So you prefer a party with minority support to have total power, as in the situation we have now? That isn't democracy, is it?
Under PR minorities have influence in coalition but they don't get all their own way. The best they can do is steer the bigger parties policies somewhat. Government policies will be a blend of what all coalition parties can agree to. But surely it's good that PR gives minorities more influence, even if you don't agree with their ideas. UKIP would have had a large chunk of seats if the election had been PR. But being in a coalition would have meant some of their madder ideas would be exposed to much closer scrutiny.
It certainly isn't inevitable that PR leads to a very fragmented situation such as occurs in Israel where a few small extremist parties have the balance of power.
Thats not what we have now . We have 50% of the population wanting current macro economic policies or even more austerity , and the Liberal vote and most of the moderate Labour vote wanting a bit less austerity. The average is a bit to the left of where government is. Theres no economic policy that reflects the Green or UKIP view - for no austerity or more austerity - which doesn't leave more of the population unhappy than the current situation. The basic issue remains - you cant have both more austerity and less austerity. The left gets in a muddle because it wrongly assumes that there's a great majority behind the Corbyn view - the reality is that Corbyn is far far to the left of the vast majority of voters.
Thats not what we have now . We have 50% of the population wanting current macro economic policies or even more austerity , and the Liberal vote and most of the moderate Labour vote wanting a bit less austerity. The average is a bit to the left of where government is. Theres no economic policy that reflects the Green or UKIP view - for no austerity or more austerity - which doesn't leave more of the population unhappy than the current situation. The basic issue remains - you cant have both more austerity and less austerity. The left gets in a muddle because it wrongly assumes that there's a great majority behind the Corbyn view - the reality is that Corbyn is far far to the left of the vast majority of voters.
I don't see how Labour and Tory can be counted together on austerity. Labour (apart from Liz Kendall) don't support the Tories on any of the detail of it, or on other things much. Also, the Labour votes don't have a say in government. The government is run by a party with much less than 50% of the votes cast. That single party has complete say over every policy, with no need to govern for the will of the majority. That is not democratic. PR is more democratic because the government coalition actually does represent the majority of voters. Not on every single issue, but on the general direction of policy.
As for Corbyn, no he doesn't have much support, as those empty meetings he addresses demonstrate. He is creating unparalleled interest from people from many different points on the political spectrum because he's an authentic voice. He says what he honestly believes in. No trying to please people because of what focus groups think, or calculating what policies would appeal to the most voters. It doesn't matter how far left you say he is, the things he says he supports do resonate with a lot of people. There are broad swathes of opinion that think renationalising rail and energy are good ideas. No doubt those on the centre right thought that argument was over, but Corbyn is getting huge crowds coming to listen to him. He speaks for traditional Labour values and he's engaging young voters, the political Holy Grail.
He's the left wing version of Farage, only I would suggest much more convincing.
The current system only has at least 2 election left before it will be forced to change. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. AV was not PR and the public rightly rejected it because they wanted PR not some silly alternative.
I got the impression AV was rejected because the traditional disinterested in politics voter didn't want PR or anything akin to no single party in charge. The FPTP group in the electoral reform campaign even used the newly unpopular Nick Clegg's pic on their leaflets to show who ends up with lots of power if you don't keep FPTP.
There is no electoral system that can get rid of "safe seats".
Some systems like STV can give representation to minority parties in a constituency but the bulk will still go to the largest party, for example Sinn Fein has five out of the six West Belfast seats at Stormont.
The current system only has at least 2 election left before it will be forced to change. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. AV was not PR and the public rightly rejected it because they wanted PR not some silly alternative.
I think the great majority of those who wanted PR voted for AV in the referendum because, even though they preferred some other system, it wasn't on offer and they thought AV was better than FPTP. PR had been one of the Lib Dem's major issues for many years, and they were urging people to vote "yes". I saw no sign anywhere that there was a substantial proportion of the electorate who voted "no" or argued for "no" because AV wasn't PR enough.
There is no electoral system that can get rid of "safe seats".
Some systems like STV can give representation to minority parties in a constituency but the bulk will still go to the largest party, for example Sinn Fein has five out of the six West Belfast seats at Stormont.
As long as one party doesn't continually hold all the seats in a multi-member constituency, then that constituency isn't a "safe seat" as such.
And if you had a system where the whole country was one single constituency (i.e.pure PR), that would certainly rule out "safe seats"!
I think the great majority of those who wanted PR voted for AV in the referendum because, even though they preferred some other system, it wasn't on offer and they thought AV was better than FPTP. PR had been one of the Lib Dem's major issues for many years, and they were urging people to vote "yes". I saw no sign anywhere that there was a substantial proportion of the electorate who voted "no" or argued for "no" because AV wasn't PR enough.
