On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:43:06 -0500,
wrote:

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.

And is in itself both an excellent argument in favour of proportional
representation, and the precise reason why neither party will ever
bring it in.

Unless they are forced to. I just wish the public pressure from the
expenses scandal would lead to this. It could still happen, especially if
the "it'll all go away over the summer" hopes of leading politicians turns
out to be wrong.

How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under
the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force"
Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice
versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV.

Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of
the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for
this to remain pure fantasy.

asdf wrote:

How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under
the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force"
Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice
versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV.

Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of
the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for
this to remain pure fantasy.

Labour is considering holding a referendum on switching to Alternative Vote
on election day.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.
The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.

Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as
long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a
number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first
and second preference and after that "none of the above".

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

asdf wrote:

How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under
the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force"
Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice
versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV.

Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of
the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for
this to remain pure fantasy.

Labour is considering holding a referendum on switching to
Alternative Vote on election day.

Alternative vote will not mean that voters' votes will be reflected
overall in who is elected. It will probably distort that pattern even more
than FPTP does, as it seems to in Australia.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Just zis Guy, you know?) wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.
The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.

Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as
long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a
number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first
and second preference and after that "none of the above".

The Scots seem to have worked that out easily enough in 2007.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:44:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.
The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.

Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as
long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a
number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first
and second preference and after that "none of the above".


I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations?

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:01:23 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

asdf wrote:

How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under
the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force"
Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice
versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV.

Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of
the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for
this to remain pure fantasy.

Labour is considering holding a referendum on switching to Alternative Vote
on election day.


But Alternative Vote is even more unfair than the present system, as
it would deliver even larger majorities in Parliament on an even
smaller proportion of the total votes cast than now.

That cannot be right.

Labour is only considering thr referendum in order to paint the Tories
as being opposed to any change. But *everyone* should oppose
Alternative Vote - it would be a very bad system for the UK.

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:44:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.
The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.

Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as
long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a
number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first
and second preference and after that "none of the above".

I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the
recommendations?

The British Government has applied PR systems to other countries, for
example STV to Ireland and Malta. They still have the system so can't have
been that bad a choice. Indeed, its success in the Irish Republic forced
the British Government to restore STV to Northern Ireland in 1973.

STV's greatest strength is that it is party-blind. You don't need parties
to get fair representation but if you have them they get the share the
voters give them and no more.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In ,
tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

Tell me , are british commuter cyclists just particularly incompetant
and/or stupid compared to european ones who've been living with bendy
buses
for years or are you all - what most people suspect is the case -
nothing but a bunch of tedious whingers?

Tell me, do the drivers of bendy-buses in other European cities complete
their overtaking manouevres before pulling in again, or do they just wait
for the front two-thirds of the vehicle to pass the cyclist before forcing
them into the kerb?

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot.

Bruce wrote:

I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote
system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system.

The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be
trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only
possible because of unfairness.

Although most of the time the public seem happy that way. And not just in
the UK - voters in British Columbia have recently rejected a proposed move
from First Past The Post to mult-member STV, despite it being chosen by a
"citizen's jury" and some recent election results that would be a godsend
for British PR advocates.

Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord
(Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations?

Yes but it would be wrong to blame just Blair for this. Enthusiasm for PR in
the Labour Party dried up a lot after the 1997 election (much as it did in
the Conservatives after 1979) and the Jenkins Commission + referendum was
rapidly regarded as an unfortunate inclusion in the manifesto to throw a
bone to Liberal Democrat voters.

Furthermore the system that the Commission proposed was "Alternative Vote
Plus", a ghastly hybrid Additional Member System that would involve:

* Most MPs elected in constituencies but on the Alternative Vote

* Lots of small regions with a handful of MPs elected on a top-up.

It tried to meet all the requirements but calculations suggests it doesn't
really:

* You can still get governments elected on a minority of the votes cast if
their support is sufficiently concentrated to sweep up the seats

* The small number of top-up seats mean they would largely serve to help the
second and third parties (and fourth in Wales and Scotland) make up a seat
deficit rather than providing representation for other parties (this effect
can be seen in the Welsh Assembly).

* There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single
chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big complaint
in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs
presenting themselves as the "local" representative, especially if they go
on to contest that constituency at the next election. A law was passed to
stop candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but it
still happens in Scotland and London.)

* All Additional Member Systems with multiple ballot papers can give some
voters more voting power than others (vote for one successful party for the
constituency and another for the list) and the likeliehood of overhangs (a
party gets more constituency seats than its list vote entitles it to)
magnifies this.

* Parties can also game the system by running separately on the
constituencies and lists (an Italian tactic called "decoy lists").

* "Safe seats" would still exist in constituencies and those politicians at
the head of their local list would be guaranteed election.

* A big name could lose their constituency but still be in the parliament -
this happen in Germany with Helmut Kohl in 1998.

As you can guess this system doesn't fill PR campaigners with a great deal
of enthusiasm and there are splits over any prospective referendum between
those who think any "PR" is better than the present system and those who
think adopting this particular system will not solve the cited problems and
make a preferred system *less* likely.