Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 5th September 2017, 06:23 AM

Thought this might be of interest...

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-2017-general-election-report/

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2017, 02:31 PM

For me, the article makes a good case for changing the voting system.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th September 2017, 07:42 PM

Tbf, I wouldn't expect anything less from the Electoral Reform Society

I hope to find time to read it soon.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th September 2017, 05:21 AM

I was very disappointed with the choice we were offered in the 2011 Voting Reform referendum - the Alternative Vote is *not* a proportional system, and was probably chosen to be the least appealing to those who did want change.

Posted by: Baytree 8th September 2017, 12:25 PM

The Single Transferable Vote system which we use in Scotland for local elections, is a nightmare to count. However it is much more proportional.

This government has no respect for democracy no matter what system is used. They want to rule by statute and cut out as much debate as they can in Westminster.

A Tory in a key seat didn't get elected at the GE. He was immediately made a Lord and attached to the Scottish Office.

Posted by: Qassändra 8th September 2017, 12:40 PM

AMS! AMS!

Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th September 2017, 01:31 PM

STV! STV!

For local government at least.

I'm still quite fond of AV, and baffled by the idea that it's somehow worse than FPTP.

Posted by: Iz~ 8th September 2017, 01:41 PM

Agreed. I heard so much stuff about tactical voting between Lib and Lab supporters during the last election (it's Cornwall, there at least WAS an argument) - and none of that would have been an issue with AV, let alone some of the even better systems we could have been looking into by now.

Posted by: MoistSummerFruit 8th September 2017, 02:12 PM

PREACH BAYLEAF!!!

Its is the same problem as with Empire - the Tories want to rule as kings and not represent the average person, just like with the colonies.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th September 2017, 02:19 PM

Did you meant 'learnt, or 'want'?

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th September 2017, 04:20 PM

STV has always been my preferred system. It is highly proportional and puts the power in the hands of the voters.

Posted by: Qassändra 8th September 2017, 10:33 PM

STV is so DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND though. So many ordinarily intelligent people (SOMEHOW) end up confused by AV and come out with all sorts of nonsense about not using your second preferences to ensure their first preference gets elected - I SHUDDER TO THINK what the average voter would make of Droop quotas and Saint-Lagüe systems and the like.

But you CAN'T go WRONG with a CONSTITUENCY AND A LIST

Posted by: Andrew. 8th September 2017, 11:20 PM

AMS works really well for Holyrood! All the parties are roughly correctly represented and it means no party can ram through legislation (if we used the same system as Westminster that labour/the tories both still support then the SNP would have literally nearly all the seats, even as a SNP supporter I can say that would be really unfair), my only issue is that candidates who have been massively rejected in constituency seats (Tory MSP Annie Wells got 8.6% of the vote in her constituency but still got in via the list) can get in despite being personally rejected, and the parties can basically choose who's in parliament without them having to win many constituency seats which results in some voters not having the opportunity to throw out their MSP like you can in Westminster. I would change it either so you can't stand on the list if you are in a constituency or only a certain number of 'constituency rejects' can be elected for a party (say 1 per region then it goes to people who weren't constituency candidates) OR randomize the party list candidates. Hope that made sense

Posted by: vidcapper 9th September 2017, 05:27 AM

What's so difficult about ranking candidates in order of preference?

You don't need to know the technicalities, any more than you need to know how a bus works in order to ride in it...

Posted by: Qassändra 9th September 2017, 02:23 PM

Well, notionally nothing, but it's what happens when you get into the realms of people tactically voting. You'd think ordering 1 to 5 wouldn't be that hard to understand, but you still have people regularly coming out with UTTER NONSENSE like "I gave you all five of my votes" or "only vote for this candidate first preference and don't use any of your other preferences to make sure they win!". With the discovery that yes, some people really ARE that stupid, sticking to just one X each for a constituency and a list seems much more appealing.

Posted by: Baytree 9th September 2017, 03:03 PM

Yes, you can. It's good that smaller parties get better representation but you end up with major parties' numpties who have trailled in 3rd or 4th in a constituency seat getting list seats.

Posted by: Qassändra 9th September 2017, 06:35 PM

I was more referring to people not being confused by the voting system.

On the point though, how often is the constituency result really down to THEM? And I can't speak for the Tories, but I know that Labour and the Lib Dems at least have internal democracy on how high up the list a candidate ends up, so they have to prove themselves as much through selection as any constituency candidate does.

Posted by: Andrew. 9th September 2017, 06:48 PM

Well yes, but when it comes to people who are already constituency MPs it means that voters can't just boot them out like they should be able to.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th September 2017, 06:53 PM

Precisely. The count is indeed complicated, but that isn't the individual voter's problem. Besides, other countries use it. Are people saying that British voters are less intelligent than those of other countries?

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th September 2017, 06:54 PM

With STV you have constituencies and you have a list of candidates.

Posted by: Qassändra 10th September 2017, 01:23 AM

Yes.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th September 2017, 06:32 PM

Under a list system of PR there are still a lot of people who are guaranteed to be elected simply by being at the top of the party list. STV gives voters the power to decide which of a party's candidates are elected. Therefore, any MP whose seat can be considered "safe" is only safe because of their own efforts.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 10th September 2017, 10:12 PM

Tbh my support for STV is at least partially due to the assumption that it would be the most likely system to get rid of Kate Hoey.

Posted by: Harve 10th September 2017, 10:17 PM

Voting systems should be judged by how likely they are to unseat Philip Davies and Kate Hoey.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th September 2017, 10:18 PM

That's fair enough

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th September 2017, 10:21 PM

They are both good reasons why I support STV. Why should a person who wants a Tory government but whose views are on the left of the party have to vote for someone like Philip Davies?

Posted by: Qassändra 11th September 2017, 12:50 AM

Would Philip Davies and Kate Hoey likely be that high up a party list? I'm sceptical they wouldn't win anyway in a several member seat.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 11th September 2017, 06:40 AM

I suppose it depends on 1. how open the selection for the list was under AMS, and 2. what the constituencies were like under STV.

I could see a way that the West Yorkshire seats could be done under STV that the Tories would only get one MP elected in the one covering Shipley and Davies could be pushed out. In an "inner South London" one I suppose we'd do well enough that Hoey might survive.