Voting Systems (N/G ?)

[Tarian]

Dear All,
I know that the "Traveller" thread had several comments about Voting Systems (Mostly pages 16 & 17).

There are plenty of politicos on here, so I'm genuinely interested in exploring this - as and when the mood takes people. So a titled thread might be helpful.
( Surely this can be discussed on the merits / demerits of each system rather than on personalities - i.e. "who" is posting what ?)

Here goes.

Proportional Representation - Includes:
Party List, Single Transferable Vote

Pros: Ensures that more different views get a platform.
Prevents Government by a minority

Cons: Reduces (or eliminates) direct Constituency representation
Encourages inward-looking by party activists in order to achieve high ranking on Party Lists


Majoritarian - includes:
FPTP, Block Vote (e.g. Councils), Borda Count (scoring), Supplementary Vote (2nd Pref.), Alternative Vote (Run-off),

Pros: Ensures a named Representative is accountable to a specific set of voters.
Reduces (not eliminates) Party patronage.

Cons: Can result in minority Govt.
Voters may be encouraged to vote tactically or negatively (depending on the system)


Mixed Systems - includes:
Additional Member (e.g. London, Scotland, Germany, NZ), Alternative Vote Plus

Pro : Reduces defects of PR / Majoritarian

Con: Arguably more complex to understand


Finally - NOTA
An option to make a formal record for "None of the above".


Marks will be awarded for constructive contributions. Stern emojis if not !

 

[valenciagill]

I wish I was informed enough to take part , but it's all a bit beyond me I'm afraid.

 

[Tarian]

I wish I was informed enough to take part , but it's all a bit beyond me I'm afraid.

OK.
How about this. (You don't need to know the technicalities of any system.)

How important is to know the name of your local MP, Councillor - or whatever they are called in Spain.
(Maybe many don't care ... until they have a problem.)

Then, whether you last voted "dishonestly". e.g.:
No plausible Party represented your views, so you compromised
or
You voted for the only plausible winner that could block someone you dislike ?

 

[valenciagill]

How important is to know the name of your local MP, Councillor - or whatever they are called in Spain.
(Maybe many don't care ... until they have a problem.)

I'm probably not the best example as I cannot vote in the Spanish general elections. I can (and do) vote in my local elections.
In these , I think of it as voting for the person , ie it's the mayor/mayoress
Every local election I have voted and the candidate I have gone for is PSOE ( Labour )
In other words I am ignoring party politics and voting who I believe can do the best job for my village.

 

[londongills]

Multi member constituenncy STV (no not the sexual one) actually maintains the link between constituents and elected representatives ,just with a bigger geographical area. We have the mother of all parliaments but an outdated and undemocratic political system. Personally I think it’s not beyond the ability of psephologists, mathematicians and others to devise a new bespoke electoral system for Westminster elections. About 12 years ago I made some films helping younger audiences understand some of the different voting systems, including pizza eating for FPP, an Australian water polo team choosing new swimwear for alternative vote, ceildhi dancing for STV and penalty taking for additional member, I enjoyed making them even if no one understood them ;-))
Are Gills playing today?

 

[valenciagill]

How important is to know the name of your local MP, Councillor - or whatever they are called in Spain.
(Maybe many don't care ... until they have a problem.)

Then, whether you last voted "dishonestly". e.g.:
No plausible Party represented your views, so you compromised
or
You voted for the only plausible winner that could block someone you dislike ?

I know our mayoress as she is very involved over here. It's very different to a mayoress in the UK.

As for the other questions the answer is no to each

 

[Buddha]

Whoever you vote for the government always wins. So use your cross wisely and crucify a politician.

Wouldn't want to disappoint, Tarian.

 

[Tarian]

Whoever you vote for the government always wins. So use your cross wisely and crucify a politician.

Wouldn't want to disappoint, Tarian.

That's tame - relatively.

But that's a Constutional point - with which I have a lot of sympathy.
i.e. "the government always wins" - the Civil Service carries on
Which is why "Yes Minister" should be made compulsory in schools !

