Display:
According to Deborah Orr in the Guardian (an LDP member) AV is not much of an improvement, if any, over FPTP. The goal is STV and they don't think the stepping stone idea works cos it doubles the cost of introduction without really helping along the way.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu May 13th, 2010 at 11:45:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AV is only different from STV for multi-member constituencies which I don't think are in the cards for the UK in any case.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 13th, 2010 at 11:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... since it as replacing a clearly archaic institution with a new one. And there's no argument that amplifying majorities is a good thing, since its a House of Review rather than a House of Government.

Regional PR with 10% or higher thresholds would be my first guess.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu May 13th, 2010 at 07:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or is this an opportunity to revisit the West Lothian question and have a separate list for each of England, Scotland, Wales, and North East Ireland (and a proportionately larger list for England).

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 04:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would elevate the London Assembly to the same level as the other devolved assemblies and make "England" "England minus London".

It is very unfortunate that New Labour botched devolution by defining the English regions top-down rather than bottom up, thus having them fail.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 04:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All of the UK already has a well defines local Government system, so why not define constituencies by County (which have many traditional and practical identifiers) and only combine Counties where a low population would result in a constituency having less that (say) 3 seats.  Effectively that used to be the case in Ireland, although boundaries have been mucked about since.  Cities could be subdivided into more than one constituency where they exceed (say) 5 seats to retain some level of local identification with candidates.  The larger the constituency, the more it favours larger nationally organised parties over local or single issue candidates with lesser funding/organisation.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 04:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, the fewer the seats per constituency, the harder for national minor parties to get representation - there was a big difference in the Australian Senate when they went from 5 Senators elected per state each election to 6 elected per state each election, and 7 would be even more dramatic.

So I might put the lower threshold at 4 and the upper threshold at 7 before subdividing down to four each.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 12:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I meant by regional - Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Southeast, London, Southwest, East, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, Northeast, Northwest.

The regions for England have already been defined. Only London has its own elected assembly, while the others recently had their assemblies stripped from them and replaced with Local Authorities Leadership Boards.

The regions are already the English constituencies in the European parliament.

Unless it is separate PR in Wales and Scotland, the regional parties won't go along. Having it by regions in England itself makes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as distinct regions just "more of the same".

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 12:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
AV is already a big improvement by removing the "spoiler effect" and allowing people to vote their true first preference while voting for the lesser evil in their second preference.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 13th, 2010 at 11:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In practice it doesn't eliminate tactical voting though.  For instance, in my own (multi-seat STV) constituency, I would vote first for a local independent, second for a Green, third for Labour, and possibly forth for the lesser of two evils (Fianna Fail/Fine Gael) knowing full well that the Independent and the Green will be eliminated, that my vote will probably help elect the Labour candidate, and failing that (or in the event of the Labour candidate already having a quota) elect the lesser evil.  In that way I can encourage the development of local community politics, the Green Party, and Labour whilst at the same time ensuring that the worst candidate/party has a lesser chance of getting in.  Effectively my vote is counted 3/4 times and has a role in determining the final seat.  In other words it helps shape the development of politics long term, helps shape choices, but is ultimately determinant.  

It encourages the participation of minor parties//candidates, and of voters who might otherwise say "a plague on all your houses" as there is no candidate that remotely reflects their views.  Of course in a 5 seat constituency, it is also quite possible for a candidate with less than 10% of first preferences to get elected provided they can pull in enough second and lower preference votes as other candidates are eliminated.

Extremist parties parties do less well as they get lesser transfers of lower preference votes (many people will never give a preference to e.g. Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail) but an outstanding candidate, e.g. Joe Higgins of the tiny Socialist Party can get elected.

Of course such a system is hopelessly complicated for the Brits and really only suitable for the Irish...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 04:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A second preference vote is simpler, and likely simple enough for even the English electorate. Vote X for the one you want and 2 for the Lesser of Two Evils.

If the first preferences are also used as the vote for a party list in a PR component (either mixed representation or House of Lords), there's an even stronger incentive to keep your LOTE vote as your 2 vote.

And its a lot easier to announce 2nd Pref, Instant Run-off votes on the night than Full Preference, Alternative Vote.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri May 14th, 2010 at 12:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I tend to think there is one ideal voting system we must all seek, like a Grail, but your post makes me wonder if a certain amount of cultural relativism might be appropriate.

I have a particular hatred for STV (complicated, non-transparent, open to manipulation by the major parties), largely based on Australia, where it's an unmitigated failure in terms of boosting representivity. But that's perhaps because Australians are particularly (bites tongue and does not type "stupid") lazy about politics, they expect the major parties to be cynical and corrupt, and in their majority they play along with them. This is worsened by the fact that voting is compulsory, so that large numbers of people who really don't give a toss turn up and tick the box for a party's rort ticket.

The Irish counter-example is fascinating.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 06:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series