|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 2, 2015 17:09:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 2, 2015 17:25:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 2, 2015 17:42:01 GMT
A referendum was conducted in 2011 to see if the population wanted to switch from First Past The Post to Alternative Voting System. There was an overwhelming "No" to this. FPTP is favoured by the main parties so they will not be in any hurry to change. I'm not sure that AV was the answer because all this did was to have a FPTP voting system in each constituency and candidates would be eliminated until one got 51% of the votes cast. It was not a true PR system. The current system does seem unfair but an alternative PR voting system would be impossible under the present political constituency system.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 2, 2015 18:45:27 GMT
A referendum was conducted in 2011 to see if the population wanted to switch from First Past The Post to Alternative Voting System. There was an overwhelming "No" to this. FPTP is favoured by the main parties so they will not be in any hurry to change. I'm not sure that AV was the answer because all this did was to have a FPTP voting system in each constituency and candidates would be eliminated until one got 51% of the votes cast. It was not a true PR system. The current system does seem unfair but an alternative PR voting system would be impossible under the present political constituency system. Lawrie, I agree I suppose in the UK we have always been a bit eccentric , but have just got by with the anomalies. Although we have a constituency system, most people vote based upon national issues, it seems to me. It's good to have a local, constituency MP to whom we can turn , but how many of us really ' know' our local MP? Canvassing mainly takes place on the basis of who you want to govern the country, not on the best , free thinking, local candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 7:40:41 GMT
It would clearly help the UKIP cause.
It's not right that they only managed one seat despite their huge electoral poll. No matter what you think of their politics it's patently unfair.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 3, 2015 12:57:08 GMT
A referendum was conducted in 2011 to see if the population wanted to switch from First Past The Post to Alternative Voting System. There was an overwhelming "No" to this. FPTP is favoured by the main parties so they will not be in any hurry to change. I'm not sure that AV was the answer because all this did was to have a FPTP voting system in each constituency and candidates would be eliminated until one got 51% of the votes cast. It was not a true PR system. The current system does seem unfair but an alternative PR voting system would be impossible under the present political constituency system. I think there's been suggestions of some kind of hybrid voting system: each MP is elected to a constituency as currently, but there is a second block of (I think it was 20% of the total) MPs which are elected by PR - effectively without a constituency.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 3, 2015 17:29:55 GMT
A referendum was conducted in 2011 to see if the population wanted to switch from First Past The Post to Alternative Voting System. There was an overwhelming "No" to this. FPTP is favoured by the main parties so they will not be in any hurry to change. I'm not sure that AV was the answer because all this did was to have a FPTP voting system in each constituency and candidates would be eliminated until one got 51% of the votes cast. It was not a true PR system. The current system does seem unfair but an alternative PR voting system would be impossible under the present political constituency system. I think there's been suggestions of some kind of hybrid voting system: each MP is elected to a constituency as currently, but there is a second block of (I think it was 20% of the total) MPs which are elected by PR - effectively without a constituency. I'm fairly sure they have something similar in the Scottish Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jun 3, 2015 19:34:06 GMT
Why not have two elected houses?
The first, the main one, elected on FPTP as it is now. But a second, call it the House of Lords or something else, elected on a PR system and given a higher profile than the current Lords?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2015 20:07:09 GMT
Why not have two elected houses? The first, the main one, elected on FPTP as it is now. But a second, call it the House of Lords or something else, elected on a PR system and given a higher profile than the current Lords? Interesting, I've never seen a suggestion like that before. It would be better than the H of L in my opinion,but do we need 2 levels of bureaucracy? I would still like to get rid of the FPTP , myself
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jun 3, 2015 20:20:54 GMT
I like FPTP. I think it is good to be able to point the finger at your 'local' MP knowing that, if he's crap, he individually can be held to account. (not that it seems to make much difference to most of them)
As for the two levels of "bureaucracy". It is important that there is a body offering checks and guards against a single bodied parliament who, otherwise, could push through any and all legislation that they chose.
It just so happens that the chamber of the house which currently provides that service is representative of very few of us and elected or proposed by even fewer, whereas a second chamber which accurately reflected the feelings of the country would, I think, have much more legitimacy.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 28, 2015 8:28:24 GMT
I like FPTP. I think it is good to be able to point the finger at your 'local' MP knowing that, if he's crap, he individually can be held to account. (not that it seems to make much difference to most of them) As for the two levels of "bureaucracy". It is important that there is a body offering checks and guards against a single bodied parliament who, otherwise, could push through any and all legislation that they chose. It just so happens that the chamber of the house which currently provides that service is representative of very few of us and elected or proposed by even fewer, whereas a second chamber which accurately reflected the feelings of the country would, I think, have much more legitimacy. Yeokel In light of the current scandals I would still like the House of Lords abolished. We may need to scrutinise the Common's . Legislation but there must be better ways to do it. Seriously it could be put out over the internet in this day and age to a selected few (many?) and a smaller elected committee/body could scrutinise. Send it to the Oatcake! Seriously in thus age of Austerity ,when we are "all in it together" it is just wrong that 782 people can get £300 per day for doing very litte, whilst most of us have to work hard to get by.If they are Lords, some of whom are rich, and love their country why not do it as a privilege for nothing , or £50 per day and no expenses. For me they are mainly out of touch , in any case. One problem I personally have with my suggestion; I do like the British parliamentary history, traditions and conventions embodied in Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 9:17:54 GMT
You do need a second parliamentary chamber in order to check and balance against the House of Commons. The problem you have if you don't, is you can then end up with governments with small majorities, as we have now, running rough shod over everyone. Bad laws need a second chamber to review them as a matter of process.
