Voting Systems (N/G ?)

[chris who]

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.

I think I agree. I voted Labour at the last election simply because there was no way that I could get what I wanted. So in affect I voted against the Tories. I am sure there were a equalish number who voted Tory voting against Labour and some who voted Lib Dem or other parties against one of the bigger parties. So a fair proportion of people are not even voting for what they want .The thing is if Labour were likely to win I didn't want a Labour majority under Corbyn. It seems a very odd position to be in it is 100% due to the system. In most areas only two options are likely to have a chance in your life time .For some areas there is only one possibility that leaves anyone with a different opinion with no point to voting at all .Basically a very limited number of people decided the election and give that party total power. A far greater number have no say or it is almost pointless them trying to voice a opinion.Because of our system races and groups with a tiny minority of the country's population have a greater chance of getting representation. Than a party who have say 2% support spread fairly evenly. Thus around a million supporters across the country possibly will not get representation. Meanwhile tens of thousands in one area can and do get a seat in parliament.

 

[markinkent]

NOTA should apply to the PCC role. If NOTA wins we scrap the waste of money and re divert funds to the police force

It's the only election I don't vote in.

Check your council tax bill to see how much it costs

 

[chris who]

NOTA should apply to the PCC role. If NOTA wins we scrap the waste of money and re divert funds to the police force

It's the only election I don't vote in.

Check your council tax bill to see how much it costs

Definitely can't see how having a vote and attaching a political party to a police post seems odd in itself as the police should be non political. But I can see how a part time outsider with experience perhaps in another force might help overseeing things .I am thinking of events like Grenfell and Hillsborough having a outsider in the know checking out major stuff for himself might be beneficial in some circumstances.

 

[Tarian]

NOTA should apply to the PCC role. If NOTA wins we scrap the waste of money and re divert funds to the police force

It's the only election I don't vote in.

Check your council tax bill to see how much it costs

In Greater London the "Police Precept" has always been on the council's tax invoice.

If you don't want a PCC, how are the Police to be overseen ?
Would you prefer a return to the Police Authority - where appointments were made by the County Council ?
So "democratic", but indirectly so.

And I'm not sure how much influence KCC had on Police budgets.....
Maybe someone can comment.

 

[Tarian]

I think I agree. I voted Labour at the last election simply because there was no way that I could get what I wanted. So in affect I voted against the Tories. I am sure there were a equalish number who voted Tory voting against Labour and some who voted Lib Dem or other parties against one of the bigger parties.
So a fair proportion of people are not even voting for what they want .The thing is if Labour were likely to win I didn't want a Labour majority under Corbyn. It seems a very odd position to be in it is 100% due to the system. In most areas only two options are likely to have a chance in your life time .

That sounds like you want "honest" voting.
That suggests one of the "Ranking" methods, 1,2,3 etc

I tend to agree.
Feeling forced to vote for one of only two Parties is a compromise.
Worse, it is open for the Parties and the Commentariat to "interpret" one's compromise as something different.
People have no way of expressing which bits they support and which they don't.

For some areas there is only one possibility that leaves anyone with a different opinion with no point to voting at all .Basically a very limited number of people decided the election and give that party total power. A far greater number have no say or it is almost pointless them trying to voice a opinion.

(As an experienced canvasser....)
Plenty of electors are dis-interested. They really don't care.
Plenty more care a lot - but see no point in voting.

There are various reasons, but the larger number (often) see little difference between Cons and Lab. (Some on here might find that hard to believe !)

Many say "it makes no difference. Nothing will change".
"The government always gets in."
Others say "no one represents my views".

It seems that the Referendum had some people (maybe 10%) voting for the first time in decades.
Before, they had seen "no point voting".

Again, is the answer a system with plenty of choice - where preferences can be recorded - and mean something ?

.Because of our system races and groups with a tiny minority of the country's population have a greater chance of getting representation. Than a party who have say 2% support spread fairly evenly. Thus around a million supporters across the country possibly will not get representation. Meanwhile tens of thousands in one area can and do get a seat in parliament.

The greatest example of this disparity between votes concentrated and spread evenly was the G.E. 2015.
SNP won 58 seats with 1,454,000 votes
LibDems won 8 seats with 2,415,000 votes.
UKIP won 1 seat with 3,881,000 votes.

From your remarks, would you support an "Additional Member" system ?
i.e. one where those with good support but spread evenly get some representation ?

How many such seats ?
(as a proportion of the current 650)

Should these becompletely "centralised"?
a) The national vote total determines
b) The Parties decide who these people are.
c) They have no Constituency (or Regional) affiliation

Or should there be Regions (of equal size ?)
And these "Extra" MPs calculated / added to Regions ?

Should these "Extras" be decided by the Parties ?
Or could they be "lucky losers". i.e. the best runners-up.

 

[markinkent]

In Greater London the "Police Precept" has always been on the council's tax invoice.

If you don't want a PCC, how are the Police to be overseen ?
Would you prefer a return to the Police Authority - where appointments were made by the County Council ?
So "democratic", but indirectly so.

And I'm not sure how much influence KCC had on Police budgets.....
Maybe someone can comment.

I'm just not sure he's worth the £1.4M he costs

Setting the Kent Police budget (kent-pcc.gov.uk)

 

[chris who]

That sounds like you want "honest" voting.
That suggests one of the "Ranking" methods, 1,2,3 etc

I tend to agree.
Feeling forced to vote for one of only two Parties is a compromise.
Worse, it is open for the Parties and the Commentariat to "interpret" one's compromise as something different.
People have no way of expressing which bits they support and which they don't.


(As an experienced canvasser....)
Plenty of electors are dis-interested. They really don't care.
Plenty more care a lot - but see no point in voting.

There are various reasons, but the larger number (often) see little difference between Cons and Lab. (Some on here might find that hard to believe !)

Many say "it makes no difference. Nothing will change".
"The government always gets in."
Others say "no one represents my views".

It seems that the Referendum had some people (maybe 10%) voting for the first time in decades.
Before, they had seen "no point voting".

Again, is the answer a system with plenty of choice - where preferences can be recorded - and mean something ?


The greatest example of this disparity between votes concentrated and spread evenly was the G.E. 2015.
SNP won 58 seats with 1,454,000 votes
LibDems won 8 seats with 2,415,000 votes.
UKIP won 1 seat with 3,881,000 votes.

From your remarks, would you support an "Additional Member" system ?
i.e. one where those with good support but spread evenly get some representation ?

How many such seats ?
(as a proportion of the current 650)

Should these becompletely "centralised"?
a) The national vote total determines
b) The Parties decide who these people are.
c) They have no Constituency (or Regional) affiliation

Or should there be Regions (of equal size ?)
And these "Extra" MPs calculated / added to Regions ?

Should these "Extras" be decided by the Parties ?
Or could they be "lucky losers". i.e. the best runners-up.

In truth I would not argue about the system. Simply the system must have some encouragement for people to vote and a glimmer of hope for the smaller parties. In the same way as the football league has too.Take that away and far too many people are fighting totally impossible odds.