Proportional representation.
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 23 May 2014
Proportional Representation.
Given that we now have four parties receiveing significant numbers of votes in this year's Local Elections, is it about time we introduced proportional representation and did away with our "first past the post" selection system ?
I note a strange silence on this suject by the Lib-Dems this year.
Tihe current Administration is "unelected" in that no party had a majority.
This is absolutely correct, no one elected a stinking Con-Dem Party, the Tory Toffs were handed the right to govern because the present system is diabolically flawed in allowing such an undemocratic procedure. It was also caused by those nasty double crossing
Liberal Dumbocrats who ripped up their manifesto, broke all their promises, and jumped into bed with the Tories just so they could get some power, how utterly disgraceful!
However, this totally unfair and farcically undemocratic situation could be completely avoided if the Two Election System was employed.
A Primary Election for all party candidates to stand,
and people cast three votes - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, for their best choice of any three.
1st vote is worth 10 points
2nd vote is worth 6 points
3rd vote is worth 3 points
Only two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later [as a two horse race].
Debs
Understand your viewpoint - nobody dislikes the current lot more than I but to describe the government as unelected is not factually correct however desirable. There are many alternative electoral systems in play around the world but curiously none of them provide the solutions that many here might wish no matter how attractive they seem.
PR seems so attractive until you consider that whilst appearing more democratic on paper, in practice it hands a great deal of influence to smaller groups - making the kind of coalition you dislike so much more rather than less likely. As a result you would be faced with governments that you regard as unelected more frequently.
The prospect that Mr Farage or his imbecile colleagues might have some influence on government is not one that I would like to contemplate. Bad people.
Tog
The coalition government does stand as democratically elected under the present system. It is appalling to many (me included) that the LDs took a legacy split Labour vote and used it to enable the Tories to run the country further into the ground. But strictly speaking we got what we voted for (under the present system) even though we didn't realise what we were voting for at the time.
If PR hands more influence to smaller groups to better reflect the proportion of the whole population who voted for them, isn't this the essence of what it should do? It will do this across the board. A general election is not a football match with an optional penalty shoot out. The winners/losers mentality is (for someone of my age) a throwback to the 80s and 90s. We're only in this position because Brown was a PR liability Cameron came over as too shifty and Clegg looked good on a couple of TV dog and pony shows. It's more superficial than ever and we get what we collectively deserve. Present company excepted of course!
Dear Harry,
Would you really like to have seen the Liberals go with the Labour Party and form the government, albeit that Brown would probably have been forced to quite as Labour leader for that to happen?
Just asking, but I think it is a fair point to clear up.
Or have another election where the electorate would presumably be expect to vote in a "sensible" manner?
ATB from George
Tihe current Administration is "unelected" in that no party had a majority.
This is absolutely correct, no one elected a stinking Con-Dem Party, the Tory Toffs were handed the right to govern because the present system is diabolically flawed in allowing such an undemocratic procedure. It was also caused by those nasty double crossing
Liberal Dumbocrats who ripped up their manifesto, broke all their promises, and jumped into bed with the Tories just so they could get some power, how utterly disgraceful!
However, this totally unfair and farcically undemocratic situation could be completely avoided if the Two Election System was employed.
A Primary Election for all party candidates to stand,
and people cast three votes - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, for their best choice of any three.
1st vote is worth 10 points
2nd vote is worth 6 points
3rd vote is worth 3 points
Only two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later [as a two horse race].
Debs
Yes and if you play your joker on one vote it counts as double 
I would have preferred to see Labour and LD form a coalition but it would have involved the inclusion of other minority parties and would have likely proved unstable, leading to another general election. By the principles of our democratic system as opposed to ideology or history the LDs were of course perfectly within their rights do do what they did. A good CV move for many party members. And by god, a lot of them are going to need really good looking CVs next year!
The coalition government does stand as democratically elected under the present system. It is appalling to many (me included) that the LDs took a legacy split Labour vote and used it to enable the Tories to run the country further into the ground. But strictly speaking we got what we voted for (under the present system) even though we didn't realise what we were voting for at the time.