We should keep the House of Lords, but get rid of the the peer system and make it electable on a longer term than the commons - for example, members are excited for 8 year terms, and in order to stand for election you have to have an interview and aptitude test to make sure you have the requisite skills (ie working for ombudsman or oversight bodies, public service history, character type, that sort of thing).
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 30, 2015 9:44:23 GMT
You do need a second parliamentary chamber in order to check and balance against the House of Commons. The problem you have if you don't, is you can then end up with governments with small majorities, as we have now, running rough shod over everyone. Bad laws need a second chamber to review them as a matter of process. We should keep the House of Lords, but get rid of the the peer system and make it electable on a longer term than the commons - for example, members are excited for 8 year terms, and in order to stand for election you have to have an interview and aptitude test to make sure you have the requisite skills (ie working for ombudsman or oversight bodies, public service history, character type, that sort of thing). Derrida I know what you mean and it sounds good in theory but the Commons can and does overule the Lords.I wonder if it is all bluff and a contrick to give a pension and purpose to old hasbeens who have no where to go.Perhaps out of a sense of service they should do it for nothing.Plenty of people probably would welcome the chance in Stoke for £50 a day. They need to take their share of the cuts. In the modern age there must be plenty of other ways to check, balance and scrutinise. Cheaper and more effective. Regional chanel, move it to Manchester then we might feel more part of it up North, the internet and social media can be used, engage younger people. Corbyn is talking about some of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 11:40:38 GMT
You do need a second parliamentary chamber in order to check and balance against the House of Commons. The problem you have if you don't, is you can then end up with governments with small majorities, as we have now, running rough shod over everyone. Bad laws need a second chamber to review them as a matter of process. We should keep the House of Lords, but get rid of the the peer system and make it electable on a longer term than the commons - for example, members are excited for 8 year terms, and in order to stand for election you have to have an interview and aptitude test to make sure you have the requisite skills (ie working for ombudsman or oversight bodies, public service history, character type, that sort of thing). Derrida I know what you mean and it sounds good in theory but the Commons can and does overule the Lords.I wonder if it is all bluff and a contrick to give a pension and purpose to old hasbeens who have no where to go.Perhaps out of a sense of service they should do it for nothing.Plenty of people probably would welcome the chance in Stoke for £50 a day. They need to take their share of the cuts. In the modern age there must be plenty of other ways to check, balance and scrutinise. Cheaper and more effective. Regional chanel, move it to Manchester then we might feel more part of it up North, the internet and social media can be used, engage younger people. Corbyn is talking about some of the latter. I completely understand your point, and it's a fair one. In my view, The Commons shouldn't have authority to overrule the Lords. I can understand, historically, why it does have that power but as things stand parliament as a whole does not command he respect of the people it seeks to command (ie us). Its another debate entirely, but I'm not sure if Corbyn's strategy is going to work. You don't want a parliamentary oversight body functioning as a Quango. We already have a Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman with oversight on complaints about both. I suppose one could give this function to them, but you'd need them to operate centrally, unless you want it to oversea devolved local government instead. Why create another tier of bureaucracy? I think we can agree, though, that it does need reform. In my view, we need a check and balance.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 30, 2015 12:32:31 GMT
If true PR was brought in I think the political parties as we have now would cease to exist very quickly.
Labour would split in two as would the Tories
I think we would end up with a plethora of parties & we would always have coalition governments
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 18:44:06 GMT
If true PR was brought in I think the political parties as we have now would cease to exist very quickly. Labour would split in two as would the Tories I think we would end up with a plethora of parties & we would always have coalition governments Depends what you mean by "true" proportional representation. Which system do you advocate?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2015 11:45:38 GMT
In the digital/information age, providing ordinary people with more access to "infomation"( needs scrutiny! ) and more ways to participate Electoral Reform is the way to go!