You could be right, however I think many more could have been persuaded to vote for PR if it had been on offer instead of AV. AV was just not seen as an attractive option for several reasons, so people tended to stick with what they knew.
I don't like FPTP, but if you're going to have it then constituencies should be based on logical population groups/geography and nothing else. Safe seats are simply part of the system and it's ridiculous to alter boundaries to try to make things competitive.
Saying that; I don't think there would be anything wrong with trying to make constituencies as varied as possible. Where there's a logic to it.
Ed Balls being an MP is not such a bad thing. He's not the monster the press portray him as. George Galloway wouldn't get elected because his Respect Party would never get enough support to justify a seat.
The Conservatives lost Esther McVey a minister in the Coalition - not their worst MP but as she represented a Merseyside seat where the Conservatives had lost the most support.
Likewise the Lib Dems lost Vince Cable who a lot of non-Lib Dem supporters rated highly but his constituency was one that saw the backlash following the Lib Dems forming a Coalition with the Conservatives.
The very fact that it's possible to completely change the result of an election merely by re-allocating votes to different seats, tells you all you need to know about the flaws inherent in FPTP.
As long as one party doesn't continually hold all the seats in a multi-member constituency, then that constituency isn't a "safe seat" as such.
And if you had a system where the whole country was one single constituency (i.e.pure PR), that would certainly rule out "safe seats"!
You could do that, but those candidates high up on party lists would still be almost guaranteed a seat, so expect to see the Scottish Labour front bench high on the regional lists to make sure some of them make it back to Hollyrood.
If five out of six seats in one consistency under STV isn't safe I don't know what is.
I think people should only represent where they've resided for a fixed period, say 5 years. Would definitely cut down second homes expenses and the issue of people feeling their MP are detachment from the community.
I think people should only represent where they've resided for a fixed period, say 5 years. Would definitely cut down second homes expenses and the issue of people feeling their MP are detachment from the community.
Would make no difference at all to expense claims, as non-London MPs would still need accommodation in London while they're at Westminster.
You could do that, but those candidates high up on party lists would still be almost guaranteed a seat, so expect to see the Scottish Labour front bench high on the regional lists to make sure some of them make it back to Hollyrood.
If five out of six seats in one consistency under STV isn't safe I don't know what is.
Well, it's "safe" from the point of view of those high up on party lists! The electors of Belfast West are being fairly represented though, so it's not a safe seat in the FPTP sense.
Would make no difference at all to expense claims, as non-London MPs would still need accommodation in London while they're at Westminster.
A lot of MPs have their original home, plus a home in their constituency and they also claim accommodation when the come London. This would get rid of one of those at least.
A lot of MPs have their original home, plus a home in their constituency and they also claim accommodation when the come London. This would get rid of one of those at least.
But they can only claim for one place to stay now, so it would still make no difference.
I suppose the think tank reckon this is "positive" gerrymandering but it is still gerrymandering.
Even if you agreed with the idea it isn't even that practical if you look at a political map. It just looks like re-arranging a few deckchairs and would I imagine garner little political or public support. As others have said if you want to increase voter turnout and more accurately reflect voting numbers by parties in the HoC the best way to do that is move to a pure PR system.
You could be right, however I think many more could have been persuaded to vote for PR if it had been on offer instead of AV. AV was just not seen as an attractive option for several reasons, so people tended to stick with what they knew.
I think that, if anything, it's the other way around: more people would vote for AV because it's a less radical change. Something like STV or a party list system would get less support.
Many of the arguments that were used against AV would be used against PR too, and a greater proportion of them would be used against STV since it also involves transferring votes. There'd be new arguments too. STV is more complicated (especially versions that transfer fractional votes) and breaks the link between a constituency and a single MP. Top-up list systems have the probably fatal flaw that some people would become MPs, not because they were elected by the voters, but because a party put them in a list.
It's important to remember that the arguments don't have to be right to have effects. Both sides used misleading and even false claims during the referendum campaign, and even quite a few intelligent and quite well informed people were mistaken about what AV and other systems would and wouldn't do.
It's not clear how much support PR really has. Many people like the "proportional" part, especially after an election that produced a very disproportionate result. But quite a few people are uneasy about what the hung parliaments and coalitions they think proportional results tend to produce. (Support for PR seems to be greatest during periods of widely unpopular Tory rule, when it has the least chance of being brought in.)
Comments
Thats not what we have now . We have 50% of the population wanting current macro economic policies or even more austerity , and the Liberal vote and most of the moderate Labour vote wanting a bit less austerity. The average is a bit to the left of where government is. Theres no economic policy that reflects the Green or UKIP view - for no austerity or more austerity - which doesn't leave more of the population unhappy than the current situation. The basic issue remains - you cant have both more austerity and less austerity. The left gets in a muddle because it wrongly assumes that there's a great majority behind the Corbyn view - the reality is that Corbyn is far far to the left of the vast majority of voters.
