28
We need proportional representation (www.camdennewjournal.co.uk)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/makevotesmatter@feddit.uk
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

What do you mean "...Lords with PR"? PR is a result of a voting system, not a voting system itself. Do you mean Party Lists, so the people vote for parties instead of individuals and the parties decide who sits in the Lords?

If so, it doesn't sound like much of a change to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    There is a whole lot more to my post that that half a sentence.

    But basically saying that we should have two different methods of representation in the two houses, both by coverage and by voting method to prevent certain areas/parties overwhelming, and being overwhelmed by others.

    Why should London get to dictate how the North is governed simply by there being more people, but for like, why should the North get to dictate how money is spent in London?

    There should be county councils for deciding local matters, "super councils" to decide regional matters and a national government to decide national and overseas policies.

    On the other hand, if the only issue is that I picked PR for one and STV for another, and you would prefer a different voting mechanism then I'm completely fine with that too. However having PR, AV or whatever would be much better, IMHO, than the current Lords which never replaces it's representation, and I disagree that it would be exactly the same as the current state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You keep saying PR as if it's one thing. There's a whole family of systems that give proportional representation to greater or lesser degrees. STV is one, but seeing as you proposed that for the commons you seem to be ruling it out for the lord's.

    So I was asking which system you'd prefer? I personally dislike anything where the parties get told "you have 100 seats, fill them with whoever you like" commonly known as party lists. It removes the ability for voters to vote a particular person out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I already said that I honestly don't care.

    You keep saying PR as if it's one thing.

    In my opinion, PR is either open or closed list systems. STV falls under alternative voting methods (from my point of view), because it does not proportionally represent. Either way it really doesn't matter because as my first reply said, that's not the bit I give the biggest shit about.

    Replacement of FPTP is a start, while replacement of our terrible two house system where we have no say over the second house would be better, and replacement of both would be best.

    STV for both is fine, I was just suggesting a candidate based system for one house and a party based system for the second to try and counter too much of the "one policy candidates" but not eliminate the ability for people to show what they really care about.

    Not that we will get either, so I'm not sure why you are quite so aggressive about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Party-lists is the most proportional, followed by mixed-member proportional and then single transferable vote.

    You’re the first person I have met who preferred party-lists, I suppose the people in my area really like the local representation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Preferred is a very strong word as a summary of my position.

    I said that I preferred two different voting methods for the two different levels of chambers, and as such suggested PR for one of them.

    I would prefer removal of the Lords and devolution of English powers to regional authorities leaving the renamed Commons to deal with national/international positions and delegating basically everything that would get devolved to Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland to the three Regional Authorities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    AV is not an improvement as it’s harder for smaller parties/independents to win, the politics remains adversarial, there is a lack of minority and women representation, strategy voting is involved. Also notice how Australia is behind the countries of Norway, Denmark and Switzerland in the international rankings.

    https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Country_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Are you seriously trying to say that AV is no better than FPTP?

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/

    Alternative voting is a form of ranked voting. To claim that it's harder for independents to get elected is either completely false or the reform website does a bad job of explaining it. It would make it easier for independents to get elected because people can put their names down without throwing away their vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent