tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post2817639099873281863..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: MPs cannot be allowed to prevent electoral reformMark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-78223055854158035112009-06-15T11:33:35.213+01:002009-06-15T11:33:35.213+01:00Apologies, my previous comment was slightly rushed...Apologies, my previous comment was slightly rushed. I was trying to make the point that FPTP has merits and should not be cast off because one person made a bad argument for it.<br /><br />As I said I am open to a change in system although I do prefer FPTP. STV would probably be my second preference as it were.<br /><br />However there are arguments for and against any system (scroll down on the link Mark posted) and these should be considered.<br /><br />Equally I think (although it is not particularly fair) the fact that FPTP has at least worked for hundreds of years is a point to be counted in its favour and replacing it without fully considering the ramifications of this action could be very dangerous.<br /><br />If the electorate as a whole as well as perhaps a body such as the jury which mark suggests concludes another system is preferable and practical then I would not be opposed to its implementation.<br /><br />From my point of view however it would probably be a disappointment that the FPTP case would be made by people like Portillo who can only muster "stop the BNP"esque arguments.Tory Outcasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06764331899206941164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-8878449514654434162009-06-13T20:53:50.418+01:002009-06-13T20:53:50.418+01:00It's the old authoritarian argument for strong...It's the old authoritarian argument for strong leadership. <br /><br />But what good is strong leadership if it leads to bad outcomes?<br /><br />I don't understand why Portillo is arguing this line and being disgusted at the choice of the electorate for a couple of extreme authoritarians - not only does he clearly not trust the public but he sets himself apart from the rest of the people. At times like this Portillo is completely incoherent.Oranjepanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08150901449640162740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-30815766299662166192009-06-13T14:14:06.789+01:002009-06-13T14:14:06.789+01:00Indeed Joe. Coincidentally I have posted about tha...Indeed Joe. Coincidentally I have <a href="http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/06/david-cameron-should-accept-david-davis.html" rel="nofollow">posted about that curious fact myself</a> this morning.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-6227201977563972912009-06-13T13:56:10.534+01:002009-06-13T13:56:10.534+01:00And of course none of the Tory arguments work agai...And of course none of the Tory arguments work against AV. The only Tory argument against AV is David Cameron himself. David Davies would be the leader under FPTP.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-76389418637306402522009-06-13T11:23:41.493+01:002009-06-13T11:23:41.493+01:00Tory Outcast -
As I keep finding myself having to...Tory Outcast -<br /><br />As I keep finding myself having to say, I do not support list PR. I agree that would not be a good system. I support <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=103" rel="nofollow">Single Transferable Vote in Multi Member constituencies</a> which has all sorts of positive features and is roughly proportional.<br /><br />I agree that there is a chance that MPs may push issues that they think will win them more votes but frankly with two thirds of MPs in safe seats the effect of this is greatly blunted. With STV, there would be no safe seats and there would be a real incentive for MPs to engage with what their constituents wanted. Instead of representing the party's best interests they would genuinely have to take their constituents views into account. Danial Hannan has talked about this a lot recently although he does not advocate STV (yet, but his friend Douglas Carswell is advocating it).<br /><br />Your comment about there being the possibility of voters rallying behind the closest rival in a seat is one of the worst things about our current system. Why should a voter have to tactically work out how to get rid of an MP by voting for someone they did not actually want to vote for? This is disenfranchising, and it often doesn't work anyway. I do not see this option as a good thing at all but as a horrible compromise that some feel compelled to do by the rotten system we currently have.<br /><br />As for your final comment about not wanting to reform in a crisis, well I am afraid that it is never the right time to seriously look at reform for the two big parties as they have too much vested interest in the existing system. As so often with our unwritten constitutions, It will take a crisis to result in any change. I am not saying this is the best way to do it, but given Labour and Tory intranisigence on this it is probably the only way it will ever happen.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-82760580865302473492009-06-13T11:03:47.175+01:002009-06-13T11:03:47.175+01:00The argument was not well done by Portillo I admit...The argument was not well done by Portillo I admit. You cannot subvert democracy because you do not like the choice of the electorate.<br /><br />However there are strong arguments for FPTP that should not be ignored. Having a specific MP to represent you has many advantages and means you can vote on the person as well as the party as opposed to most PR systems which hand the choice to the political elite. Perhaps open primaries would be worth considering to improve this benefit before we jump straight into PR.