Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

What other voting/demorcracy structures are available?



Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,367
West west west Sussex
Sorry I can't think of the correct phraseology.

My vote in Worthing West would appear to be pointless.
Mr Tory has always got just under 50% of the votes polled, from just over 50% turn out.

So basically 'stick a blue rosette on a hat stand, and it's as good as won'.



First Past The Post would appear to not work all the time the main parties are fighting over the same 'centre right' voters.

Proportional Representation all but guarantees coalition governments, which may or may not be a bad thing.

Are there any others?
I guess the impossible system would be for every vote to be decisive.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,264
for me, the issue with proportional representation is that it give more power to the party system, which is half the problem of politics. as much as it might be a pretense, currently we elect a representative for our local area, which our local area foremost in their minds. moving to PR, not without merit, removes this link and politicians focus on the party, which imo is already too strong.

the center is still the ground fought over in any system, as that is where the most compromise/least conflict is, so will normally have the most votes (unless there is a major event, ie in Greece)
 


symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
I think people should vote for a primary and secondary party. Then the two winners of the semi final collect the losing parties seconadry votes. If the final ends in a draw, which is unlikely, it would then go to penalties.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,323
Uffern
My proposal for a second chamber has always been to do away with elections completely. I'd abolish the concept of a peerage and have a second chamber made up of, say, 200 people - half male, half female - drawn from the four parts of the UK in proportion to their population size. These people would be selected by ballot and serve for two years. They would be barred from serving if they'd ever acted as MP, peer, councillor or party official. That way we'd keep the checks of a bicameral system and diminish the effects of party politics
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,367
West west west Sussex
Do we actually need constituency MP's, esp 650 of them?
 




KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,692
Wolsingham, County Durham
Do we actually need constituency MP's, esp 650 of them?

Yes, definitely (maybe not quite as many though). I have seen the effect here of voting for a party at a local level - if the party chooses someone the local party do not like, it results in riots and deaths (well around here anyway). You have to know who you are voting for. Yes, I know that a reaction in the UK should not be as extreme, but the principle stands
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,110
Surrey
I'm just glad that - after two hung parliaments (as this one will surely be) - this is now being discussed. FPTP locks out all but the established, and even the idea that FPTP delivers "strong" government (i,e. a government with 35% of the vote, who get to implement policies that the rest of us want nothing to do with) has been debunked, as it won't have returned a single party government for a decade after this time.
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,367
West west west Sussex
Yes, definitely (maybe not quite as many though). I have seen the effect here of voting for a party at a local level - if the party chooses someone the local party do not like, it results in riots and deaths (well around here anyway). You have to know who you are voting for. Yes, I know that a reaction in the UK should not be as extreme, but the principle stands
So if SA electoral practises were here, I'd be voting for a political party instead of a candidate, on Thursday.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,089
Chandlers Ford
My proposal for a second chamber has always been to have a second chamber made up of, say, 200 people - half male, half female - drawn from the four parts of the UK in proportion to their population size.

Where will you find them all? Frank Warren could be ONE.
 


KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,692
Wolsingham, County Durham
So if SA electoral practises were here, I'd be voting for a political party instead of a candidate, on Thursday.

Yes for the national (general) election.

For the local election you vote for a candidate (so you know who you are voting for as your local councillor)), but the party that wins the most seats in the local council get to choose the mayor (who holds a lot of power here). The mayor may or may not be an elected councillor and is chosen by the party with most seats - there is no election for mayor. This is what caused the problem locally here, as the winning party (the ANC) chose someone who the local ANC members did not like, they could not get her out, so they rioted. The council was dissolved and another election held, the same thing happened, more riots. About 6 people died in these riots and it got very nasty at one point.
 


Seagull27

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2011
3,308
Bristol
for me, the issue with proportional representation is that it give more power to the party system, which is half the problem of politics. as much as it might be a pretense, currently we elect a representative for our local area, which our local area foremost in their minds. moving to PR, not without merit, removes this link and politicians focus on the party, which imo is already too strong.

the center is still the ground fought over in any system, as that is where the most compromise/least conflict is, so will normally have the most votes (unless there is a major event, ie in Greece)

The whole time that party whips exist, I'd say that the vast majority of MPs don't in any way represent their constituency as it is. At least with PR, even if you're voting for a party and not a local MP, your vote means something in Government no matter who you support.
 




Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
PR-STV - multiple seats, one vote, vote for person not party works fairly well where its used. It does all but guarantee coalition governments and also guarantee that smaller parties do get seats (albeit if you limit to very small constituencies, 2 or 3 seats, this is massively reduced). Both of those can be seen as advantages and disadvantages.

It doesn't entirely prevent the thing of entire areas where a party can nominate a dead snail and have it elected due to the rosette colour but it usually ensures you get a second elected candidate who *isn't* from that party.

It does also lead to a far higher amount of Independents getting elected which, again, can be seen as good or bad.
 


Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
NSC Patreon
Jul 17, 2003
18,275
Valley of Hangleton
Sorry I can't think of the correct phraseology.

My vote in Worthing West would appear to be pointless.
Mr Tory has always got just under 50% of the votes polled, from just over 50% turn out.

So basically 'stick a blue rosette on a hat stand, and it's as good as won'.



First Past The Post would appear to not work all the time the main parties are fighting over the same 'centre right' voters.

Proportional Representation all but guarantees coalition governments, which may or may not be a bad thing.

Are there any others?
I guess the impossible system would be for every vote to be decisive.

You should move to Brighton (and Hove) it's cool here we can vote Green…...
 


GreersElbow

New member
Jan 5, 2012
4,870
A Northern Outpost
Democracy itself is greatly flawed. I'd rather we had further devolved power, almost federalistic power diverted to regions. Central government is not capable of looking after regions, especially when MPs need to be in bed with party leadership to wield any influence and even then, concentration is often on London and I think this has been detrimental to our democracy.