Feel free to start a Thread entitled "Forms of Government" or whatever.

Assuming that you could achieve your ideal form of government, how should it be elected ?

If you distrust politicians and believe in "Committees of the People" then make that case (and how large each "Commune" should be)...

...but that goes back to the the other thread you're about to start !

 

[Tarian]

I know our mayoress as she is very involved over here. It's very different to a mayoress in the UK.

As for the other questions the answer is no to each

FYI we now have two types of Mayor / Mayoress in the UK.

The majority of Councils still have the ceremonial type.
They chair Full Council meetings (impartially), visit Care Homes and open Fetes.

We now have a handful of Executive Mayors - mainly for metro areas like London, Birmingham, Manchester - and a handful of Boroughs like Lewisham and Bristol.

Personally I think Exec. Mayors are neither democratic not good for decision-making.
It puts all the power with one person - rather than relying on the collective wisdom of a Committee of elected Councillors.
It also means that the Mayor is surrounded by Council Officers keen to direct / commit the Mayor before he can consult colleagues. ("Yes Minister")

But this is for Buddha's thread on the ideal Constitution !

 

[chris who]

The voting system is only likely to be challenged again if and when a third party wins over a 30% of the votes.They would probably end up with about 10 to 20% of seats.So about 65 to 130 and possibly hold the balance of power. The problem will still be the majority will still not want change as it will lose them power. So in reality a third party needs to get around 45% of the vote to have a chance to change the system.Something that might get them close to winning a election. But the same percentage would give the Tories or Labour a whopping majority.
In the meantime probably for all our lifetimes the 20% that vote or want to support smaller parties but don't will feel cheated and left out by the system.
Even with around 20% support the Liberal party only got between 46 and 18 seats not anywhere near 10% of parliament.
So my figures are not imaginary. Change will probably never happen unless the Tories and Labour split in two or more parties each.If that ever happened to one party the other would of course take advantage and not split so that is nearly impossible.

 

[Tarian]

The voting system is only likely to be challenged again if and when a third party wins over a 30% of the votes.They would probably end up with about 10 to 20% of seats.So about 65 to 130 and possibly hold the balance of power. The problem will still be the majority will still not want change as it will lose them power. So in reality a third party needs to get around 45% of the vote to have a chance to change the system.Something that might get them close to winning a election. But the same percentage would give the Tories or Labour a whopping majority.
In the meantime probably for all our lifetimes the 20% that vote or want to support smaller parties but don't will feel cheated and left out by the system.
Even with around 20% support the Liberal party only got between 46 and 18 seats not anywhere near 10% of parliament.
So my figures are not imaginary. Change will probably never happen unless the Tories and Labour split in two or more parties each.If that ever happened to one party the other would of course take advantage and not split so that is nearly impossible.

Not sure "45%" is necessary.
The Conservatives needed the LibDems for a coalition - without anything like that.
A handful more seats and they may have been able to demand an actual change - rather than a (mere) Referendum on the Alternative Vote.

So my figures are not imaginary. Change will probably never happen unless the Tories and Labour split in two or more parties each.If that ever happened to one party the other would of course take advantage and not split so that is nearly impossible.

Again, not impossible.
In 2014/15, UKIP did well when voters were unhappy with both Cons. and Labour.
UKIP won Council seats in 2013, 2014 and 2015 - and came second in many seats in the 2015 GE.

In the 2019 European elections the Brexit Party won - significantly - with 31% of the vote and 29/73 seats.
The Cons. collapsed to 9% (5/73) - and Labour faired little better at 14% (10/73).

But there is no doubt that resistance to change is high.
Which is why some "reformers" favour a step-by-step approach.
e.g.
NOTA and 2nd Prefs are not really a threat to either Labour or Cons. - but they each allow for an "official" record of alternative voting preferences.

