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
September 24th, 2006
Posted by
MatGB |
electoral reform, STV, New Politics Network |
8 comments
Jack Straw - Cretin?
Right, it’s fairly well established around these here parts that we don’t think much of the current Government. However, we now have conclusive proof that Jack Straw is an idiot:
we have a problem in the House, which is called researchers trying to prove a point and the result of these websites called TheyWorkForYou which simply seem to measure MPs’ work by quantitative rather than qualitative measures.
July 23rd, 2006
Posted by
MatGB |
Reform, Constitution, Pledgebank, Jack Straw, TheyWorkForYou, Parliament, House of Lords, ElectTheLords, New Politics Network, Charter 88 |
no comments
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:
May 24th, 2006
Posted by
MatGB |
electoral reform, STV, New Politics Network, FPTP |
4 comments
