Electoral reform

[David Johnson]

Bloody hell, boys and girls. There is a lot to this electoral reform lark.

First past the post, alternative vote, alternative vote plus, single transferable vote, proportional representation.

Apparently in Scotland and Wales elections to the Assemblies, they use the Additional Member System (don't ask!).

I'm sure to nick Jimslip's description, the wise elders of the BGAFD board will have it all sorted and analysed!

Anyway, in this message by referring to alternative vote, alternative vote plus, single transferable vote, proportional representation in the same message, I have met my objective in creating the equivalent of a googlewhack, a BGAFDwhack.

Congratulations on BGAFD admin in creating a BGAFDwhack by mentioning the single transferable vote. Sterling work, lads! Well it was a BGAFDwhack until now, of course.

Cheers
D

PS. The alternative vote referendum which Brown talked about in his manifesto and which William (10 pints a night- never did me any harm) Hague offered the Blessed Cleggie today, would have not had much impact on most of the elections held as far as the Lib Dems are concerned apart from 1997. Rough estimates suggest that the Lib Dems would have only got an extra 6 seats in 2005 with the alternative vote system.

[Sam Slater]

The Lib Dems want the Single Transferable Vote system of PR. Clegg should tell Cameron to shove AV up his arse. Cameron keeps banging on about what's good for the country but doesn't want a referendum on PR, even though the majority of people want it. He's putting his party before his voters (he's not the only one, I admit).

[David Johnson]

Correct, the alternative vote is a dead-end for the Lib Dems. It gets them no further forward in meaningful terms.

[Bob Singleton]

All this talk of AMS, STV, AV, AV+1 etc reminds me of "O" Level British Constitution I studied back in about 1975/76

[David Johnson]

"Cameron keeps banging on about what's good for the country but doesn't want a referendum on PR, even though the majority of people want it"

Some questions for you.

1. Your claim that the majority of people want a referendum on PR. What is that based on?
2. Even if you have some evidence to support 1, presumably a poll, how many people do you think actually know what proportional representation is actually about in a detailed way as opposed to alternative vote, alternative vote plus, single transferable vote?
3. Do you think the discussions that have been going on between the seemingly unlikely bedfellows, the Lib Dems and Tories (taking into account their manifestos) and now between the Labour party and Lib Dems, will increase or decrease the public's support for proportional representation?

Cheers
D

[Bob Singleton]

Electoral Reform shouldn't just encompass the method of the voting system (ie FPTP, STV, AMS etc) but everything to do with how we vote.

Some of the people who were turned away from polling stations at 10.00pm on Thursday lost their ability to vote because of a rather antiquated system that rather makes a mockery of the whole idea of "democracy"

What checks are in place that the person voting is entitled to vote? Currently, virtually none. When my daughter went to vote she did so without a polling card as she had not received one. She just stated her name and confirmed her address. The volunteer working at her polling station eventually found her on the list, crossed her off and gave her her ballot papers. Her boyfriend then pointed at the name above/below her and said "... and that's me" for which he also received ballot papers on which to make his choice. I could have gone in and claimed to be someone I'm not and voted. There is a clear need to ensure only those genuinely entitled to vote are allowed to vote.

This system of placing a cross with a pencil is also in need of reform, and should we get a form of PR will need to be addressed before the next election. An electronic/computerised system of some sort would also help speed up the results whilst also negating the need for so many recounts when results are close.

Should we even need to visit polling stations? With interactive TV, computers, mobile phones etc, there are plenty of ways in which, with a PIN, we could register our vote.

All of these are questions that I believe should be addressed as well as whether we change from FPTP to another system

[Sam Slater]

[quote]1. Your claim that the majority of people want a referendum on PR. What is that based on?[/quote]

Polling results given in The Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail and The Times (websites mainly - they should still be online). Google "proportional representation 62% uk" and you'll find them.

[quote]2. Even if you have some evidence to support 1, presumably a poll, how many people do you think actually know what proportional representation is actually about in a detailed way as opposed to alternative vote, alternative vote plus, single transferable vote?[/quote]

The polls suggested 62% wanted 'some form' of proportional representation. I don't know how much they know, or how well they can distinguish between mixed voting systems like AV. What's clear from the polls, I think, is that while we don't know how much knowledge of voting systems those people polled had, we do know that they know enough to realise the current FPTP system is unfair.

[quote]3. Do you think the discussions that have been going on between the seemingly unlikely bedfellows, the Lib Dems and Tories (taking into account their manifestos) and now between the Labour party and Lib Dems, will increase or decrease the public's support for proportional representation?[/quote]

That's hard to speculate on. Given that 37% of the people voted Tory (who don't want PR) and given that those polls suggested that even 51% of Tory voters want PR, if you had to hold a gun to my head and force be to guess I'd say 'not much'. People, regardless of who they voted for, recognise that the system is antiquated and doesn't give an accurate representation of the people's wishes.

In similar news, it seems Labour, having been dangling PR in the Lib Dems' face ever since they realised it was hung parliament territory at about 11pm , May 6th, they're now backing away. Do you think this is inconsistent and leaves Labour voters wondering that voting Labour is like having a Christmas stocking above your bed?; leaving you never knowing what you're going to get? !laugh!


Latest: seems Lib/Lab talks might be over. Labour never wanted PR and never wanted to do a deal (I don't include Mandelson in this fiasco).

[max_tranmere]

I've said before and will say again that the Prime Minister should be elected. Not a case of the individual having an election solely for them but you should be electing the party as lead by that person and if the person stands down then you vote again and choose a party as lead by the leaders standing at that election. Every time a PM has quit mid-term there have been calls for a election and it has always been refused, I know it is not required that there be one but it would be fairer and more democratic if there was one. Thatcher quit in 1990 and the opposition leader Neil Kinnock called for an election - there wasn't one and John Major just took over. In 2007 Blair quits and that dickhead who is now there just took over, he apparently considered having an election but didnt as he knew he wouldnt win. This can't be right or fair. And those who keep saying that you elect the party and not the leader, could they please tell me what the point of those recent Leaders Debates on TV were? If you were watching, were undecided, and, say, Cameron impressed you, then you would vote for the Tory Party as you wanted that party in office and for him to be its leader and to be the PM. If the rules say you could elect Cameron and the Tories and he could just resign the following day and that be ok because 'hey, after all, you just elect the party and not who runs it' then what was the point of the recent Leaders Debates?

[Sam Slater]

Yes, you still haven't grasped how our system works, have you?

I didn't see Clegg's, Brown's or Cameron's name on my ballot paper. And no one in the country saw all three on their's.

You're right in one sense, though. We live in an increasingly image-driven world and today's PMs need more than just policy and an aura of authority these days. Given that, personality will come more into play, these days, when some people decide on who to vote for.

I don't want the UK to go down the presidency route. That way leads to, I think, people concentrating too much on a single person's character, history and morals, leaving political ideas and policies by the wayside. On the other hand I recognise that for some people, they realise that policies are taken up and dropped all the time, but a politician's character is harder to change. If he/she's a decent person, they rarely turn bad overnight, and vice versa. A good balance is needed but we know the media get more scandals out of character assassinations than policy assassinations.

[max_tranmere]

Sam, I have always known that the system works that way I am just saying it is not right that it works that way. Imagine those 3 recent leaders debates on the eve of the election, which will be for a 4 or 5 year term: "here we have the leaders of the three main parties, but bear in mind if you vote for that party you may not actually get that person because under our rules they could resign the next day and any Joe Bloggs can just become the leader of the nation". I personally like Nick Clegg, I think it would be great it he became PM, so I am voting Lib Dem and I am very much looking forward to having someone else as the PM. Doesnt make a lot of sense does it?