As for Corbyn, no he doesn't have much support, as those empty meetings he addresses demonstrate. He is creating unparalleled interest from people from many different points on the political spectrum because he's an authentic voice. He says what he honestly believes in. No trying to please people because of what focus groups think, or calculating what policies would appeal to the most voters. It doesn't matter how far left you say he is, the things he says he supports do resonate with a lot of people. There are broad swathes of opinion that think renationalising rail and energy are good ideas. No doubt those on the centre right thought that argument was over, but Corbyn is getting huge crowds coming to listen to him. He speaks for traditional Labour values and he's engaging young voters, the political Holy Grail.
He's the left wing version of Farage, only I would suggest much more convincing.
I got the impression AV was rejected because the traditional disinterested in politics voter didn't want PR or anything akin to no single party in charge. The FPTP group in the electoral reform campaign even used the newly unpopular Nick Clegg's pic on their leaflets to show who ends up with lots of power if you don't keep FPTP.
Some systems like STV can give representation to minority parties in a constituency but the bulk will still go to the largest party, for example Sinn Fein has five out of the six West Belfast seats at Stormont.
I think the great majority of those who wanted PR voted for AV in the referendum because, even though they preferred some other system, it wasn't on offer and they thought AV was better than FPTP. PR had been one of the Lib Dem's major issues for many years, and they were urging people to vote "yes". I saw no sign anywhere that there was a substantial proportion of the electorate who voted "no" or argued for "no" because AV wasn't PR enough.
As long as one party doesn't continually hold all the seats in a multi-member constituency, then that constituency isn't a "safe seat" as such.
And if you had a system where the whole country was one single constituency (i.e.pure PR), that would certainly rule out "safe seats"!
You could be right, however I think many more could have been persuaded to vote for PR if it had been on offer instead of AV. AV was just not seen as an attractive option for several reasons, so people tended to stick with what they knew.
Saying that; I don't think there would be anything wrong with trying to make constituencies as varied as possible. Where there's a logic to it.
The Conservatives lost Esther McVey a minister in the Coalition - not their worst MP but as she represented a Merseyside seat where the Conservatives had lost the most support.
Likewise the Lib Dems lost Vince Cable who a lot of non-Lib Dem supporters rated highly but his constituency was one that saw the backlash following the Lib Dems forming a Coalition with the Conservatives.
You could do that, but those candidates high up on party lists would still be almost guaranteed a seat, so expect to see the Scottish Labour front bench high on the regional lists to make sure some of them make it back to Hollyrood.
If five out of six seats in one consistency under STV isn't safe I don't know what is.
Would make no difference at all to expense claims, as non-London MPs would still need accommodation in London while they're at Westminster.
Well, it's "safe" from the point of view of those high up on party lists! The electors of Belfast West are being fairly represented though, so it's not a safe seat in the FPTP sense.
A lot of MPs have their original home, plus a home in their constituency and they also claim accommodation when the come London. This would get rid of one of those at least.
But they can only claim for one place to stay now, so it would still make no difference.
But if they have a home already in the constituency they can't then rent it or claim for a second home
Non-London MPs can only claim for accommodation costs in one place: either London or their constituency, so your suggestion would make no difference. The rules are stated here:
http://generalelection.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/newtoparliament/Pages/Accommodation-Expenditure.aspx
Even if you agreed with the idea it isn't even that practical if you look at a political map. It just looks like re-arranging a few deckchairs and would I imagine garner little political or public support. As others have said if you want to increase voter turnout and more accurately reflect voting numbers by parties in the HoC the best way to do that is move to a pure PR system.
http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ukelection2015_mapviews.jpg
Gerrymandering should not even be possible in a properly thought through electoral system.
One person, one vote, each counting equally and not subject to whether you live on one street or the next.
I think that, if anything, it's the other way around: more people would vote for AV because it's a less radical change. Something like STV or a party list system would get less support.
Many of the arguments that were used against AV would be used against PR too, and a greater proportion of them would be used against STV since it also involves transferring votes. There'd be new arguments too. STV is more complicated (especially versions that transfer fractional votes) and breaks the link between a constituency and a single MP. Top-up list systems have the probably fatal flaw that some people would become MPs, not because they were elected by the voters, but because a party put them in a list.
It's important to remember that the arguments don't have to be right to have effects. Both sides used misleading and even false claims during the referendum campaign, and even quite a few intelligent and quite well informed people were mistaken about what AV and other systems would and wouldn't do.
It's not clear how much support PR really has. Many people like the "proportional" part, especially after an election that produced a very disproportionate result. But quite a few people are uneasy about what the hung parliaments and coalitions they think proportional results tend to produce. (Support for PR seems to be greatest during periods of widely unpopular Tory rule, when it has the least chance of being brought in.)