If PR hands more influence to smaller groups to better reflect the proportion of the whole population who voted for them, isn't this the essence of what it should do? It will do this across the board. A general election is not a football match with an optional penalty shoot out. The winners/losers mentality is (for someone of my age) a throwback to the 80s and 90s. We're only in this position because Brown was a PR liability Cameron came over as too shifty and Clegg looked good on a couple of TV dog and pony shows. It's more superficial than ever and we get what we collectively deserve. Present company excepted of course!
Incompetent perhaps,laughably inane probably ; but they are predictably incapable of doing the kind of real damage that UKIP and the far right nutters that live on the edges of the political landscape - if a less than perfect electoral system keeps them permanently in the wilderness - works for me.
Tog
Only two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later [as a two horse race].
At first glance this seems worthy of more thought, despite the fact that I am more inclined towards proportional representation of some sort.
In your proposal Debs, is voting mandatory or optional ? In the first stage ? the second stage ? or both stages ?
Assume it is optional and only 50 % of the electorate turn out in the Primaries. The two highest scoring candidates win only margionally more points than the next two candidates, such that each of the first four candidates has roughly say, just under 25% of the 10 point votes cast. Half of those who voted first time round can't be bothered to vote in the second round because their preferred candiate(s) were set aside. The second round voting only attracted the electorate who voted 10 points for these candidates and again a small majority secured the seat.
50% of the electorate vote in the Primaries. 25% in the Secondaries of whom just over half (12.6% of the electorate) vote for successful MP. Same picture Nationwide. Tories elected with a 500 seat landslide victory by approximately 1/8 of the electorate.
I need to think this one through a bit more.
I would have preferred to see Labour and LD form a coalition but it would have involved the inclusion of other minority parties and would have likely proved unstable, leading to another general election. By the principles of our democratic system as opposed to ideology or history the LDs were of course perfectly within their rights do do what they did. A good CV move for many party members. And by god, a lot of them are going to need really good looking CVs next year!
Thanks for your reply Harry,
I am quite happy to say that I was hopeful for a Conservative minority that was larger than a Labour one, and could only stand with Lib-dem coalition, so the General Election [for once] produced exactly the result I was hoping for.
I cannot imagine the mess if Labour had continued to spend tax payers money as if money had gone out of fashion!
But that is just my opinion. I have been very pleased with the steady as she goes stability that we have had with the current government steering the country away from the financial shallow waters we were skirting with as a legacy of the previous Labour governments' spend-thrift approach.
ATB from George
And respected.
One thing's for sure - I hope - the next election will be entertaining, worth turning out for and uncertain of result until late in the day. I'm a bit old fashioned in as much as I vote (a) because it is a right which people made sacrifices for and to vote is to acknowledge and honour them and (b) it makes me feel more entitled to moan!
Dear Harry,
It can be dangerous to good comradeship to discuss politics, but I think everyone should vote. Moaning without voting is a cop-out in my opinion!
I quite like the Australian idea that it should be legally compulsory, though in that case I believe that there should be a none of the above box on the voting paper.
Like you I enjoy a vigourous election! It will sure as heck be interesting to see how Labour address the success last week of UKIP. I would expect the Tories will find this easier to deal with than Labour, and I always like to see politicians do acrobatics to appeal, and then be seen through to some extent.
I suppose the only really successful politicians are the ones who tell the least obvious lies!
ATB from George
I quite like the Australian idea that it should be legally compulsory, though in that case I believe that there should be a none of the above box on the voting paper.
I have promoted that concept (none of the above) a few times on the premise that if "none of the above" wins, then the seat has to be re-contested. I'm not sure of how the practicalities of that would work..
Again, it needs to be thought through.
Dear Don,
If fifty per cent voted "non of the above" there would be an interesting hiatus!
For sure this possibility needs considering, and a formal plan worked out.
ATB from George
I have on a number of occasions drawn a little box on the ballot paper with "non of the above" next to it, and voted accordingly!
