Vote!

[irie]

I've been doing a bit of research on PR - what the various forms of it are, who uses them and contemplating, roughly, how successful they are. One thing that dropped out was Blair took complete control of government in 2005 with 25% of the vote so that goes some way to explaining why the 2 main parties like FPTP. You can run a country how you like when 75% of the people didn't vote for you.

When politics is binary you get short term economic flip-flopping between political ideologies when long-term stability is needed to develop big stuff/ideas. Less of a problem when both parties tend towards the centre but given CJs comment about PR, the unelected tail has been wagging the Tory dog ever since Farage came on the scene and Labour seem to be dealing with their Unions 'tail'.

The PR used in Germany seems to work but is a bit less democratic perhaps than other forms.

I don't like the preferred candidate lists approach as I like the idea that constituents vote for a representative of the constituency rather than the national party decides (I don't like the way they parachute their 'chosen ones' into constituencies either).

So yes, some form of PR such that the majority of voters every election don't end up feeling disenfranchised and new voices are heard in parliament - at a volume proportional to their balloted support.

@Saga Lout and I discussed this at some length in 'another place' and IIRC came to the conclusion that the most suitable form of PR would be to have two votes, the first for your preferred candidate and if that candidate did not get an overall majority then the second vote would be awarded to your second choice and then stop there with the candidate with the largest number of votes then being elected. Or something like that, I'm sure SL will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cousin Jack]

I am sure complicated schemes can be devised to deliver PR without the risk of small extreme groups holding power.

They all suffer from the same problems.

Clever people will 'game' their voting to try to maximise their influence.
Thick people, ie the great majority, will be confused and will not understand the system nor the effect of their vote.

[Mussels]

PR didn't work very well in Scotland. The SNP share power with the Green Party whose number 1 priority is trans rights.
The Green Party went down this forked path because it set out to be completely democratic with the members voting for the policies, trans activist saw this and joined en masse despite caring little about the environment and corrupted the Greens.
People vote for the Green Party because they want a better environment and all of a sudden we have rapists in women's prisons.

ISTR similar issues in NI that ended up with no government.

[JackyJoll]

PR didn't work very well in Scotland. The SNP share power with the Green Party whose number 1 priority is trans rights.
The Green Party went down this forked path because it set out to be completely democratic with the members voting for the policies, trans activist saw this and joined en masse despite caring little about the environment and corrupted the Greens.
People vote for the Green Party because they want a better environment and all of a sudden we have rapists in women's prisons.

ISTR similar issues in NI that ended up with no government.

And to the Scottish Green Party, having a bad road system is a policy success.

[Saga Lout]

@Saga Lout and I discussed this at some length in 'another place' and IIRC came to the conclusion that the most suitable form of PR would be to have two votes, the first for your preferred candidate and if that candidate did not get an overall majority then the second vote would be awarded to your second choice and then stop there with the candidate with the largest number of votes then being elected. Or something like that, I'm sure SL will correct me if I'm wrong.

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

EDIT: https://goodparty.org/blog/article/what ... f-election Presidential elections in France use this system.

Also, a "None Of The Above" option on the first ballot. Any candidate getting fewer than None Of The Above is banned from standing for that body for a suitable amount of time, e.g. for a general election the time would be 5 years so that they are ineligible to stand at the next general election. If none of the above wins there's another ballot with fresh candidates (obviously, 'cos the originals are banned). If none of the above comes second then number 1 is elected.

A dead heat would be decided as it is now: draw lots or spin a coin, something like that.

[Pirahna]

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

I'd like to see a system where every vote counts, and that isn't it. I'd also like to see unelected officials not having a say, get rid of the House of Lords and remove the power of the monarch.

[Cousin Jack]

Unelected officials, yes. Way too much power 'devolved' to jobsworths.
House of Lords - needs MAJOR reform, but a 2nd Review Chamber is a good idea.
Monarch - no real power left, and a new Head of State (President?) would:
A) Confuse the power base
B) Cost an arm and a leg. New Presidential Palace, Presidential Jet, etc, etc

[irie]

@Saga Lout and I discussed this at some length in 'another place' and IIRC came to the conclusion that the most suitable form of PR would be to have two votes, the first for your preferred candidate and if that candidate did not get an overall majority then the second vote would be awarded to your second choice and then stop there with the candidate with the largest number of votes then being elected. Or something like that, I'm sure SL will correct me if I'm wrong.

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

EDIT: https://goodparty.org/blog/article/what ... f-election Presidential elections in France use this system.