<br /><br />As far as "disenfranchising millions across the country" I accept this is a disadvantage but it is based on the assumption that people only vote so their candidate wins.<br /><br />If this were true nobody would vote for anybody who didn't have at least some chance of winning. If an MP sees more people voting for another party (particularly a one issue party) in his constituency he is likely to attempt to push that agenda more in the commons to win them over. Any MP with half a brain (not all of them I admit) will not ignore a rival's policies entirely just because they didn't win with them.<br /><br />Equally even in many "strong" constituencies there is still a chance (even if you can't get your first choice to win) to rally behind the closest rival to remove the incumbent. This sort of negative accountability is the most basic form of democracy that is the least any citizen should have. It is one that would be lost by most party chosen list PR systems<br /><br />If PR is chosen by a fair and considered process then I would accept it but if history has taught us anything it is a lesson about the dangers of massive reform in the wake of a single crisis.Tory Outcasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06764331899206941164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-84272124940198549002009-06-13T08:59:51.014+01:002009-06-13T08:59:51.014+01:00"""The solution is for a citizens c..."""The solution is for a citizens convention populated by ordinary people chosen in the same way as juries are chosen (but with more than 12 members) who are given the time and space to look at all the different systems and come to a conclusion about which is the best one to change to. This can then be put to the country in a referendum."""<br /><br />The problem with that solution is that MPs would have to agree on it. As you point out Labour and the Conservatives benefit from FPTP so are unlikely to want change.<br /><br />However, there is hope. In the last nationwide election, most voters (<a href="http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/fptp-is-dead-it-needs-to-be-buried/" rel="nofollow">56% of them</a>) voted for someone other than Labour or the Tories. Many of these votes were protest votes, but the majority of them voted for parties that they believed in. <br /><br />All these voters voted for parties that're underprepresented in the HoC because of FPTP. All these voters therefore have an interest in getting rid of FPTP and replacing it with a PR system such as AV+ or STV.<br /><br />If all these voters could get together and run a joint candidate in each constituency, they'd win by a landslide. But they can't get together because they represrent different parties with widely different views.<br /><br />So what they -- the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, SNP, PC, English Democrats -- should do is form a grand coalition of electoral reform, which will (1) provisionally choose a PR system, perhaps AV+, (2) set up a citizens' convention which will decide these issues in the long term, (3) immediately hold another general election.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-16683796745022731982009-06-12T17:29:40.621+01:002009-06-12T17:29:40.621+01:00mark, we have a big problem, how can we force MPs ...mark, we have a big problem, how can we force MPs to change the way they are elected? I also think we need legislation to open up party democracy.neil hardinghttp://neilharding.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-82226147061176212202009-06-12T17:22:05.517+01:002009-06-12T17:22:05.517+01:00I watched This Week. A discussion programme, it tr...I watched This Week. A discussion programme, it tries to go beyond just repeating the party line.<br /><br />I suspect that Mr Portillo was thinking of elected people as "good eggs" and thus any system that lets in people like the BNP is to be rejected.<br /><br />I would like him to move to regarding elections as producing representatives, not saints.<br /><br />There is also a big difference between getting into a Parliament and getting into power.<br /><br />It is important to keep the BNP out of power but we are nowhere near a Hitler situation.<br /><br />The current situation is like a duopoly (noted by Polly Toynbee).<br /><br />This does not give political parties much incentive to change policy to keep up with the electorate.<br /><br />My preferred system for Westminster would have the proportion of MPs corresponding to the vote share.Voternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-78182636939133229622009-06-12T16:47:26.392+01:002009-06-12T16:47:26.392+01:00With AV, of course, the BNP would lose most of the...With AV, of course, the BNP would lose most of the seats they have been winning under FPTP.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-69441504564962521742009-06-12T16:43:46.836+01:002009-06-12T16:43:46.836+01:00I've been having the same thought process.
Al...I've been having the same thought process.<br /><br />Also agree on Portillo on This week last night. His whole premise is that PR allows extremists in.<br /><br />Never mind the fact that folks actually voted for them, there is the inconvenient fact that though FPTP may keep out extremists, it will also keep out totally virtuous smaller parties. On that basis, FPTP is indefensible.<br /><br />The self interest is palpable.Wayne Lawrencehttp://optionscoop.comnoreply@blogger.com