Again, it needs to be thought through.
It would be made to work somehow. It's amazing what can be implemented if it is compulsory. And I agree that such an option should be on every ballot paper.
For the reason that George alluded to, I don't get too embroiled in political discussion. It's 99% pointless, unlike to change opinion and can get heated. But 2015 could be actually quite interesting from all sides of the debates. It will still come down to the least apparently incompetent at best, same as ever. I'd rather be in this situation than facing a Labour or Tory landslide. Of these two I'd take Labour but I really don't think landslides are good for anyone apart from the obvious benefactors, who seem to all look and behave the same no matter who is ni Number 10. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Harry we are all getting old!
No shame in that. Older and by the day gifted with more and wisdom of age!
Though there is no fool like an old fool! Speaking of myself of course!
ATB from George
Only two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later [as a two horse race].
At first glance this seems worthy of more thought, despite the fact that I am more inclined towards proportional representation of some sort.
In your proposal Debs, is voting mandatory or optional ? In the first stage ? the second stage ? or both stages ?
Assume it is optional and only 50 % of the electorate turn out in the Primaries. The two highest scoring candidates win only margionally more points than the next two candidates, such that each of the first four candidates has roughly say, just under 25% of the 10 point votes cast. Half of those who voted first time round can't be bothered to vote in the second round because their preferred candiate(s) were set aside. The second round voting only attracted the electorate who voted 10 points for these candidates and again a small majority secured the seat.
50% of the electorate vote in the Primaries. 25% in the Secondaries of whom just over half (12.6% of the electorate) vote for successful MP. Same picture Nationwide. Tories elected with a 500 seat landslide victory by approximately 1/8 of the electorate.
I need to think this one through a bit more.
Don, thanks for your reply, you’ve made some very good observations.
As far as proportional representation goes, having a Primary Election of 3 votes for 3 chosen candidates with a points value table, gives a fairer change for allowing a win for a candidate who may get less 1st choice votes but have a majority on 2nd and 3rd choice votes which will put him/her into the two horse race with enough overall points. This is something that can not happen under the present system.
Admittedly this system is not PR as we really see it, but it’s still a lot fairer in giving chances for all the ballot paper electorate by making tactful voting unnecessary, and far more honest and sympathetic towards the voters choice in this modern age where so many candidates seem to be standing compared to only a few in the past.
However it would become far more accurate with ground-swell public opinion with a 3 vote & points system in a Primary Election, and the results of this to produce a two horse race.
The resent council elections in my ward fielded 16 candidates, and imo it spreads the vote out too thin for one duff vote only system. The BBC News reported the national turnout was around 36% which is nothing short of pathetic - imo the turnout should be at least 90% with any election!
I don’t believe in making voting compulsory, but I do believe in encouraging people to vote. It tends to be the young that are not bothering with elections, so to encourage them [and other ages too] an example system could be as follows:
Voters up to the age of 30 will receive £50 for attending the ballot office and casting their vote. They may spoil their ballot papers if they wish, but they have to attend to get the £50.
Voters over the age of 30 and under 60 do not receive any money for voting but may avoid their civic duty of voting by paying a fee of £50.
Voters over 60 unaffected.
Alternatively, the reward for voting could lower personal tax allowance codes, or raising it for failure to attend voting.
There are all kinds of ways of rewarding vote attendance that could and should be used, and this may seem luxury or may seem harsh, but when one considers how much tax we pay over a year, a small award for voting, or a small charge for not voting is not only amenable but would influence the people [the young especially] to get more involved with politics.
It wasn’t so long ago people fought wars and paid the ultimate sacrifice to keep this country free and democratic, so why not call it a civic duty and work out the little incentives and encouragements : )
Debs
I think it's time for a pensioners party as they seem to soon become the largest group, but we would have to have some young types to represent us as we would forget what we stood for.
we would have to have some young types to represent us as we would forget what we stood for.
Knowing nothing while thinking we knew everything?
I'd rather forget, safe in the knowledge that I know I know nothing.