Also, a "None Of The Above" option on the first ballot. Any candidate getting fewer than None Of The Above is banned from standing for that body for a suitable amount of time, e.g. for a general election the time would be 5 years so that they are ineligible to stand at the next general election. If none of the above wins there's another ballot with fresh candidates (obviously, 'cos the originals are banned). If none of the above comes second then number 1 is elected.

A dead heat would be decided as it is now: draw lots or spin a coin, something like that.

Would be best if the primary and alternative votes were made at the same time - don't want to go the polling booths twice.

[Taipan]

Blokes who don't even know how to clean their own specs?

The overwhelming majority of voters want to bring their families up peacefully with a good educational system, an efficient readily available health system, safe streets, a fair and readily available justice system, free from the attempted social engineering of minorities pushing their woke agendas, and so on. It's probably fair to say that someone not cleaning their specs is fairly low on their list of priorities.

If they think Reform UK will deliver it then they probably can't clean their own specs either.

I know the main two parties can't deliver it, so Reform UK might be worth a punt. TBF my glasses are always smeary despite my best efforts!

[Cousin Jack]

@Saga Lout and I discussed this at some length in 'another place' and IIRC came to the conclusion that the most suitable form of PR would be to have two votes, the first for your preferred candidate and if that candidate did not get an overall majority then the second vote would be awarded to your second choice and then stop there with the candidate with the largest number of votes then being elected. Or something like that, I'm sure SL will correct me if I'm wrong.

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

EDIT: https://goodparty.org/blog/article/what ... f-election Presidential elections in France use this system.

Also, a "None Of The Above" option on the first ballot. Any candidate getting fewer than None Of The Above is banned from standing for that body for a suitable amount of time, e.g. for a general election the time would be 5 years so that they are ineligible to stand at the next general election. If none of the above wins there's another ballot with fresh candidates (obviously, 'cos the originals are banned). If none of the above comes second then number 1 is elected.

A dead heat would be decided as it is now: draw lots or spin a coin, something like that.

Would be best if the primary and alternative votes were made at the same time - don't want to go the polling booths twice.

So realistically, once you go 2nd ballot the turnout would plummet, so effective power handed to a committed minority. Exactly what you were trying to avoid.

[Count Steer]

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

I'd like to see a system where every vote counts, and that isn't it. I'd also like to see unelected officials not having a say, get rid of the House of Lords and remove the power of the monarch.

The House of Lords is frequently a useful check on the sense and legality of legislation so, on balance I'd keep it but give it a damn good clear out. They made a good start with getting shot of hereditary peers. (Great logic...my dad was here so I'm the right person for the job ).

My first steps. Kick everyone out that has made political donations worth more than £5k total and no more ex-Prime Ministers picks. Compulsory retirement at 70. Failure to attend more than x% of debates = the heave-ho. First target, 250 members. (It's currently the second largest legislative chamber in. the. world. (Behind the National People's Congress of China and the only 2-house situation where the second chamber is bigger than the first). Utterly ludicrous. Selection ratified, like any other job...'what skills/knowledge do you bring to this organisation - that we need?'

Oh, yeah...bishops. Max 2.

[irie]

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

I'd like to see a system where every vote counts, and that isn't it. I'd also like to see unelected officials not having a say, get rid of the House of Lords and remove the power of the monarch.

The House of Lords is frequently a useful check on the sense and legality of legislation so, on balance I'd keep it but give it a damn good clear out. They made a good start with getting shot of hereditary peers. (Great logic...my dad was here so I'm the right person for the job ).

My first steps. Kick everyone out that has made political donations worth more than £5k total and no more ex-Prime Ministers picks. Compulsory retirement at 70. Failure to attend more than x% of debates = the heave-ho. First target, 250 members. (It's currently the second largest legislative chamber in. the. world. (Behind the National People's Congress of China and the only 2-house situation where the second chamber is bigger than the first). Utterly ludicrous. Selection ratified, like any other job...'what skills/knowledge do you bring to this organisation - that we need?'

Oh, yeah...bishops. Max 2.

No bishops.

[irie]

My preferred option would be:
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.
If no candidate gets 50% there is a run off election between number 1 and 2.
The candidate who gets over 50% of the votes cast is elected.

EDIT: https://goodparty.org/blog/article/what ... f-election Presidential elections in France use this system.

Also, a "None Of The Above" option on the first ballot. Any candidate getting fewer than None Of The Above is banned from standing for that body for a suitable amount of time, e.g. for a general election the time would be 5 years so that they are ineligible to stand at the next general election. If none of the above wins there's another ballot with fresh candidates (obviously, 'cos the originals are banned). If none of the above comes second then number 1 is elected.