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Aug 10, 2015 16:26:49 GMT
One of the main problems with the current system is that around 400 of the 650 constituencies have not changed their party MP since the war. This effectively means that the government is elected by the more marginal/changeable constituencies. Therefore for example if you live in one of the Stoke Wards but don't agree with Labour your vote counts for nothing, same as anti Tory voters in the Home Counties. I believe this is one of the reasons that the turnout at General Elections rarely gets over 85% in any constituency.
How PR would change this under the current is open to debate, but if each parties percentage overall vote equated to an equivalent number of seats it may encourage more people to vote and politicians to be more accountable. I'm not sure how a geographical balance of MP's to votes would work but we need to find a fairer system then we have now.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 4, 2017 21:11:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 5, 2017 12:15:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Mar 5, 2017 17:25:06 GMT
The problem we have now is that the decision to keep the FPTP system was made by the vast majority of people in a referendum in 2011 - 68% to 32% is a whopping advantage that cannot be ignored.
I would like AV, but we can't have a second referendum unless something has fundamentally changed within our voting system since 2011 - and it hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Mar 5, 2017 18:18:04 GMT
PR would be the death of decision making! Its like trying to run a business with a Committee! Or has they say a Committee tried to design a horse and got a camel.
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Mar 5, 2017 21:47:51 GMT
A referendum was conducted in 2011 to see if the population wanted to switch from First Past The Post to Alternative Voting System. There was an overwhelming "No" to this. FPTP is favoured by the main parties so they will not be in any hurry to change. I'm not sure that AV was the answer because all this did was to have a FPTP voting system in each constituency and candidates would be eliminated until one got 51% of the votes cast. It was not a true PR system. The current system does seem unfair but an alternative PR voting system would be impossible under the present political constituency system. Yes ive never understood why so many voted no. I am a yes man
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 5, 2017 22:09:50 GMT
Without doubt the FPTP is unfair but PR is even more unfair.
What happens with PR as we have seen across Europe is that small parties on less than 15% of the vote end up holding the balance of power.
Which of course is precisely the reason why the smaller political parties argue so vociferously for it.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 18, 2018 18:40:00 GMT
I agree with this "The major parties, Labour included, have been tiptoeing around the issue of electoral reform for too long now. We worry, unnecessarily, that proportional representation will ‘let in’ smaller parties and harm our electoral prospects. This shouldn’t be what electoral reform is about – we shouldn’t base our voter system on organised interests and what works for the big boys of British politics, but on what is fair, representative, and conducive to real, progressive democracy" m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/electoral-reform_uk_5a7848fae4b01ce33eb5216c/
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 25, 2018 21:40:44 GMT
As well as looking at Russian bots and Cambridge Analytica we need to look at Soros and postal votes
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 25, 2018 21:45:10 GMT
If true PR was brought in I think the political parties as we have now would cease to exist very quickly. Labour would split in two as would the Tories I think we would end up with a plethora of parties & we would always have coalition governments Depends what you mean by "true" proportional representation. Which system do you advocate? Genuinely don't know. Perhaps we should get rid of political parties,then people would get voted in on what they do and say?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 15:39:11 GMT
Anyone who supports every measure proposed by one party is a YES MAN.
It's that towing the party line that always sticks in my throat. How can anyone allow themselves to be told what to believe in?
Democracy is supposed to be free and fair on ALL levels.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 28, 2018 7:50:42 GMT
I agree with Eric. I think everyone knows that this goes on and it needs stamping out. Equating parts of the UK to a banana republic. I didn't know that some polling stations use other languages. From the link below: "Authorities had also feared to intervene over massive postal vote abuse, including women and youngsters being told how to vote by elders, Sir Eric Peters said. Warning the true scale of the problem is unknown, he said: “There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported, and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of ‘politically correct’ over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion.” Sir Eric called for a package of radical measures to tackle the issue, including safe zones around polling stations, forcing people to produce ID when voting, ending the right to permanent postal votes and far tougher sentences for fraud. www.thesun.co.uk/news/1596032/vote-rigging-in-muslim-communities-goes-unchallenged-because-pc-police-are-scared-of-causing-offence/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Mar 28, 2018 8:31:13 GMT
I've always been anti PR for the House of Commons mainly for the reason stated above in that it can give minor parties a disproportionate level of power.
I have, though, always believed that the second house should be elected on a PR basis. This would achieve a level of fairness in that any party which achieves over a set percentage of the vote has a right to be heard. Allowing everyone to have a voice over everything could, of course, put quite a brake on the speed with which legislation could be passed and so some sort of time limit should be imposed on speeches and interjections to prevent any filibustering.
Whether there should be separate elections for the second house, or whether the proportions should be taken from the same election as the Commons would need to be looked at as would the ability of the second house to block legislation from the Commons as I would feel that the HoC should retain its primacy.
If the government could pay me a few hundred thousands of Pounds I'm sure I could look in to the options for them and come up with a plan which would be agreeable to most of the electorate. It may take me some time though so best make the fee an annual one!
|
|