Falling in Love...

[C0ckney]

it's always nice to see 'liberals' who aren't interested in people's votes being respected. it's easy to call anyone you don't like an 'extremist'.

[Dauphin]

Under true PR, you'd never get any independents and you'd normally have party lists preventing you truly picking a candidate.

I like the idea of PR, but I'd want it done with appropriate safeguards to prevent the potential abuses. I also like AV.

[Dauphin]

Albeit, parachuting in an MP is an abuse of the current system....

[C0ckney]

yeah that's certainly a valid criticism of PR. i think you can address it somewhat by introducing a regional element, but it doesn't solve the problem completely.

for me though, i think that having seats reflecting the votes cast is the most important thing.

[MOBIUS]

Even Ken Clarke is suggesting long standing Lib Dem policies on crime and punishment...

[MOBIUS]

God, I'm literally coming in my pants watching Newsnight in which a room full of Tories is getting to grips with and coming round to a whole raft of liberal ideas - including Theresa May as the cheerleader!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ken Clarke is a Tory from a different dimension, he did not lose every nomination for party leader four times straight for no reason, coming second to such great politicians as William Hague and IDS

[Zevico]

the problem we have here is that our system does not reflect the votes people cast nationally. it favours the two big parties, especially the labour party, at the expense of the lib dems and smaller parties like the greens and UKIP. for example 800,000 people voted for UKIP at the last election, result, 0 UKIP MPs. AV+ will give the lib dems a few more MPs but not anything like their share of the vote and the smaller parties will still get screwed.

1. AV will give you a voice in Parliament even if you vote for a minor party. Your preference will flow to the person you judge next best. In this way, political parties will be forced to seek common ground shared by the electorate as a whole in an effort to win office by way of support of the entire electorate.
2. The region-based system of parliamentary representation is perfectly sound and is an improvement over the system of proportional representation. It creates a system of direct accountability to the public rather than accountability to the party. You must, as a member, always be seen to be acting in the interests of your locality, or you will be voted out of office. Equally party wheeling and dealing by you, as a member, will lead the local electorate to kick you out. You simply will not win. You win office not just on the basis of party political deals but on your own abilities, and your ability to win the confidence of the electorate.

In a national system you may win office partly because of these qualities but those who do win office are more likely to be mere party hacks, with all the corruption entailed. There is also a tendency to sacrifice to a greater degree the national interest will in favour of minority interests in such a system, merely in an effort to win minority support.

The standing of the UKIP is neither here nor there. Any one of its policies might (for example) be picked up by one party or another in the next election.

[Dauphin]

[Random musing that I haven't thought through and may have lots of problems] PR doesn't need to be election only at a national level. You could for example double the size of a constituency and have a first past the post system for half the seats (these MPs would represent your region), and have the remaining seats apportioned on a PR basis. So if you have 100 FPP seats won as 60:30:10 and the vote ratio was 40:35:25 the remaining 100 seats would be apportioned 20:40:40 such that representation is equivalent to PR in total.

[MikeH]

it's always nice to see 'liberals' who aren't interested in people's votes being respected. it's easy to call anyone you don't like an 'extremist'.

Well you did mention UKIP! They are extreme anti-Europeans nutcases. In what way are they not extremists?

Who else might you include? The next biggest parties after the big three and UKIP are BNP, SNP, Sinn Fein and Green Party? I'd like to see any of defended as not extremist nutcases by anyone other than their members...

It's my opinion that you need to have a groundswell of opinion behind you to be represented in parliament. Pure PR has a lot of problems, I don't like party lists. It's nice to be able to vote on a specific candidate not just a party.

AV AV AV AV

[MOBIUS]

The Welsh Assembly Government operates something like that. Not sure what the FPP/PR split is though.

[MikeH]

ps. I'm sure UKIP would be able to get some MPs under AV, despite being extremist nutcases. There are many, many people in this country who will let their racism overcome the economic realities.

[MOBIUS]

I'm sorry, but much as I despise them, people who vote UKIP or BNP should be given a voice in a properly democratic society.

[MOBIUS]

[Random musing that I haven't thought through and may have lots of problems] PR doesn't need to be election only at a national level. You could for example double the size of a constituency and have a first past the post system for half the seats (these MPs would represent your region), and have the remaining seats apportioned on a PR basis. So if you have 100 FPP seats won as 60:30:10 and the vote ratio was 40:35:25 the remaining 100 seats would be apportioned 20:40:40 such that representation is equivalent to PR in total.

The WAG voting system is a MMP (Mixed Member Proportional representation) system of 60 seats, as follows: FPP/AMS* 40/20

It's certainly not perfect as you can see here, but it is definitely preferable to pure FPP and a step in the right direction.


*Additional Member System

[MikeH]

I'm sorry, but much as I despise them, people who vote UKIP or BNP should be given a voice in a properly democratic society.

Wait, I'm trolling and you are being moderate? What happened.