A dead heat would be decided as it is now: draw lots or spin a coin, something like that.

Would be best if the primary and alternative votes were made at the same time - don't want to go the polling booths twice.

So realistically, once you go 2nd ballot the turnout would plummet, so effective power handed to a committed minority. Exactly what you were trying to avoid.

No second ballot, all done on one visit to the polling booths.

[Count Steer]

I'd like to see a system where every vote counts, and that isn't it. I'd also like to see unelected officials not having a say, get rid of the House of Lords and remove the power of the monarch.

The House of Lords is frequently a useful check on the sense and legality of legislation so, on balance I'd keep it but give it a damn good clear out. They made a good start with getting shot of hereditary peers. (Great logic...my dad was here so I'm the right person for the job ).

My first steps. Kick everyone out that has made political donations worth more than £5k total and no more ex-Prime Ministers picks. Compulsory retirement at 70. Failure to attend more than x% of debates = the heave-ho. First target, 250 members. (It's currently the second largest legislative chamber in. the. world. (Behind the National People's Congress of China and the only 2-house situation where the second chamber is bigger than the first). Utterly ludicrous. Selection ratified, like any other job...'what skills/knowledge do you bring to this organisation - that we need?'

Oh, yeah...bishops. Max 2.

No bishops.

Gut reaction is to agree but, as religion plays a significant part for many of the population, some - proportionate - level of involvement in the affairs of the country for the main ones (based on census data) seems vaguely democratic.

[Cousin Jack]

No bishops!

Or rabbis, imams, or any other religious people.

[Count Steer]

No bishops!

Or rabbis, imams, or any other religious people.

You can't just fill it with atheists.

Better to have some official representation than letting individual members claim to be representing (or trying to do it as proxies for) their religions. Some 57% of the population claimed some religious affiliation at the last census so a few visible figureheads offers some official involvement in the legislative process (although I'm sure some would argue to the death that any chosen for the job didn't represent their particular flavour of religion). Maybe a sub panel with a chairperson reporting in on their deliberations or something?

[Cousin Jack]

The problem with ANY religious representative is that by definition they have 'faith', aka weird beliefs unsupported by evidence. If you must have them in the new HofL I want then to declare an interest and absent themselves from any debate or vote where their 'faith' requires a particular view.

I really really don't want someone who believes in a sky fairy to have any control over what I can, or cannot, do.

[Count Steer]

The problem with ANY religious representative is that by definition they have 'faith', aka weird beliefs unsupported by evidence. If you must have them in the new HofL I want then to declare an interest and absent themselves from any debate or vote where their 'faith' requires a particular view.

I really really don't want someone who believes in a sky fairy to have any control over what I can, or cannot, do.

Ah, but, democracy isn't arranging things just to fit with one person's ideology. That's called something different.

[irie]

The House of Lords is frequently a useful check on the sense and legality of legislation so, on balance I'd keep it but give it a damn good clear out. They made a good start with getting shot of hereditary peers. (Great logic...my dad was here so I'm the right person for the job ).

My first steps. Kick everyone out that has made political donations worth more than £5k total and no more ex-Prime Ministers picks. Compulsory retirement at 70. Failure to attend more than x% of debates = the heave-ho. First target, 250 members. (It's currently the second largest legislative chamber in. the. world. (Behind the National People's Congress of China and the only 2-house situation where the second chamber is bigger than the first). Utterly ludicrous. Selection ratified, like any other job...'what skills/knowledge do you bring to this organisation - that we need?'

Oh, yeah...bishops. Max 2.

No bishops.

Gut reaction is to agree but, as religion plays a significant part for many of the population, some - proportionate - level of involvement in the affairs of the country for the main ones (based on census data) seems vaguely democratic.

And for the majority who are either atheists or not Christian? No Christian bishops in the HoL silences at one fell swoop all the atheists and religious non-Christians bleeting about the CoE's privileged position.

[Count Steer]

Gut reaction is to agree but, as religion plays a significant part for many of the population, some - proportionate - level of involvement in the affairs of the country for the main ones (based on census data) seems vaguely democratic.

And for the majority who are either atheists or not Christian? No Christian bishops in the HoL silences at one fell swoop all the atheists and religious non-Christians bleeting about the CoE's privileged position.

According to the census atheists aren't the majority (46.2% Christian, 37.2% None, 6% No answer, so about 11% 'others'). You can only go on what people say they are really. Bundling up all the non-Christians with the atheists doesn't seem right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... ed_Kingdom