 

[Tarian]

The voting system is only likely to be challenged again if and when a third party wins over a 30% of the votes.They would probably end up with about 10 to 20% of seats.So about 65 to 130 and possibly hold the balance of power. The problem will still be the majority will still not want change as it will lose them power. So in reality a third party needs to get around 45% of the vote to have a chance to change the system.Something that might get them close to winning a election. But the same percentage would give the Tories or Labour a whopping majority.
In the meantime probably for all our lifetimes the 20% that vote or want to support smaller parties but don't will feel cheated and left out by the system.
Even with around 20% support the Liberal party only got between 46 and 18 seats not anywhere near 10% of parliament.
So my figures are not imaginary. Change will probably never happen unless the Tories and Labour split in two or more parties each.If that ever happened to one party the other would of course take advantage and not split so that is nearly impossible.

So what (if any) change would you like to see ?

 

[chris who]

Not sure "45%" is necessary.
The Conservatives needed the LibDems for a coalition - without anything like that.
A handful more seats and they may have been able to demand an actual change - rather than a (mere) Referendum on the Alternative Vote.


Again, not impossible.
In 2014/15, UKIP did well when voters were unhappy with both Cons. and Labour.
UKIP won Council seats in 2013, 2014 and 2015 - and came second in many seats in the 2015 GE.

In the 2019 European elections the Brexit Party won - significantly - with 31% of the vote and 29/73 seats.
The Cons. collapsed to 9% (5/73) - and Labour faired little better at 14% (10/73).

But there is no doubt that resistance to change is high.
Which is why some "reformers" favour a step-by-step approach.
e.g.
NOTA and 2nd Prefs are not really a threat to either Labour or Cons. - but they each allow for an "official" record of alternative voting preferences.

UKIP were not a party between the Tories and Labour basically they were another Tory party largely run by ex Tories that had a certain amount of Labour members support because of the position of labour on one issue.Basically they ended up as a Tory pressure group that is all they Farage appeared to want .He never appeared to have any long term ambitions for the party it was simply about Brexit.
As for future packs with any party a pack will never give any party the power to change a election system without a vote to confirm it under any circumstances. Even if the Liberal Democrats were the largest party is is very unlikely they would be able to change without consent.
Extremist parties will never have the same problem as their strength will always be based in a few areas of the country thus a extreme party can win seats under this system vaguely based on their overall support. Central parties have a different problem which will always exist thus the split in housing area values etc will largely carry support for left or right .If Labour go left like under Corbyn it is very unlikely that the Liberal Democrats would tie up with them if the go more central then they would eat into the votes .In the coming years the Green party will definitely get more support this will eat into all parties but geography will mean it is based in the areas that will be most affected. Thus Somerset,Norfolk and East Suffolk as well as parts of Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire.This will mean again that they will not be negatively affected by the current system. Brighton I feel has a unique population it is partly that and partly having a extremely good candidate.

 

[Tarian]

UKIP were not a party between the Tories and Labour basically they were another Tory party largely run by ex Tories that had a certain amount of Labour members support because of the position of labour on one issue.Basically they ended up as a Tory pressure group that is all they Farage appeared to want .He never appeared to have any long term ambitions for the party it was simply about Brexit.
As for future packs with any party a pack will never give any party the power to change a election system without a vote to confirm it under any circumstances. Even if the Liberal Democrats were the largest party is is very unlikely they would be able to change without consent.
Extremist parties will never have the same problem as their strength will always be based in a few areas of the country thus a extreme party can win seats under this system vaguely based on their overall support. Central parties have a different problem which will always exist thus the split in housing area values etc will largely carry support for left or right .If Labour go left like under Corbyn it is very unlikely that the Liberal Democrats would tie up with them if the go more central then they would eat into the votes .In the coming years the Green party will definitely get more support this will eat into all parties but geography will mean it is based in the areas that will be most affected. Thus Somerset,Norfolk and East Suffolk as well as parts of Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire.This will mean again that they will not be negatively affected by the current system. Brighton I feel has a unique population it is partly that and partly having a extremely good candidate.

