No idea who he is, but Steven Skelton has an excellent article at Make My Vote Count about electoral reform and the rise of the BNP. It’s nothing I haven’t said before, but it’s very well put together and all in one place.
Just briefly, in the comments tot he Tactical post, the topic has drifted to how preferential systems, especially STV are better and negate the need for tactical votes. I thought I’d bring the discussion to the top again. Dave asks:
From the limited amount I know of STV it sounds really good.I know its probably been writen else where, but could you briefly say roughly how you think STV would work in the UK?
I assume you would need much bigger constituencies? or would you suggest similar size with a lot more MP’s?
If the constituencies were too big then the politics wouldn’t seem as local surely?
Robert Philpot has an excellent analysis of the need for the Conservative party to adopt electoral reform as a platform (via):
Must pay more attention. James, who I read regularly, also it seems writes at the New Politics Network blog, which I must have missed despite looking at the site a few times. Got there via Make my Vote Count (which I read at least once a week), and find this excellent article on the merits of multi-member constituencies:
Scottish electoral mechanics are always interesting to watch. South of the border, most seats are either safe or two-way marginals. Three-way marginals are rare, and tend to disappear over the course of a few elections, the third party squeeze / ratchet effect caused by Duverger’s Law means that it becomes “irrational” as the economists put it to vote for the third place or below candidate. Yet in Scotland? They not only still have three way marginals, they also have some 4 way marginals.
Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling asks Do we need parties? and gives a list of reasons why parties damage politics. Given that I’m something of a fan of representative democracy, and believe that some sort of party system is a useful tool within a functioning parliamentary system, I thought I’d do a brief analysis.
In the last two days, I’ve read two rather good articles on electoral reform. I have a few issues with them, and dispute a few points, but overall, they’re very good. Both on the same blog.
Normally, this would be great, right? I just link and get on to writing something substantial. OK, I’ll link. Here and here. There, I’ve done it. I’ve linked to Neil Harding without taking the piss.
I think it’s pretty much established amongst the informed bunch that read this blog that something is rotten in the state of Britain. Liberty Central is a good project aimed at working out a new way of governing the country. Hopefully, it can be used to build pressure to sort the whole mess out.
The big problem is that for many, reformers are a series of disparate, single issue campaigners. We have:
My issue with this; all of the problems are interlinked. Each feeds of each other, it’s a systemic problem within the British polity.
It has come about because a government that was initially radical and prepared to decentralise heavily has acquired cold feet and isn’t prepared to address the real issues and concerns of those that haven’t (yet) had power devolved from Westminster. Yet, ultimately, very few if any are genuinely calling for the complete break up of Britain, the Scots Nats appear to be losing, not gaining, ground in Scotland and the CEP is adament that they want parity for England within the UK (or Britain, depending on whether the person in question wants to keep the 1800 Act).
Virtually every other country of significance that has a bicameral Parliament draws its second chamber members as representatives of the next highest administrative level. US and Australian Senators are elected directly, the German Bundesrat members are sent as representatives of the Lander assemblies, etc.
I favour this approach, in part, for the Lords (or whatever we call the replacement). So, in order to solve the increasingly urgent issue that is the make up of the second chamber, we also need to figure out what level below Westminster we want as well.
It specifically encourages a two-party system, yet increasingly a market orientated society wants genuine choice at election time as well, two-party politics doesn’t cut it any more. So we have a government elected with a fairly substantial majority with much less than 40% of the vote; compare this to 1992, when John Major got the highest number of votes cast since 1945, and a higher vote share than either Maggie or Blair ever acheived, yet had a wafer thin majority.
This leads to a worried government, that plays to a perceived gallery for headline grabbing initiatives, yet one that knows, deep down, that while it has a ‘legitimate’ mandate, it does not have a popular mandate; protesters are limited and arrested as never before, yet are increasingly likely as what are viewed as traditional liberties are encroached upon as never before.
Part of the recommendations of the Power commission is a new Concordat. Essentially, they are right. As Nosemonkey points out in comments here, the Bill of Rights is effectively irrelevent. Yet any constitutional historian worth their salt can confirm that the Bill of Rights is the founding principle of the modern parliamentary system. If it’s no longer relevent, what is?
A study of the US shows that such exercises in aspic setting can, in later years, come back to bite you; the veneration of their outdated document the Americans show is worrying, let alone damaging. We need a new Bill of Rights, new Acts of Settlement. We need a British solution.
We, all of us, who are concerned with the constitution, who want to address these issues, need to work together to pressure our rulers to call a new convention. This may be a good place to start.
So, Finland’s going into run-off mode for their Presidential elections? (via Nosemonkey)
OK, that makes two countries that should know better saddled with a system of election that’s almost as bad, and much more expensive than, Simple Majority (ie the UK/US system, First Past The Post/FPTP). Why do they do it?
Rule 1 of blogging: quoting yourself incessently is bad. Rule 2: Letting someone else take credit for something you said is worse. In a comment to this post I said:
You’re not alone… Representative democracy is an essential tool for a tolerant society, direct democracy leads to great thinkers drinking hemlock at the whim of the populace.
And, to answer Paulie’s question, as far as I know it’s original. And no, you can’t steal it ;-) Use it freely though.
So, Dave wants me to join him does he? I appear to be his target audience, a sometime LibDem who believes it’s more important to defeat NuLab than to continue the old rivalries. He’s saying the right things, I remain to be convinced if he’s doing them. But, well, I’m not convinced that joining his party is for me. Scratch that, I refuse to consider it. He wants an end to petty point scoring in politics? Fine, let’s talk. Openly, honestly, and with a perspective on both history, the future and on how things work.
So, Dave (or is it DC now, I’ve lost track) wants to make Parliament more representative.:
“Until we’re represented by men and women in the country, regardless of race or creed, we won’t be half the party we could be,” he said in a speech on candidate selection in Leeds.He said his “positive action” plan was not about “crazed political correctness”, but would guarantee more women and ethnic minorities in winnable seats.
Of course he does. In order to do it, he’s going to take control from the centre and govern his pary by diktat. Hmm, hasn’t that been tried before?
There’s a simple way to get more women in Parliament Dave. It’ll get more minorities in there as well. And, added bonus here, it will give the voters real control over who they vote for and who represents them. What’s this Mat, I hear you say, what’s this simple system?
Linklog