Vote!

[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.

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

Twice in five years, what an imposition.

Democracy must have one of the lowest baud rates in the universe.

[Count Steer]

PS I know there's a concerted campaign 'Dish the Bish' because they're seen as not 'on message' according to their voting record ie they have voted against this government if they felt the need to. (Article in The Spectator complete with voting records). Funny/ironic though that the loudest voices in the campaign love to, metaphorically, drape themselves in the flag of....St George.

TBH though, it's way down the list of what's wrong with 'the Lords'. (Even the name gives an indication of what's wrong with it!).

[Cousin Jack]

IMO no one should be in it ex-officio. Not bishops, certainly not earls and suchlike, not ex-PMs, or ex-anything.

People should be appointed to it based on what they can offer, with a 3-5 year term and a retirement age. No pay, and expenses need to be supported by receipts, and seriously scrutinised.

Attendance records and voting records to be published, and attendance is 5 hours or it doesn't count.

Chose people from all areas, and all walks of life. They need intelligence and experience of life, but young people should be encouraged, and old parts like me should be pensioned off.

[Yorick]

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.

So you're better than someone who believes in God?

[Count Steer]

IMO no one should be in it ex-officio. Not bishops, certainly not earls and suchlike, not ex-PMs, or ex-anything.

People should be appointed to it based on what they can offer, with a 3-5 year term and a retirement age. No pay, and expenses need to be supported by receipts, and seriously scrutinised.

Attendance records and voting records to be published, and attendance is 5 hours or it doesn't count.

Chose people from all areas, and all walks of life. They need intelligence and experience of life, but young people should be encouraged, and old parts like me should be pensioned off.

Don't disagree for the most part, although, if you want people to do a job, pay 'em - otherwise it'll be a rich boys club. Overall though, I'll go with the Electoral Reform Society view which also would 'dish the bish' unless their congregation wanted to vote for them.

I wonder how many people know just how many bishops are in there...26!!? Similarly, like me, they probably thought the hereditary peers thing was finished. Not quite, the one's in there can vote new ones in.

[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.

So you're better than someone who believes in God?

No, but I make decisions based on data and logic.
God bothers don't always do that when the correct answer (based on data and logic) doesn't line up with what their sky fairy writings say.

eg, the sanctity of life. When I get really old and totally knackered I may wish to end it all. I think I should have the right to do so, and stuff written down 2000 years ago should have no bearing on the matter.

[Yorick]

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.

So you're better than someone who believes in God?

No, but I make decisions based on data and logic.
God bothers don't always do that when the correct answer (based on data and logic) doesn't line up with what their sky fairy writings say.

So if you had a heart attack and there was a doctor on hand who could save your life.
Would you ask him first to confirm he was an atheist before you let him touch you?
(After all, he has complete power over your life)

No, thought not.

[Cousin Jack]

No, but I don't want someone with a belief-based opinion making rules that affect me. You wouldn't want a Hindu banning you from eating beef, nor an Islamist or Jew forbidding you from eating pork.

I am quite happy being treated by a doctor of any, or no, religion. If I were female and needing an abortion I might not be so happy with some of them.

[Count Steer]

No, but I don't want someone with a belief-based opinion making rules that affect me. You wouldn't want a Hindu banning you from eating beef, nor an Islamist or Jew forbidding you from eating pork.

I am quite happy being treated by a doctor of any, or no, religion. If I were female and needing an abortion I might not be so happy with some of them.

You're kind of totally missing the point though. Democracy isn't about eliminating the opinions, views, beliefs of everyone that disagrees with you. It's about giving proportionate weight to the views of everyone. Even 26 bishops can't swing a vote in a legislature of 700+. If it does, worry about all the others that didn't agree with you too. You have a very odd view of democracy if you think anyone here can or is in a position to vote stop you eating anything.

You may need to examine your logic circuits.

[cheb]

So you're better than someone who believes in God?

No, but I make decisions based on data and logic.
God bothers don't always do that when the correct answer (based on data and logic) doesn't line up with what their sky fairy writings say.

So if you had a heart attack and there was a doctor on hand who could save your life.
Would you ask him first to confirm he was an atheist before you let him touch you?
(After all, he has complete power over your life)

No, thought not.

If a doctor puts their faith before their professional duty then they should probably reconsider their occupation. If said doctor decides to ignore any advance directive I have because they object to it on religious grounds then they should be up before the GMC IMO.

First do no harm.