Sorry CW, but the "UKIP is purple Tory" was a theme (or at least huge exaggeration) made up by Labour EU fans - out of touch with their base.

UKIP members included many who previously had felt disenfranchised by other Parties, the type who used to say "It's no point voting, they're all the same."
I've met UKIP supporters with a clearly Labour or Labour-leaning background.

And the actual vote patterns did not bear out a "UKIP = Tory" theme.

For the 2015 General Election, in my Borough, the Cons. vote number was barely changed in 2 out 3 Constituencies.

In one, the Cons vote increased by ~350, the other reduced by about 200.
In the third, the Cons lost ~1,000 votes (from around 29,000 !)
In that Constituency, UKIP got over 8,000 votes.
It was the LibDems vote that collapsed.
Just because the LD leadership were pro-EU did not mean the same for all their voters.
And / Or there was much "churn" - with UKIP picking up votes from Cons, Labour and LibDem - with Labour and Cons both gaining from LibDems.

A similar picture of UKIP (and the Brexit Party) gaining many votes from Labour can be deduced from Northern, traditionally Labour seats.

But this says little about Voting Systems !!

 

[Buddha]

I've got a proposal for reform with regard to the voting and parliamentary system. As a revolutionary who thinks we should dispose of all government it feels a little fraudulent offering a proposal for reform but I will anyway. I know that few share my views about getting rid of government!

It has often seemed to me that our parliamentary democracy is better than a lot of others because there are two Houses, and in theory the second House can serve as a kind of check or balance to the first.

The only problem is that the second House isn't elected by the people. The name, 'House of Lords', tells you all you need to know!

Many have argued for PR and give good arguments for it. But as we have seen, there are good arguments against it too.

The same can be said about the FPTP system.

My proposal is to have both. And to do away with the Lord's.

Instead we could have one House full of elected members who each represent a constituency (I think they may need to be redrawn or redefined though) based on a FPTP basis.

The second House would also be made up of elected members but that would be based on PR.

The voting would be simple. One vote each for your local MP in the first House. And another vote each for a party. These would then be translated into a national PR and each party could select it's allotted number of members for the second House.

No laws would be able to be enacted without the agreement of both Houses.

Just an idea, I'd prefer to just do away with all of it and let the people organise things themselves.

 

[PhilK66]

UKIP were not a party between the Tories and Labour basically they were another Tory party largely run by ex Tories that had a certain amount of Labour members support because of the position of labour on one issue.Basically they ended up as a Tory pressure group that is all they Farage appeared to want .He never appeared to have any long term ambitions for the party it was simply about Brexit.
As for future packs with any party a pack will never give any party the power to change a election system without a vote to confirm it under any circumstances. Even if the Liberal Democrats were the largest party is is very unlikely they would be able to change without consent.
Extremist parties will never have the same problem as their strength will always be based in a few areas of the country thus a extreme party can win seats under this system vaguely based on their overall support. Central parties have a different problem which will always exist thus the split in housing area values etc will largely carry support for left or right .If Labour go left like under Corbyn it is very unlikely that the Liberal Democrats would tie up with them if the go more central then they would eat into the votes .In the coming years the Green party will definitely get more support this will eat into all parties but geography will mean it is based in the areas that will be most affected. Thus Somerset,Norfolk and East Suffolk as well as parts of Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire.This will mean again that they will not be negatively affected by the current system. Brighton I feel has a unique population it is partly that and partly having a extremely good candidate.

And I read that Brighton has one of the worst recycling records in the UK. Go figure!

 

[Tarian]

I've got a proposal for reform with regard to the voting and parliamentary system. As a revolutionary who thinks we should dispose of all government it feels a little fraudulent offering a proposal for reform but I will anyway. I know that few share my views about getting rid of government!

It has often seemed to me that our parliamentary democracy is better than a lot of others because there are two Houses, and in theory the second House can serve as a kind of check or balance to the first.

The only problem is that the second House isn't elected by the people. The name, 'House of Lords', tells you all you need to know!

