this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3086 readers
117 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Actor Steve Coogan and presenter Carol Vorderman have backed Liberal Democrat pledges to reform how the UK's general elections are run.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (47 children)

Didn't they play this game when Nick Clegg ran the party? After which they gave up on it as soon as they entered into a coalition with the Tories?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

The Coalition agreed on a referendum on AV as a compromise. The Lib Dems' (and most electoral reform campaigners') preferred voting system is Single Transferrable Vote, which is effectively AV but with multi-member constituencies instead of single-member. STV is used in the Republic of Ireland and delivers proportional results whilst maintaining the existence of geographic constituency links - generally considered two desirable features of a voting system (along with preferentialism, a feature AV and STV both have).

If we could have made the switch to AV then it would have been only a short step from there to STV a few years later. But the Tories campaigned heavily against it, and Labour were highly divided on electoral reform so were officially neutral but in practice a majority of Labour MPs backed the 'no' campaign. So the referendum failed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (14 children)

@theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne I support PR, but I am concerned about keeping a constituncy link so everybody has a named MP. A modified form of STV would seem to be the way, with ATV for by-elections.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

@PamCrossland @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

It can't be proportional and the existing level of constitutional representation without going to over 2000 MPs. PR in a Parliamentary system wrecks one person one vote for one candidate in a constituency.

Be careful what you wish for.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

STV has one person one vote, in a constituency, with the added benefit of allowing voters to express their vote in a preferential ranking and delivering a proportional outcome. That is what I wish for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne @PamCrossland

Well not if there are multiple outcomes.
In the London Mayoral elections sufficient put their first choice as Lord Bucket and their second the future mayor. This was after a specific campaign to save Lord Bucket's deposit and 'defeat' the right wing candidate.

That's perfectly fine, but two outcomes so not a single vote.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

@simon_lucy @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne It's called transferable for a reason. You get one vote, but if your candidate gets knocked out, it's transfered until their next choice candidate until one candidate has 50%+1 . The transferable vote allows you to choose your preferences so we don't continue with the ridiculous situation where somebody can get elected with only 20-30% of the vote, as happens in some places.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Randomised voting.

Keep the constituencies exactly as they are, and each election everyone votes the way they do now.

Then instead of counting the votes, we shuffle them and pick a random vote and do what it says.

In aggregate this is proportional across the country, and also means every voter remains important in the constituency, you never know if the person you piss off today might personally vote you out tomorrow.

It also eliminates career politicians. Even in a safe seat you probably won't win three terms.

It'll never get used anywhere but it's fun to think about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

@OhNoMoreLemmy

I'm all for random, Lords for a year for random picks over 55 years of age is very attractive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@simon_lucy @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne This is why I said a modified form. For example, from the top of my head, either first place candidate gets first choice of sub-constituency, 2nd, gets second choice, etc. Or the winner gets a sub-constituency in the area where most voted for them, 2nd, is their first of the first seond best, etc.

It could be done if people would only put their heads together.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@PamCrossland @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

That's not electing to a parliament, what are these sub constituencies, how do votes in a particular area count, if they're separate then why combine them?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@simon_lucy @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne Pecause an area overall would have a great deal of proportionatally. So a city like Manchester would have say six MPs, and a sub constituency would still allow for a named MP but likely to have one or more other getting elected for their party/independents.

We currently do NOT live in a democratic country.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@PamCrossland @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

That doesn't make any sense at all. Is a sub-constituency going to send an MP? If so then it's a constituency, but if the votes are an aggregation just to benefit a political party then it destroys the idea of an MP and constituencies.

It you think democracy is about fairness in results then you don't understand what democracy is. An election is not an opinion poll, it's a decision.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

@simon_lucy @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne I don't know if you are doing this deliberately. Of course it would be a multi-member constituency, but a sub-constituency would allow people to still have a constituency MP.

Oh and yes, I know what democracy is, and it seems you are against it. Now please go away.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@PamCrossland @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

I guess blocking is as good a comment on the argument as any other.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

@PamCrossland @theinspectorst @i_am_not_a_robot @Syldon @jonne

And then taking another bite and blocking again.
Marvellous.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (41 replies)