@reyazul1218 Y'see, The LibDems (=one half of the Govt) wanted to have a more proportional system, but the Tories (=other half of govt) didn't, so they had a "compromise" of AV. But AV is shite, and no one wanted it.
It's not a matter of what's popular, it's a matter of what the politicians will concede to us. The bastards.
I'd be curious to see a poll for the various different voting systems. BUT... most ppl don't know anything about any of it, so we prob wouldn't get useful poll results
Effective government is a prerequisite of effective policy. English voting has many problems; constituencies are uneven in population: MPs serve as local leaders, an electoral college for the executive and a legislature confusing the general election: in Westminster party unity is praised above really debating bills: elections are not regular enough: no "primaries" for PM candidate.
AV will not remedy these but may help ensure % of MPs from each party better represent % of votes parties get.
More radical change is needed in my view, such as abolishing constituencies and just voting parties such that the number of MPs from each party represents the portion of votes that party obtained, ensuring everyone's vote counted, or abolishing parties such that MPs were more independent and willing to stick up for their principles in Westminster. The levelers proposed each MP should be elected nationally, and be independent of parties - would be expensive but damn would be democratic IMO.
@unassumption I don't know it would work. I kind of believe in a constituency-based system. Also, abolishing political parties seems a tad far-fetched. They arose, after all, and against the efforts and desires of people like George Washington, because they are almost essential in democracy.
I personally think there shouldn't be so much whipping in parliament. IT's idiotic. It's portrayed as almost a favour when MPs are not three-line whipped: what an absurdity!!
I'm not too sure if changes to either are possible in practice, but problems with party politics and constituencies should be recognized and if possible combated; these ideas aren't new and perhaps their lack of success over time is evidence against them. Smaller changes like less whipping might be the best way to minimize debate nulling problems with parties, while maintaining their stability based benefits. Unsure how every vote could count without national elections for MPs tho
US constitution resulted from compromise between extreme elements; the supporters of the articles of confederation (admittedly not that successful) preferred something more along my lines, seeing a split between the ideals of the revolution (democracy) and the strong centralized republic. The federalists were arguably a public minority, though they include Washington, and didn't pass unchallenged. Basically, be careful when you invoke the founders, most objected to reverence in their lifetime.
So many systems of government have been tried (especially in churches and city states) and the ones we have are mostly there due to political expediency long in the past and copying what looked to work elsewhere. I don't think we should stray too far from what hasn't been that unsuccessful a system but there is precedent in smaller institutions, and no improvement can be made without changing. I don't think we'll really get anywhere until those things are dealt with, probably by a slow process.
The harshest opponents of a new idea provide a means of assessing it, assuming they aren't just lying. AV is attacked as 'too complex' and 'promoting too much debate,' neither of which are bad things IMO though AV isn't that positive it would give each vote more power. More voices in Westminster mean less legislation passed unilaterally, which won't be good when you're in power but when you aren't? I doubt it'll turn the UK into the unchanging status quo that is the US if ppl REALLY want change.
I don't think it'd make politics representational but, can't be less representational than it is now. I think there would be more debates and less unity in AV system as people would need to scramble for votes from both sides of the aisle for a bill. If we vote NO, do you think there will be another refurendum or voting system?
I think it'd be kept for a while but if people made a big enough stink some other system may be tried again. Either way FPTP will be kept for time if we vote no on AV.
@unassumption "Can't be less representational than it is now" is hardly a ringing endorsement lol! More debates or more fudge? If I vote YES, do I think there will be another referendum for a better voting system? Y'see, these are all questions that bother and worry me greatly. PErhaps people would make a BIGGER stink if we kept FPTP. You never know. Maybe it's best not to second-guess these things.
I really don't know what I want - like the people who voted tony blair because conservatives weren't working then voted conservatives because labor wasn't, or their american equivalents, I just want some form of change; I don't see the danger in this experimenting to this degree (though there are some valid criticisms) any more than the action of not acting and keeping what isn't working that well (as shown by the last election).
@unassumption To be honest, I think I'd agree with you that this change probably won't be cataclysmic and wreck parliamentary democracy as we know it. Let's face it, our system isn't working as it is.
@unassumption Yeah, I really don't get this idea of it being too complex. It's pretty straightforward, actually. The only thing I would prefer, tho, is if you only had a FIRST and a SECOND choice. I honestly would struggle to make a 2nd choice, but 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th...!?!?!?! Most people probably won't give that much thought to their 6th choice, and yet that decision could completely change the results!
@unassumption I agree with everything you say 100%. Including the "may" part of the last sentence. I'm just not so sure that it would actually be better. I genuinely more pressing issues are, as you say, e.g., getting constituencies to be around the same size, also cutting the number of MPs, more frequent elections, etc.
In practice it's by dealing with things like constituency size (which Cameron looks like he wants to tackle) that we're likely to achieve any change that comes.
I know someone who use MPs to stop street lights being built outside their houses, or vote them for local issues. MPs are over-burdened as local representatives AND legislature AND electoral college for presidential PM and voters have to weigh too much up at election time. We need to split the role IMO as elsewhere.
Labour does not het 10000 votes in Mucky in the Wold - they usually come in behind the Monster Raving Looney and lose their deposit.
IlRezzonico 6 days ago
Why isn't AV+ included in the referendum, then? Is there not enough popular support for it at the moment?
reyazul1218 9 months ago
@reyazul1218 Y'see, The LibDems (=one half of the Govt) wanted to have a more proportional system, but the Tories (=other half of govt) didn't, so they had a "compromise" of AV. But AV is shite, and no one wanted it.