Many have argued for PR and give good arguments for it. But as we have seen, there are good arguments against it too.

The same can be said about the FPTP system.

My proposal is to have both. And to do away with the Lord's.

Instead we could have one House full of elected members who each represent a constituency (I think they may need to be redrawn or redefined though) based on a FPTP basis.

The second House would also be made up of elected members but that would be based on PR.

The voting would be simple. One vote each for your local MP in the first House. And another vote each for a party. These would then be translated into a national PR and each party could select it's allotted number of members for the second House.

No laws would be able to be enacted without the agreement of both Houses.

Just an idea, I'd prefer to just do away with all of it and let the people organise things themselves.

9/10 Well argued.

Actually that's not far from some of my thoughts.
i.e. the Second chamber being elected by PR.
That said, while I think it should have delaying powers#, I'm not sure whether minority Parties should have full blocking powers

On some issues, blocking should be by super-majority e.g. 2/3rds.
On others, implementation by the HoC should require 2/3rds (e.g. Constitutional Matters)

#Delaying powers can be effective.
Even the current Govt. can accept Lords Amendments if well argued - or enough Cons. backbenchers agree the Amendment.


I was keeping other ideas back...

* House of Lords
People say that the "expertise" is what makes the Lords a great revising chamber.
Yet this is countered by the HUGE number of Lords there by patronage.
So...
i) Lords should be elected
ii) Elected not geographically, but by "interest".
Groups having (say) 100,000 members (needs defining) can vote amongst themselves for their "Lord".
So we stil get Lords representing Doctors, Nurses, Business, Sport, Scouts, Fishing, Academia, Religions etc.
Obviously their elections would have to conform to Standards.
But they could be at different times / dates, so reducing both Party Politics and sudden shifts.


* Weighted Representatives
This would mean the same number of MPs for each Party as now....
...but each MP, when voting in the HoC would have their vote "weighted" according to national %.
So typically both Cons., Labour and SNP MPs would have their votes weighted less than 1.0 - while minority Parties MPs may be valued above 1.0.
(Crazy ?)

 

[Tarian]

Just an idea, I'd prefer to just do away with all of it and let the people organise things themselves.

(For the Constitutional Thread - which you haven't started !)

In theory, I agree 100%.
But where are the boundaries within which "people organise things themselves"?

Could a community become independent of all tiers of Government ?

What if they choose not have (m)any "public services" - but do want some sort of security (police)?
You might think that this is too "minimal state" - but what if it proved popular ?
Could they limit "immigration" ?

How does that mini-state interact with the socialist-collective over the boundary ?

 

[Buddha]

(For the Constitutional Thread - which you haven't started !)

In theory, I agree 100%.
But where are the boundaries within which "people organise things themselves"?

Could a community become independent of all tiers of Government ?

What if they choose not have (m)any "public services" - but do want some sort of security (police)?
You might think that this is too "minimal state" - but what if it proved popular ?
Could they limit "immigration" ?

How does that mini-state interact with the socialist-collective over the boundary ?

Have you read any anarchist theory? Are you familiar with the works of any of the great anarchist thinkers?

If you're really interested you should read some. Much better than asking me to explain. If you want any suggestions with what to read I'm happy to offer some guidance...

I'm not starting a, 'constitutional thread'! If you do I might contribute. Be sure to mark it n/g or you'll upset OSK.

 

[Therealwaldo]

So what (if any) change would you like to see ?

In the past, the lack of a written constitution has not been a major problem. With the current government it is becoming increasingly so. The past system has been one of parliamentary sovereignty but where there are checks and balances either through external NGOs or through the judiciary. Both are currently under attack. For example there are threats to reduce the powers of the Electoral Commission and threats to reduce access to Judicial Review. The sum total is that with a FPTP system you effectively can end up with an elective dictatorship supported by a minority of the popular vote, with no ability for decisions to be effectively challenged. I can’t believe that anyone would think this is healthy for democracy. Whichever system used, this democratic deficit must be addressed or we will be on a long downward slippery slope.