[Yorick]

No, but I make decisions based on data and logic.
God bothers don't always do that when the correct answer (based on data and logic) doesn't line up with what their sky fairy writings say.

So if you had a heart attack and there was a doctor on hand who could save your life.
Would you ask him first to confirm he was an atheist before you let him touch you?
(After all, he has complete power over your life)

No, thought not.

If a doctor puts their faith before their professional duty then they should probably reconsider their occupation. If said doctor decides to ignore any advance directive I have because they object to it on religious grounds then they should be up before the GMC IMO.

First do no harm.

That's a helluva tangent you've gone off on

[irie]

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

Twice in five years, what an imposition.

Democracy must have one of the lowest baud rates in the universe.

Why go to the polls twice when going once will suffice?

[irie]

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.

So you're better than someone who believes in God?

Not like you to miss the point.

Oh.

[Cousin Jack]

All I want from MPs or members of the H of L is that they examine the data, and use logic to arrive at a sensible solution. Sadly many don't, for all sorts of reasons.

However Bishops have a very visible history of objecting to some Bills on religious grounds. I would exclude them for that reason, many others are just as bad but far less visible.

[Count Steer]

All I want from MPs or members of the H of L is that they examine the data, and use logic to arrive at a sensible solution. Sadly many don't, for all sorts of reasons.

However Bishops have a very visible history of objecting to some Bills on religious grounds. I would exclude them for that reason, many others are just as bad but far less visible.

So you'd throw out any practising Catholics of course. The observant Jews and Muslims would have to go obvs.

You continue to miss the point. Those 'religious grounds' are shared by a fair slab of the populus. You don't agree with them, that's fine, but that doesn't mean either a) that they should be silenced b) should be unrepresented. Should they be thrown out of the Lower House too? The legislative bodies aren't there to do just what YOU think is logical. You have a vote, I have a vote and so does everyone else, yours counts for no more than any other - unfortunately none of them directly affect the selection of the Upper House....which is more of a problem than your issue with deities.

[Cousin Jack]

I have no issue with deities, they don't exist. I do have a problem with people who imagine they do, and use their imaginary rules in ways that affect my life.

If 'democracy' means giving equal weight to the opinions of the deluded then I am not in favour of democracy.

[irie]

All I want from MPs or members of the H of L is that they examine the data, and use logic to arrive at a sensible solution. Sadly many don't, for all sorts of reasons.

However Bishops have a very visible history of objecting to some Bills on religious grounds. I would exclude them for that reason, many others are just as bad but far less visible.

So you'd throw out any practising Catholics of course. The observant Jews and Muslims would have to go obvs.

You continue to miss the point. Those 'religious grounds' are shared by a fair slab of the populus. You don't agree with them, that's fine, but that doesn't mean either a) that they should be silenced b) should be unrepresented. Should they be thrown out of the Lower House too? The legislative bodies aren't there to do just what YOU think is logical. You have a vote, I have a vote and so does everyone else, yours counts for no more than any other - unfortunately none of them directly affect the selection of the Upper House....which is more of a problem than your issue with deities.

The point is that on a personal private basis you can of course believe anything you want, but no public representatives of religious faiths should be allowed to sit in the Upper House.

[cheb]

So if you had a heart attack and there was a doctor on hand who could save your life.
Would you ask him first to confirm he was an atheist before you let him touch you?
(After all, he has complete power over your life)

No, thought not.

If a doctor puts their faith before their professional duty then they should probably reconsider their occupation. If said doctor decides to ignore any advance directive I have because they object to it on religious grounds then they should be up before the GMC IMO.

First do no harm.

That's a helluva tangent you've gone off on

Is it? You mentioned heart attacks, if I have one I don't want to be resucitated, it'd in my notes, |I've an advanced directive, my spouse and spawn know my views. If a doctor, or any health worker decided that their god want s me to live then tough on them, do as you are told.

There was a case in Ireland a few years back where a woman died after being refused treatment on religious grounds. I'll have a search for it.

[mangocrazy]

No bishops!

Worrabout pawns, knights and rooks? This is clearly discriminatory against diagonally travelling entities.

(But no kings and queens, obvs...)

[Saga Lout]

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

Twice in five years, what an imposition.

Democracy must have one of the lowest baud rates in the universe.

Why go to the polls twice when going once will suffice?

I quite agree. Vote when you're 18 and never vote again. That's the way to do it.

If you can't be bothered to vote twice in five years you deserve the government you get.