With Labour winning a (substantial) majority with the lowest share of the vote for a government in history, electoral reform is very much in the news. The Independent are campaigning for it - you can read a summary of the different types of voting system on offer here. The letters page is also full of arguments for and against. (Word of warning Indy pages often disappear after three days so if you're interested, it's worth following the link sooner rather than later. The online Indy leaves much to be desired frankly.)
But anyway, what dp y'all think? Many proponents of PR think it's a way of keeping the Tories out of power FOREVER. (They see it as a way of hastening Wembley's prediction.) Others see it as anti-democratic as it leads to minority parties holding disproportionate power. It is argued that first-past-the post keeps everyone moderate.
Personally, I favour the Alternative Vote which is not particularly proportional at all, but means that each candidate is elected with over 50% of the vote. The other thing I like about it is that it retains the link between MP and constituency. Not really a fan of list systems. Anyway, that's where I stand a the moment, though I may well be persuaded differently if the forthcoming arguments are more convincing.
6 comments:
Israel is indeed not much of an ad for PR, as I said in Dan's thread (http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/05/election-aftermath.html).
I had an idea about PR / the House of Lords. What about electing the Lords by PR (am currently agnostic about which version) half-way through a Commons parliament? Perhaps also allocating some seats in the Lords for political nominees and/or representation of specific groups/interests.
A consequence of greater Lords democracy would be an erosion of the Commons' political superiority. Whenever this is mentioned in public debate it seems to be as a negative, though I reckon you could equally see this as a good thing.
I'm not averse to the Billy Bragg solution. I still like the Alternative Vote - maybe the two could be combined.
here's a description of the Alternative Vote for those who don't have time to follow the links:
Alternative vote
Similar to STV, but only one candidate is elected per constituency. Candidates need more than half the votes to win. Voters put candidates in order of preference. If no one gets more than half, the votes of the lowest-scoring candidates are redistributed until one gains a majority.
Mmm, interesting.
Does this suggest to anyone else that there is perhaps no 'fairest' system, simply ones that piss off differing sections of the voting public?
Fairest system is... 'All hail King Dan!'
I have a feeling that will just piss off certain elements in the UK-dwelling French population.
Online petition for voting reform here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/cfd/thanks.jsp
yes, I have misgivings, but I'd like to see it debated. I'm still favouring the Alternative Vote (scroll up these comments for a decsription) combined with Billy Bragg's suggestion for the second chanber. ie. Your first choice would also be your vote for the second chanber.
Also, here's a link to the Campaign for Democracy: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=637826
Post a Comment