I think it's time for a pensioners party as they seem to soon become the largest group, but we would have to have some young types to represent us as we would forget what we stood for.
BigH47
I have spent the last few weeks knocking on doors and delivering leaflets in support of my son who has been re elected as a Tory councillor.
This does give me a good feel for things, assuming of course, you trust my judgement.
The majority of baby boomers tend to vote Tory and the older they are, the more pro Tory they become and they always vote, even if they have to be pushed in their wheel chairs. So the Tories will always look after pensioners because that is where their votes tend to come from.
Most pensioners have done quite well and a few weeks ago I was having a drink with the chap who is now doing my old job in the Royal Mail. My pension has gone up 3 times as fast as his pay increases since 2007 and if this continues, my pension will be greater than his salary which is food for thought.
As a baby boomer we have done alright, we all bought our houses for a pittance and now they are all worth six figures, we all have final salary pension schemes that are index linked and we will probably live longer than what the pension was designed to support us for, and if you compare us to the average 20/30 something, we are doing very well inded. We are all going to die with a healthy bank account .
We don't need looking after as we old baby boomers have looked after ourselves very well indeed.
Regards
Mick
Feel really safe in the knowledge that some folks in a forum dedicated to expensive hifi have sorted out democracy - lol
Tog
Flawed though it is - I don't have a problem with the one that we have got
Tog
Where is the destruction you speak of?
A straight and steady path has be steered out of the Blair-Brown economic un-miracle, and hence that the Tories at least have not [as you would expect at this point in the General Election Cycle] been decimated by Labour in the local elections this week, because though people prefer the apparently more humane face of the Labour Party they know that "Lab" cannot be trusted to run the economy with prudence. This im-prudence hurts the working man every bit as much as big business.
ATB from George
George, I have said this before elsewhere on this forum, but if you think our current travails are down to Bliar and Brown, you are deeply mistaken. The current mess most of the West (and much of the world) is in is down to the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has ruled since the late 1970s.
Blair and Brown are to blame in as much as they jumped on (or rather, failed to jump off) the neo-liberal bandwagon, but really they're no different from any other PM, chancellor, economist or CEO.
The idea that the structural problems of our economy are down to something as simple as a Labour Govt spending more than they earned (which of course they did, but so did Thatch) is a lie perpetrated by the moral pygmies who advocate the rotten and decadent tenets of neo-liberalism.
Dear Kevin,
Blair and Brown did not invent the problems they added to. I agree with that. The economic system that they went along with is very much a question of unregulated capitalism.
What is so disappointing about Blair and Brown is that, as Parliamentary Candidates standing for election on a Socialist [Labour Party] ticket, they should have done something. But they did not. They should have tried to change things. In some respects one could describe Mr Blair as the best Thatcherite after Mrs. Thatcher herself.
On a broader level, I think one can draw an analogy between capitalism and a nuclear reaction. Both have tremendous strength to release energy. Neither can be allowed to do so in an unregulated fashion or else an inevitable melt-down will occur. That has long been my view.
Both capitalism and nuclear energy are very powerful engines. In the West we have employed the engine of capitalism to motivate our economies with quite some success, but it is a dangerous engine if left to run ungoverned. It can and is racing away in a bad direction, where the power of capital is increasing the wealth of those who already own most of it, at the expense of anyone who works for a small wage, and globalisation means this is worst in the poorest territories. This an abuse in my opinion.
The modern tendency for politicians in the mature democracies to ignore the need for tough regulation of capitalism - and one that is agreed and implemented across international borders in a concerted fashion - has the potential to ruin the lives of billions of people.
When one considers the G 8, or G 20 or whatever G number is current and the summitry that goes on under this title, it seems to me at least that this concerted regulation of capitalism across global borders should be at the top of the agenda at each summit!
ATB from George
I wish people would cut out the Yin-Yang and get back on Don’s topic of Proportional Representation -
which to my mind means how to go about electing people.
Debs
The UK voted in 2011 to retain the current FPTP system.
That is what democracy is about - accepting what the majority want with good grace.