Voting TaKtiX

There are a large number of oft-repeated tropes about electoral systems and the impact of any change away from the Simple Majority system we use for Westminster. Most of them are either lies, fallacies or half-truths. I’ve written about electoral systems a lot over the last year, but I can’t cover anything. Fortunately, Paul Davies is paid to write about electoral systems, and he’s pretty good at it as well. He’s written a series of articles over the last week debunking the main myths, and they’re definately well worth a read.

A lot of these myths are based on examples from systems that no sane people are advocating for the various UK governments, and thus should be still-born. Unfortunately, they’re not, and it seems that there will always be people that think that shouting ‘look at Israel’, ‘look at Italy’ or ‘PR gave us Hitler’ are valid arguments against electoral reform.

(more…)

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?

Right, without sourcing too much, you’re looking at (more…)

Robert Philpot has an excellent analysis of the need for the Conservative party to adopt electoral reform as a platform (via): (more…)

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: (more…)

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. (more…)

In an ideal world (ie one where I wasn’t skint), I’d have been in London yesterday for the Power Commission conference. Fortunately, Davide has written an excellent report from which I warm (a little) to Dave (again): (more…)

Terrorism, glorification and Peter Hain

OK, it came into force. As Garry observes, that means it’s now illegal to say nice things about, for example, this guy. In addition, Peter Hain will now have problems writing his memoirs (if/when he finally leaves office), as he’s also guilty of acts now defined as terrorist under laws he voted for.

NuLab changing the electoral rules in Wales - they got it wrong last time, they don’t win

Of course, Hain’s an arse anyway, his current wheeze is an attack on the idea of Regional top-up AMs in Wales. Well, yes Peter, we know they’re a crap idea. We told you that at the time. We said use a system that kept a constituency link, but oh no, NuLab had to adopt a system that (supposedly) gave it the advantage. Create a system, then decide it’s not working, so blame those that were forced to work within it instead of the system itself. Useless terrorist fool. Peter Black has more; he doesn’t like how he was elected, but you do what’s needed, right?

Italy, Berlusconi, cheating and stability

On the subject of Governments changing electoral systems in an attempt to give their own party an advantage, isn’t Italy watching fun? At least, it would be, if the media were actually covering the story properly. The best coverage I’ve found hasn’t been the BBC, nor any boradsheets, but blogs. The media is simply regurgitating cliches, and lying (or, to be charitable, simply not understanding) the way Italians vote. There’s an excellent description, including regional breakdown, here. Silvio tried to rig the system, owns most of the broadcast media, controlled a lot of the rest via the Govt, and still they voted him out (just).

Who would chose a list PR system?

The Italian electoral system, now I’ve read about it, is even more crazy than the Israeli system. It says something when two countries have system that are actually as bad, if not worse, than ours. Or, are they?

I’d have said yes, but look at those turnout numbers in Italy. Everyone voted, everyone took it seriously, it mattered. More parties than I can count, but everyone gets to vote for what they care about. You most certainly can’t say that all Italian politicians are the same. It’s still a daft system, but it does show how the “western malaise” supposedly affectig democracy doesn’t, necessarily, apply. Friend of mine was at a big trade fair show in Bologna over the weekend. Major stall holders were shutting up and leaving early, from their biggest annual event, in order to get home and vote.

Would us Brits bother doing that? The Italian electoral system (especially the new one that Berlusconi created) is unstable, and no one is seriously suggesting it for the UK. Instead, we want a reformed constituency system. I’ve gone on about it before, plenty of times, but Peter Blacks post above gives another good series of reasons why list systems are wrong.

The new Liberal Review, and NLE is moving soon

Life is busy, I’m busy, and light blogging mode is on. New project in the works, we’ll be moving soon, details to follow when I’ve got everything sorted out. In the meantime, on the subject of revamped blogs, take a good look at the new Liberal Review. I’ve been asked to write a bit onconstitutional refor (sorry Rob, swamped), in the meantime, it’s taken onboard the Apollo Project team, and taking guest columns, including a pretty good one from Tim.

G’night all.

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. (more…)

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.

OK, the problems with his analysis. (more…)

Or: how Chirac stole his election

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? (more…)

The real problem with the Lib Dems is not Charles Kennedy, it’s not the drink problem, the slightly clumsy image or even the ginger hair. It’s the direction of the party itself and the electoral system that it finds itself in. The real truth is that in the last few years have seen Britain plunged into political situations which should be gold dust for the Lib Dems - a deaf, blind, one-legged monkey should be creating gains for the Lib Dems in the current poltiical climate. (more…)