On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.

And of course if they introduce that, most MPs would be out of a job.
And the best thing for them.

I'll wait until they have picked themselves up off the floor before
outlining the rest of it: anyone with a degree in politics or similar
is disqualified, minimum age for candidacy is 40, 2 term limit in any
cabinet position and you must have worked for at least five of the
previous ten years in a job not immediately connected with politics.

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

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

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.

That's hardly compatible with STV with multi-member constituencies and
quota counting, the standard British form of PR. Almost no-one will then
poll over 50% of the electorate personally.

And of course if they introduce that, most MPs would be out of a job.
And the best thing for them.

Indeed. But I want some of the advantages, like reduced power of the
parties to coerce MPs to do what the people the represent don't.

I'll wait until they have picked themselves up off the floor before
outlining the rest of it: anyone with a degree in politics or similar
is disqualified, minimum age for candidacy is 40, 2 term limit in any
cabinet position and you must have worked for at least five of the
previous ten years in a job not immediately connected with politics.

Yes, that would be good, but then the first problem is to stop the "no
external jobs" idea. Ministers have two jobs already of course.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:03:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.


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.

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 ,
(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?

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

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.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:22:42 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
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.


The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our
own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful
comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy)
and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for
the UK.

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately,
Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government.
His commission therefore lacked the necessary independence, and his
chairmanship brought with it Jenkins' legebdary lack of clarity of
thought. Never use ten words where a hundred will do, and never
overlook the opaque and complex "solutions" for something that is
clear, simple and works!

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:49:34 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

A Royal Commission would be needed to do this.

I know you're right, but it does sound ironic, doesn't it? The
solution to democratic deficit is to have a Royal commission... what
could possibly go wrong? ;-)

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