It's not a matter of what's popular, it's a matter of what the politicians will concede to us. The bastards.
I'd be curious to see a poll for the various different voting systems. BUT... most ppl don't know anything about any of it, so we prob wouldn't get useful poll results
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
Heyyy!!! You got a better camera, yay!
KMehrabi 9 months ago
@KMehrabi LOL. Yeah. Technically, it's not actually mine, I'm borrowing it. But it should be good for a while...
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
Effective government is a prerequisite of effective policy. English voting has many problems; constituencies are uneven in population: MPs serve as local leaders, an electoral college for the executive and a legislature confusing the general election: in Westminster party unity is praised above really debating bills: elections are not regular enough: no "primaries" for PM candidate.
AV will not remedy these but may help ensure % of MPs from each party better represent % of votes parties get.
unassumption 10 months ago
More radical change is needed in my view, such as abolishing constituencies and just voting parties such that the number of MPs from each party represents the portion of votes that party obtained, ensuring everyone's vote counted, or abolishing parties such that MPs were more independent and willing to stick up for their principles in Westminster. The levelers proposed each MP should be elected nationally, and be independent of parties - would be expensive but damn would be democratic IMO.
unassumption 10 months ago
@unassumption I don't know it would work. I kind of believe in a constituency-based system. Also, abolishing political parties seems a tad far-fetched. They arose, after all, and against the efforts and desires of people like George Washington, because they are almost essential in democracy.
I personally think there shouldn't be so much whipping in parliament. IT's idiotic. It's portrayed as almost a favour when MPs are not three-line whipped: what an absurdity!!
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@BryanAJParry
I'm not too sure if changes to either are possible in practice, but problems with party politics and constituencies should be recognized and if possible combated; these ideas aren't new and perhaps their lack of success over time is evidence against them. Smaller changes like less whipping might be the best way to minimize debate nulling problems with parties, while maintaining their stability based benefits. Unsure how every vote could count without national elections for MPs tho
unassumption 9 months ago
US constitution resulted from compromise between extreme elements; the supporters of the articles of confederation (admittedly not that successful) preferred something more along my lines, seeing a split between the ideals of the revolution (democracy) and the strong centralized republic. The federalists were arguably a public minority, though they include Washington, and didn't pass unchallenged. Basically, be careful when you invoke the founders, most objected to reverence in their lifetime.
unassumption 9 months ago
So many systems of government have been tried (especially in churches and city states) and the ones we have are mostly there due to political expediency long in the past and copying what looked to work elsewhere. I don't think we should stray too far from what hasn't been that unsuccessful a system but there is precedent in smaller institutions, and no improvement can be made without changing. I don't think we'll really get anywhere until those things are dealt with, probably by a slow process.
unassumption 9 months ago
The harshest opponents of a new idea provide a means of assessing it, assuming they aren't just lying. AV is attacked as 'too complex' and 'promoting too much debate,' neither of which are bad things IMO though AV isn't that positive it would give each vote more power. More voices in Westminster mean less legislation passed unilaterally, which won't be good when you're in power but when you aren't? I doubt it'll turn the UK into the unchanging status quo that is the US if ppl REALLY want change.
unassumption 10 months ago
I don't think it'd make politics representational but, can't be less representational than it is now. I think there would be more debates and less unity in AV system as people would need to scramble for votes from both sides of the aisle for a bill. If we vote NO, do you think there will be another refurendum or voting system?
I think it'd be kept for a while but if people made a big enough stink some other system may be tried again. Either way FPTP will be kept for time if we vote no on AV.
unassumption 10 months ago
It's always possible for the conservatives to get over 50% of the vote and win outright.
unassumption 10 months ago
@unassumption I concur, but perhaps it will be much more difficult.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@unassumption "Can't be less representational than it is now" is hardly a ringing endorsement lol! More debates or more fudge? If I vote YES, do I think there will be another referendum for a better voting system? Y'see, these are all questions that bother and worry me greatly. PErhaps people would make a BIGGER stink if we kept FPTP. You never know. Maybe it's best not to second-guess these things.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@BryanAJParry
I really don't know what I want - like the people who voted tony blair because conservatives weren't working then voted conservatives because labor wasn't, or their american equivalents, I just want some form of change; I don't see the danger in this experimenting to this degree (though there are some valid criticisms) any more than the action of not acting and keeping what isn't working that well (as shown by the last election).
unassumption 9 months ago
@unassumption To be honest, I think I'd agree with you that this change probably won't be cataclysmic and wreck parliamentary democracy as we know it. Let's face it, our system isn't working as it is.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@unassumption Yeah, I really don't get this idea of it being too complex. It's pretty straightforward, actually. The only thing I would prefer, tho, is if you only had a FIRST and a SECOND choice. I honestly would struggle to make a 2nd choice, but 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th...!?!?!?! Most people probably won't give that much thought to their 6th choice, and yet that decision could completely change the results!
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@unassumption I agree with everything you say 100%. Including the "may" part of the last sentence. I'm just not so sure that it would actually be better. I genuinely more pressing issues are, as you say, e.g., getting constituencies to be around the same size, also cutting the number of MPs, more frequent elections, etc.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago
@BryanAJParry
In practice it's by dealing with things like constituency size (which Cameron looks like he wants to tackle) that we're likely to achieve any change that comes.
I know someone who use MPs to stop street lights being built outside their houses, or vote them for local issues. MPs are over-burdened as local representatives AND legislature AND electoral college for presidential PM and voters have to weigh too much up at election time. We need to split the role IMO as elsewhere.
unassumption 9 months ago
@unassumption I agree with that 100%.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago