Does your vote mean anything?

[Spanky Longhorn]

but voting systems would still exist i imagine? and if so there would still be only a limited number of mechanisms available...

id like to see something akin to a swiss model, with recallable delegates and proportional representation at the highest level.

why do you prefer FPTP over Proportional Representation? Is your FPTP model the same as the existing one? Both have their shortcoming but PR seems significantly fairer to me

Nah the person with the most votes should win, whether they get 30% or 50%+1

That is simple and clear, having recall ability and term limits should provide the mix and openness without having to mess about with PR

 

[SpookyFrank]

I've never really understood why a constituency-based STV vote would be any better. You're still only electing one candidate per constituency, so most people are still gonna end up being represented by a candidate they didn't want. Maybe it'll be your third choice candidate, but when half of a typical ballot is made up of fringe nutcases and most of the rest by crooked right-wing establishment parties is anyone likely to have a third choice? I'm amazed anyone has a first choice tbh.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I've never really understood why a constituency-based STV vote would be any better. You're still only electing one candidate per constituency, so most people are still gonna end up being represented by a candidate they didn't want. Maybe it'll be your third choice candidate, but when half of a typical ballot is made up of fringe nutcases and most of the rest by crooked right-wing establishment parties is anyone likely to have a third choice? I'm amazed anyone has a first choice tbh.

Tbf I don't recall anyone offering that as an option - most go with multi member STV like Ireland

 

[weltweit]

0.078

 

[SpookyFrank]

Tbf I don't recall anyone offering that as an option - most go with multi member STV like Ireland

I thought that was the lib dems plan though, to maybe let a few of their candidates limp home on second-choice votes?

European parliament elecions are now multi-member STV aren't they? To be honest I think we might as well do away with local representation. Labour in particular are just parachuting members of their north London set into seats all around the country more or less at random, might as well drop the pretence and save money on all the travel costs and second home allowances.

e2a: This would have to go together with a strengthening of local democracy. Recall votes for council leaders, proportional represntation for council elections and that sort of thing.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I thought that was the lib dems plan though, to maybe let a few of their candidates limp home on second-choice votes?

European parliament elecions are now multi-member STV aren't they? To be honest I think we might as well do away with local representation. Labour in particular are just parachuting members of their north London set into seats all around the country more or less at random, might as well drop the pretence and save money on all the travel costs and second home allowances.

e2a: This would have to go together with a strengthening of local democracy. Recall votes for council leaders, proportional represntation for council elections and that sort of thing.

No the Libdems wanted AV and Euro elections are under multi member party list

 

[N_igma]

My vote or indeed my no vote means fuck all. Don't need a website to tell me that.

 

[chilango]

I'm not sure what the woodley landscape looks like, tbh. Cos it technically falls under Wokingham, about as safe a Tory seat as you can get - Redwoods been there as long as I remember - I tend not to notice it so much. Woodley does feel a bit like a slice of Kent dolloped right in the middle of Berkshire, though, so you could be on to something.

Interestingly, when I googled "john redwood", a suggested search term was " John redwood UKIP". What odds are the bookies giving him on defecting? E2a - not a likely defector, it seems.

Woodley has a "booming" population without services (schools, doctors etc.) growing to keep pace. It's a big issue there I think. As is the lack of public toilets, so there you go!

 

[redsquirrel]

I've never really understood why a constituency-based STV vote would be any better. You're still only electing one candidate per constituency, so most people are still gonna end up being represented by a candidate they didn't want. Maybe it'll be your third choice candidate, but when half of a typical ballot is made up of fringe nutcases and most of the rest by crooked right-wing establishment parties is anyone likely to have a third choice? I'm amazed anyone has a first choice tbh.

STV only applies if you are electing more than a single person, otherwise it becomes AV.

 

[ViolentPanda]

it's meaningless

Slightly less meaningless in local elections, but (as I've said ad nauseam during my 12 years of posting here, essentially having the voting franchise is meaningless within the system we have. A vote is of no use if the electorate can't use it to engineer change and to enforce their will on their elected representatives.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Slightly less meaningless in local elections, but (as I've said ad nauseam during my 12 years of posting here, essentially having the voting franchise is meaningless within the system we have. A vote is of no use if the electorate can't use it to engineer change and to enforce their will on their elected representatives.

Have the electorate ever expressed the desire to make the sort of change you're talking about? Without clarification it seems like you're saying that the current system is broken because it doesn't get the outcomes you want

 

[Pickman's model]

candidacies should be open to anyone apart from those who want to be elected.

 

[Fez909]

candidacies should be open to anyone apart from those who want to be elected.

Seems like a good idea, but how far do you take it? I imagine there'd be a lot of people not bothered, but then when they started getting a lot of votes, the might suddenly take interest and maybe, just maybe...want it.

Do they then get disqualified?

 

[Pickman's model]

Seems like a good idea, but how far do you take it? I imagine there'd be a lot of people not bothered, but then when they started getting a lot of votes, the might suddenly take interest and maybe, just maybe...want it.

Do they then get disqualified?

anyone who wants power disbars themselves.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have the electorate ever expressed the desire to make the sort of change you're talking about? Without clarification it seems like you're saying that the current system is broken because it doesn't get the outcomes you want

I'm saying that the current system has no mechanisms by which it can secure any outcome other than the outcome the political classes want. The three major parties have all, within the last twenty years, altered their constitutions to disempower members from even proposing such mechanisms. Our MPs are also insulated from the electorate in a way that they weren't in previous generations. Look at the recall proposals of five years ago - they went nowhere because MPs were able to lie to themselves that recall was unnecessary, that they were representing our interests even as they pooh-poohed a method of helping us secure our interests.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh!

 

[coley]

In Berwick-upon-tweed, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.093 votes.
The power of voters in this constituency is based on the probability of the seat changing hands and its size.
Just bide in bed on the day.

 

[Nylock]

In Worcestershire West, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.494 votes.

Apparently, I have 1.95x the voting power of the average voter. Constituency ranked #121/650. Based on outdated info ofc.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm saying that the current system has no mechanisms by which it can secure any outcome other than the outcome the political classes want. The three major parties have all, within the last twenty years, altered their constitutions to disempower members from even proposing such mechanisms. Our MPs are also insulated from the electorate in a way that they weren't in previous generations. Look at the recall proposals of five years ago - they went nowhere because MPs were able to lie to themselves that recall was unnecessary, that they were representing our interests even as they pooh-poohed a method of helping us secure our interests.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh!

So what? Has there ever appeared to be a mass desire to have a different outcome to what the political classes want?

 

[maomao]

Surely the calculation (if it was up to date) would only work if you voted for the second biggest party anyway. I have a locally popular Tory MP (who's a massive cunt) so my vote is worth precisely fuck all. I'm sure we're in UKIP's top thirty or something target list and the runner up may well switch from Labour to UKIP but the Tory prick will win anyway so it's not 0.046 it's 0.000.

 

[xenon]

"In Bristol South, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.063 votes."

pfft.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So what? Has there ever appeared to be a mass desire to have a different outcome to what the political classes want?

How would we know,oh spankledacious one? We've no mechanism with which to ascertain what the masses desire, except yer vote!

 

[marty21]

Hackney North & Stoke Newington ranks #461 out of 650 constituencies in the Voter Power Index

Voter power in Hackney North & Stoke Newington
0.067
The average UK voter has 3.85x more voting power than voters in Hackney North & Stoke Newington

Pretty safe Labour seat

 

[contracycle]

This argument is like claiming that only the topmost brick in a wall is holding up he roof. I.e. stupid.

 

[krink]

0.007

Gotta love that democracy

 

[kabbes]

This argument is like claiming that only the topmost brick in a wall is holding up he roof. I.e. stupid.

Not really.

LibDemmery aside, FPTP is a bit stupid. In principle, it means that you can get well and truly fewer than half the votes and yet win 100% of the seats. I don't like that concept. And under those circumstances, I don't think it would be fair to claim that the 60% or 70% of the country whose views have been totally suppressed have no valid complaint when they say their vote has been worthless.

 

[butchersapron]

The safest seat in the country returns a result of 0.003.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

How would we know,oh spankledacious one? We've no mechanism with which to ascertain what the masses desire, except yer vote!

Really? So people wouldn't have the option to take to the streets, to publish pamphlets and newspapers? To write blogs and set up forums and youtube channels to have conversations in pubs, churches and workplaces where they can agitate and organise for a different way of doing things?

Are we really more oppressed and restricted than Egyptians or Tunisians, Turks, or the Spanish?

 

[contracycle]

LibDemmery aside, FPTP is a bit stupid. In principle, it means that you can get well and truly fewer than half the votes and yet win 100% of the seats. I don't like that concept. And under those circumstances, I don't think it would be fair to claim that the 60% or 70% of the country whose views have been totally suppressed have no valid complaint when they say their vote has been worthless.

But you can get round that problem by instituting a rule that there must be a certain level of turnout for an election to count, and if it doesn't reach that quorum than it must be re-held. Even doing as little as publishing the number of spoiled ballots would go some way to allowing the public to say that they reject the choices on offer.

The point though is that if there were 100 votes in a constituency, and 70 of them are known to go to one party, it is not valid to then claim that your vote cannot influence the outcome. That may be true at a practical level, but only because you are outnumbered. To demand that your personal vote must be "meaningful" requires discounting the votes of all those 70 in some manner.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

But you can get round that problem by instituting a rule that there must be a certain level of turnout for an election to count, and if it doesn't reach that quorum than it must be re-held.

"I chose not to vote for any of these tossers/endorse this charade two weeks ago, but now they've not got enough votes to call a result, I'm totally down with it."

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really? So people wouldn't have the option to take to the streets, to publish pamphlets and newspapers? To write blogs and set up forums and youtube channels to have conversations in pubs, churches and workplaces where they can agitate and organise for a different way of doing things?

Are we really more oppressed and restricted than Egyptians or Tunisians, Turks, or the Spanish?

You're conflating personal and party politics. I was talking about the latter (given the topic of the thread). Sure we can "take to the streets" (although I seem to recall that our "right to assembly" isn't what it once was) and organise.
Does our vote enable any of that, though? No, it doesn't.