tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post1765536155391409917..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: Fisking the Working Class Tory on FPTPMark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-64063725682126019742009-08-02T14:01:39.324+01:002009-08-02T14:01:39.324+01:00I disagree, I think my argument follows quite logi...I disagree, I think my argument follows quite logically.<br /><br />Put it this way: the argument for proportional representation is nearly always put in terms of party votes at national level: Party x got y percent of the votes, but z percent of the seats, where therefore broken system. An independent candidate standing in only one constituency can only ever have some miniscule proportion of the national vote, but if they won they'd have 1/646th of the seats. Proportionality and Independence, therefore, must be at cross-purposes. Any move towards one is a move away from the other.<br /><br />As for how I'd solve the whole country's problems... That'll have to wait for another day :-)Stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315721343398529214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-16034477122228129562009-08-02T13:44:11.692+01:002009-08-02T13:44:11.692+01:00Stu - I think you may be misunderstanding STV. Th...Stu - I think you may be misunderstanding STV. There is no weighting for parties - unlike list systems, people vote for <b>candidates</b>.<br /><br />Whether or not we end up with more independent MPs I don't know (I'm not a big fan of independents so I wouldn't see it as a measure of success). But certainly it would be <i>easier</i> for voters to elect an independent <i>if they wanted to</i>.<br /><br />If voters wanted to elect party MPs, they could do that too.Costigan Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06258059903562611509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-26810952762757605692009-08-02T13:17:37.207+01:002009-08-02T13:17:37.207+01:00I am not at all sure I agree with some of your ana...I am not at all sure I agree with some of your analysis here Stu. STV opens things up more and I cannot see how that would make it less likely for independents to get in. Do you know of any evidence that would point to this, e.g. from other countries?<br /><br />STV really would give the voter more of a voice.<br /><br />I would interested to hear what your solution to our current mess would be given your comments about the party system as a whole.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-37229229875801286022009-08-02T13:10:44.959+01:002009-08-02T13:10:44.959+01:00I know you were using it as a point against FPTP, ...I know you were using it as a point against FPTP, but you were implicitly using the amount of independents as a measure of the system - more independents the better.<br /><br />I suspect you're wrong about there being more independents under STV - weighting the system to favour proportionality of party votes can never encourage independent participation. And in a multi-member system, many voters will vote down the line for their own party, with one or two of their 'lower' preference votes going to their favourite opposing party. Independents would be squeezed out entirely.<br /><br />'Proportionality', in any form, only means divvying up the votes more evenly between the various parties, it doesn't really mean giving the voters a greater voice. If anything it bakes the party system in even further. That's really the entire point.<br /><br />Whether or not you consider that a bad thing is left to the reader to decide, of course, but personally I can't help but feel that the party system is at the root of about 75% of what's wrong with politics.Stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315721343398529214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-26869852151996979142009-08-02T12:32:16.350+01:002009-08-02T12:32:16.350+01:00Stu - I was actually using that as an argument aga...Stu - I was actually using that as an argument against FPTP rather than necessarily for STV. I accept it is also not easy to get independent candidates in using STV.<br /><br />I suspect that we would get more independents under STV as they would only need to get say 20% across a multi-member seat as opposed to around 35% or 40% in a seat now.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-67497976876288395972009-08-02T12:24:25.757+01:002009-08-02T12:24:25.757+01:00How many independent MPs have we had in the Common...<em>How many independent MPs have we had in the Commons in the last 50 years for example? Hardly any.</em><br /><br />VERY dangerous argument to make, Mark. Under any form of proportional representation it is near enough inconceivable that significant amounts of independents can be elected. Because, by definition, proportional representation looks at <em>party</em> votes over a wide area. Even your prized STV system will inevitably strengthen the <em>party</em> vote about the <em>candidate</em> vote.<br /><br />You'd probably (not to put words in your mouth) point out that parties could put more candidates up, but that would be missing the point - proportional representation means, by definition, candidates <em>must be party members</em> before they can have even the slightest glimmer of hope of being elected.<br /><br />Proportionality and independent politicians are mutually exclusive. If I were you I wouldn't touch that argument with a barge pole.Stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315721343398529214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-69432082734900498692009-08-02T11:08:29.957+01:002009-08-02T11:08:29.957+01:00Interesting, and a lot to think about.Interesting, and a lot to think about.Kalvis Jansonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379157181034658841noreply@blogger.com