Without sounding ultra-anti-capitalist, the problem is the influence of the City; it's powerful and almost 10% if not more of our GDP which is why it's important. The economy is far too reliant on the financial sector, which is concentrated in a very small part of the country.

I personally think devolved regional assemblies that could raise its own finances to some extent to provide services beyond local, but not quite national.

Or maybe we need our very own Putin, minus invading countries and annexing parts of a foreign country to continue our monopoly of supply.
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,367
West west west Sussex
You should move to Brighton (and Hove) it's cool here we can vote Green…...
It turns out I could have voted Green last time around.

As you can see, my vote isn't going to make much difference.
Even if the Tories came close to losing Worthing West, all it would mean is they'd lost every other seat, in the country.

This is as close to a carbon copy of all previous results, as you're ever likely to see.
If Zimbabwe happened to turn in results like Worthing West the UN would be up in arms.



General Election 2010: Worthing West

Conservative, Peter Bottomley 25,416, 51.7% +4.1

Liberal Democrat, Hazel Thorpe 13,687, 27.9% +1.1

Labour Ian Ross, 5,800, 11.8% -7.4

UKIP John Wallace, 2,924, 6.0% +0.7

Green David Aherne, 996, 2.0% +2.0

Christian Stuart Dearsley, 300, 0.6% +0.6
Majority 11,729 23.9%
Turnout 49,123< 64.7% +2.7
 
Last edited:


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,470
Gloucester
There are alternatives to PR. In France, I believe, they have something like this: the first round of the election for constituency MPs is as it is here, then a week later in each constituency there is a second vote, with only the top two candidates standing. That way, if your choice finished third or worse, you get the chance to have some sort of stay - suppose Con. and Lab come 1st. and 2nd, if you can't stand the thought of another five years of Cameron, you can vote labour, or if the thought of Milliband as PM fills you with dread, you can vote tory. This would have been interesting in the Thatcher years when she had her massive majority but nearly two thirds of the electorate didn't want her.......
There is also something they do in California - again, I don't know the exact details, but as well as voting for the candidates, there are extra things on the ballot paper to vote for (or against) - I think they're called propositions or something. I don't know who decides what the propositions are - I guess through some sort of polling of the electorate, or petitions or something. The proposition could be something like, ban smoking in all public places, or have an in-out EU referendum - and then if that is carried, the legislation is bound to carry out the electors wishes. So, for instance, labour or lib dems would be compelled to carry out a referendum, even though they've stated they don't want one. Don't know how well it works, but could be interesting.
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,653
Manchester
Much as I dislike Nigel Farage, it does seem absurd that a party that is predicted to receive 15% of the vote will likely only win 1 maybe 2 seats.

Although it is quite funny.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,198
The Fatherland
for me, the issue with proportional representation is that it give more power to the party system, which is half the problem of politics. as much as it might be a pretense, currently we elect a representative for our local area, which our local area foremost in their minds. moving to PR, not without merit, removes this link and politicians focus on the party, which imo is already too strong.

the center is still the ground fought over in any system, as that is where the most compromise/least conflict is, so will normally have the most votes (unless there is a major event, ie in Greece)

A federal republic with the country broken up into states is the answer. Then you vote for federal MPs and state bods.
 




seagulls4ever

New member
Oct 2, 2003
4,338
for me, the issue with proportional representation is that it give more power to the party system, which is half the problem of politics. as much as it might be a pretense, currently we elect a representative for our local area, which our local area foremost in their minds. moving to PR, not without merit, removes this link and politicians focus on the party, which imo is already too strong.

the center is still the ground fought over in any system, as that is where the most compromise/least conflict is, so will normally have the most votes (unless there is a major event, ie in Greece)

This doesn't have to be the case with PR. Take a look at the STV system, which is much fairer than FPTP. It's used in local and European elections.
 


ATFC Seagull

Aberystwyth Town FC
Jul 27, 2004
5,307
(North) Portslade
There are alternatives to PR. In France, I believe, they have something like this: the first round of the election for constituency MPs is as it is here, then a week later in each constituency there is a second vote, with only the top two candidates standing. That way, if your choice finished third or worse, you get the chance to have some sort of stay - suppose Con. and Lab come 1st. and 2nd, if you can't stand the thought of another five years of Cameron, you can vote labour, or if the thought of Milliband as PM fills you with dread, you can vote tory. This would have been interesting in the Thatcher years when she had her massive majority but nearly two thirds of the electorate didn't want her.......
There is also something they do in California - again, I don't know the exact details, but as well as voting for the candidates, there are extra things on the ballot paper to vote for (or against) - I think they're called propositions or something. I don't know who decides what the propositions are - I guess through some sort of polling of the electorate, or petitions or something. The proposition could be something like, ban smoking in all public places, or have an in-out EU referendum - and then if that is carried, the legislation is bound to carry out the electors wishes. So, for instance, labour or lib dems would be compelled to carry out a referendum, even though they've stated they don't want one. Don't know how well it works, but could be interesting.

The California thing is called "initiatives". The main argument against it is that when you take the representatives out of the equation, you can end up with 'Tyranny of the Majority' - where in a population where perhaps 60% are A's and 40% B's (A and B can be what you like - ethnic groups, religions, social groups; or more simplistic issues, e.g. people who want a pass a particular policy vs people who don't), a certain number of the A's can sign up online and trigger a referendum, and know that they are likely to win, and can impose their will on the other 40%. Whereas elected representatives of A's might realise that certain things might antagonise B's and aren't constructive, or might find a compromise over an issue.

Probably not a massive problem, here, but could cause problems in any significantly segregated society (which I would argue the USA is not a million miles from being on several levels).
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here