area* not the exact constituency that mattered, and your ability/willingness to be available to your constituents.

Both my parents have represented council wards they don't live in for 15+ years. My dad moved into his ward after the divorce, but before that they were both living in a village five miles away. Not a huge barrier when you visit the relevant town nearly every day, and you have regular surgeries, and your constituents have your phone number and postal address (and email address these days).

[link] [parent] [reply]

People don't *have* to vote for them. Indeed, the tory candidate was probably somewhat disadvantaged by being the only candidate who didn't live in Cambridge this time round.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's a person that will represent you, not a party.

I don't see that the list system is so much worse than the current setup, since in practice currently (as you point out) quite often the person is representing the party rather then you.

[link] [parent] [reply]

A pure list system is odious, because it secures the place of odious party hacks very, very efficiently. (Are you going to vote against the party whos policies best suit you just because the #2 candidate on their list is an odious arsehole?)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also a problem with the current system. Do you vote for the friendly Tory or the unlikeable Lib Dem? (Not that this was a problem in any recent election for me, mind.)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Err, no, it's a different problem. Both systems have problems, but they're not the same problem.

The "nice person, nasty party" problem is fairly fundamental to a party politics system, but the "list" problem, is "I like Labour #3 more than anyone else in the country, but really really hate Labour #2, and there is no way of showing this with my vote" In your problem *you* can decide whether for you "nice tory">"nasty libdem" and vote accordingly, in a list situation you can't.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

rmc28

And, in practice, most people vote for a party most of the time, even if the ballot paper preserves the fond delusion that they're voting for a person.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Becasue, at the monent, you have no other choice. However, in last 2 generals (before this one) I voted for one Tam Dalyell, Bart. I did not vote for him becasue he was labour, but becasue he was Tam, and I trusted him. I'd like to be able to do that more often.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I don't see that multimember constituencies do that much better, and I don't regard the Condorcet problem as a terribly attractive thing either.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Why not? Say we have 6 seats going. I can choose 3 because I trust the the candidates; then I can allocate my other votes on a party basis -- if I so choose. But I'm not compeled, as I am at the moment, to chose one of N. The value of rejection in an electoral system should not be underestimated.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

emperor

i am coming to see condorcet cycles not as a bug, but as a feature.

-m-

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

yrieithydd.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

senji.livejournal.com

Actually no, I'm convinced that most people vote against a party rather than for one. Tactical voting is probably the most invidious effect of First Past The Post, because where there are more than two contenders in the vote the whole business becomes one of affecting the voters' perception of who might win. "Only I can beat the Wombat Party candidate" is (with appropriate substitutions) a very common rallying cry, and it doesn't matter if it's untrue; if enough voters believe that it is true, then it becomes true.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Of course, this could be countered by actually letting people vote against a party. Say "you can either have a yes vote or a no vote" and add up the number of yeses and subtract the number of Nos. It's a bit depressing to think we have a country that would vote against rather than for, but as it happens anyway, this would take away the squew of "guessing who the second candidate will be"

[link] [parent] [reply]

In the last election, every constituency in the country had at least one candidate worth voting against.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think the lack of MP-constituency link problem is soluble, albeit somewhat imperfectly. After the election, the newly-elected MPs could sit down, look at where they got most of their votes from, and agree on a division of which area each would be primarily responsible for. Constituents would then have a local MP who would hold surgeries there, etc., and who would usually be a first port of call, but would be entitled to go to any of the MPs from the super-constituency if they preferred. MPs would still have an incentive to be good constituency MPs, because they'd be dealing with the constituents they got most votes from. (And who could vote for other candidates from the same party if they felt let down...)

[link] [parent] [reply]

"t creates second class MSPs: non-contsituency MSPs."

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Except that's not how it works in Scotland; most of the ministers are constitency MSPs, not list MSPs. The general view is that list MSPs are a lower form of life, and only there as make-weights.

Besides, in a multi-member STV system, there will always be local members who do not have governmental duties.

[link] [parent] [reply]

October