Brown to propose electoral reform

[_float_]

Proper STV would almost certaintly guarantee seats for the Greens in whatever constituencies contain Brighton and Norwich (maybe Lewisham and Hackney too), and the BNP in Barking, Havering and Bradford

The AV Brown is discussing won't help get BNP elected, for example:

Barking 2005 results:

Labour 13,826 (48%)
Conservative 4,943 (17%)
BNP 4,916 (17%)
LibDem 3,211 (11%)
All others 2,010 (7%)

The danger under first past the post is a massive collapse in Labour votes, and the BNP creeping in to win - for example:

BNP 35%
Lab 30%
Con 20%
LD 10%
Other 5%

Under Brown's proposed AV it is *harder* for the BNP to win as they would need to get above 50% by attracting second preference votes from Con, LibDem and Other. It makes also it easier to persuade people to cast an anti-BNP vote via their choice of second preference.

AV-plus on the other hand will see smaller parties, including the BNP, get some 'top-up' seats, like they did on the London Assembly for example.

 

[LoveMeDont]

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister's statement will not endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system but it will call for a debate on whether the electoral system should be changed and which new system could be adopted. It will not set out a timetable for any change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8092235.stm

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath that this is ever going to happen.

 

[Nemo]

"Needed"?! Needed for who?! For me? How's it make my life or anyone else's life any better?!

Well, it would help make your vote be worth the same as mine; whereas given current electoral realities, I would suspect that my vote at the next election (and those of a lot of other people in middle class areas) will be more valuable to the parties than yours, and they will therefore shape their priorities accordingly.

E2A: anyway, why should the fact that a change in the voting system would have no immediate material effect mean that it's a bad idea?

 

[Jean-Luc]

AV is a cop out - but AV plus in a referendum would be worth backing. BNP would be unlikely to get anyone elected under AV+

As somebody has already pointed out, any top-up system will help parties like the Greens . . . and the BNP (and you can't help the Greens without helping the BNP). The Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies does not put too much power in the hands of the party machines but, as somebody from Ireland has pointed out, can still be manipulated by them. Sinn Fein in N. Ireland got this down to a T telling its supporters in particular parts of a constituency to vote for a particular candidate so as not to accumulate too many votes on a single candidate to the detriment of their other candidates.
AV (which is essentially STV in a single-member constituency) is not a cop out. It's the only fair system for single-member constituencies (which are a good thing). It's straightforward and it works in trade union elections, mayoral elections and in Australia.
Having said this, I agree that changing the voting system is not the priority of priorities. In itself it's not going to make any difference at all to people's everyday life.

 

[articul8]

for a top up BNP would need minimum of 10% in a seat much larger than FPTP constituency - they are unlikely to get that in the near future. But FPTP stranglehold for Westminster parties only helps them.

but in any case PR means they can never wield exclusive power out of all propotion to the votes they get. Under FPTP they could soon end up in outright control of a local council without ever getting more than when 3 in 5 voters are clearly opposed.

 

[CyberRose]

Well, it would help make your vote be worth the same as mine; whereas given current electoral realities, I would suspect that my vote at the next election (and those of a lot of other people in middle class areas) will be more valuable to the parties than yours, and they will therefore shape their priorities accordingly.

E2A: anyway, why should the fact that a change in the voting system would have no immediate material effect mean that it's a bad idea?

It's not a bad idea it's just that the Government (and the Tories and Lib Dems who are also promising this, tho presumably they'll be opposing it now) should not be wasting time on something like this when there are far FAR more important issues right now like getting us out of this recession.

It's either scandals or bullshit proposals from all the parties, anything to take our minds off the fact that we're in dire economic difficulties and that's what they all should be concentrating on

 

[Nemo]

It's not a bad idea it's just that the Government (and the Tories and Lib Dems who are also promising this, tho presumably they'll be opposing it now) should not be wasting time on something like this when there are far FAR more important issues right now like getting us out of this recession.

It's either scandals or bullshit proposals from all the parties, anything to take our minds off the fact that we're in dire economic difficulties and that's what they all should be concentrating on

So what exactly should they be doing about the recession then?

 

[CyberRose]

So what exactly should they be doing about the recession then?

I don't know I'm not paid to know nor have I read enough political theory books to pretend to know either!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nemo]

By the bye, I would suggest that even politicians are capable of doing more than one thing at once, and even if they aren't, there are plenty of other things they could drop in order to allow them to fight the recession and reform the electoral system.

 

[_float_]

for a top up BNP would need minimum of 10% in a seat much larger than FPTP constituency - they are unlikely to get that in the near future.

The BNP won a "top-up" seat on the London Assembly. Where do you get the 10% figure from?

 

[articul8]

It's not a bad idea it's just that the Government (and the Tories and Lib Dems who are also promising this, tho presumably they'll be opposing it now) should not be wasting time on something like this when there are far FAR more important issues right now like getting us out of this recession.

It's either scandals or bullshit proposals from all the parties, anything to take our minds off the fact that we're in dire economic difficulties and that's what they all should be concentrating on

the thing is the voting system limits the political space for parties to act on jobs, economy, climate etc - under FPTP everything needs to play well with middle england swing voters

 

[CyberRose]

Just out of interest, if FPTP is replaced, how would that effect local representation? Would it be like the Euros or is there a big national list?

 

[Giles]

Hurray! Just what we all need! Fucking voting reforms?!!??!?!?

Well after proposed reforms to MPs' expenses we can now add voting reform proposals to that big list of useless shite that will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO ANYBODY'S FUCKING LIFE

We're in the middle of a recession but I've not even heard that word mentioned for weeks and weeks now! Unemployment is going through the roof, we've just had an election where nobody in the country actually voted for anything vaguely related to European policy, but now all we're bothered about is infighting in the Labour Party!

There are real problems facing the people of this country and what do we get thrown at us to keep our minds off it?! Scandals and dog shite legislation!

Good point.

I think we should just close down all new legislation, and just run the country "as is" for the next decade or so.

Just think: caretaker managers in place, no big expensive decisions or project, no ID cards, no new Trident, no massive new schemes here and there, no endless pointless re-organisations of departments, councils, the NHS, education, with all the stupid rebranding costs involved each time.

No petitions, no campaigns, no bother.

Boring, but simple and cheap.

Maybe we could even keep more of our own f***ing money?

Giles..

 

[Cobbles]

Is voting going to be based on an 0845 number? (vote as many times as you like within your budget...).

That'd realign politics with Broon's "Britain's Got Talent" predelicition (with 20p from each call going towards a good cause - like the Hazel Blears' CGT relief fund).

 

[Nemo]

Just out of interest, if FPTP is replaced, how would that effect local representation? Would it be like the Euros or is there a big national list?

Depends what form of voting replaces it.

 

[CyberRose]

Depends what form of voting replaces it.

What's your preferred method and what would that mean in relation to my question?

If there was reforms to be made I'd prefer them to leave the HoC alone and fundamentally reform the HoL into a second chamber with proportional representation there meaning we'd still get local MPs

 

[magneze]

Its not an awful system, indeed it is far better, far more stable and far more robust than each and every one of the wheezes that parties have sought to foist upon us (or indeed that we see overseas) - and the reasons profferred for why PR should be brought in are, almost totally, the fault of the parties themselves.

Why do you think it's more stable and robust?

 

[DownwardDog]

There would probably have to be a referendum. And such a referendum would probably be rejected for those reasons and it would probably be a major setback towards electoral reform.

I think it probably also needs a Royal Commission and then they'd have to get it through the Lords. Simply no time - there isn't that much parliamentary time left before the last date for the next GE. Having said all that, underestimate GoBro's pathlogical lust to cling to power by any means at your peril.

 

[Nemo]

What's your preferred method and what would that mean in relation to my question?

If there was reforms to be made I'd prefer them to leave the HoC alone and fundamentally reform the HoL into a second chamber with proportional representation there meaning we'd still get local MPs

Personally I prefer Single Transferable Vote electing multiple MPs for large constituencies. That would mean people get to vote for candidates rather than parties if they want to, MPs would need to enjoy a certain level of support in their constituencies, and it would help the representation of smaller parties, as people could give them their transfers without fearing that voting for them would give a non-favoured party a way in.

 

[liampreston]

Typical. We are on the verge of getting a decent voting system, but it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

This is Brown trying to save his skin. Patheitc. And so annoying! I want AV, just not to save Brown's career....

 

[Azrael]

I see nothing wrong with first-past-the-post, and I'm sick of the media failing to give it a defence. The case for PR, which puts statistical purity over reality, is fantastically weak. What good is a more proportionate system when it leads to closed lists and endless coalitions? In real terms, it's less representative than our system of peaceful revolutions, where coalitions are formed before voting begins. This paradox is ignored.

Mr Brown's move is wholly opportunist, has nothing to do with solving MPs' greed, and will be the first step on the road to full-blown PR. How people can continue to present this idealistic enterprise as a great leap forward while surrounded by examples of the grubby reality baffles me.

 

[Nemo]

PR needn't be be based on closed lists.

 

[Azrael]

True, but it still leads to closed-door coalitions and the end of real adversarial politics. Leave well alone I say. The problems lie elsewhere.

 

[DownwardDog]

Is voting going to be based on an 0845 number? (vote as many times as you like within your budget...).

That'd realign politics with Broon's "Britain's Got Talent" predelicition (with 20p from each call going towards a good cause - like the Hazel Blears' CGT relief fund).

N-VA's (New Flemish Alliance) very strong showing in the Belgian elections at the weekend is attributed to the leader's (Bart De Wever) very strong performance on the TV quiz show De slimste mens ter wereld. The convergence between reality TV and politics grows apace.

 

[butchersapron]

Recall once we say it's ok for you to call for them to be recalled and once they're proven guilty of seriosus offences - seriousness to be decided by us, not you. Minor to middling major offences are fine - carry on with that shit Fuck off

In a wide-ranging statement on constitutional reform, the prime minister said that a bill being introduced before the summer could create a power of "recall" that would allow bylections to be held when an MP was found to have committed serious financial misconduct.

genius

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the Briton credited with creating the world wide web, will lead a team advising on how the government can open up access to official information.

 

[articul8]

I see nothing wrong with first-past-the-post, and I'm sick of the media failing to give it a defence. The case for PR, which puts statistical purity over reality, is fantastically weak.

Yes - just imagine thinking that the results of an election should broadly reflect the way people actually voted

 

[untethered]

Yes - just imagine thinking that the results of an election should broadly reflect the way people actually voted

They do reflect the way people vote. The candidate with the most votes wins.

What do you think happens -- the winners are chosen at random?

 

[untethered]

I see nothing wrong with first-past-the-post, and I'm sick of the media failing to give it a defence.

While the Conservatives have been a little too quick to jump on the "radical change now" bandwagon I'm pleased to see that at least they're pushing back against PR. Presumably this means that if it ever comes to a referendum they'll be very prominent in the No campaign.

 

[Combustible]

They do reflect the way people vote. The candidate with the most votes wins.

But the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily. And has been pointed out, what happens is that there is a massive incentive for parties to only appeal to a small number of unrepresentative voters.

 

[articul8]

exactly - quite possible for the party with most votes to lose out to one with less (happens regularly in local elections)