40
Coogan and Vorderman back Liberal Democrats' electoral reform pledge (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Having larger constituencies of five mps keeps the link and also makes the mps compete with each other to provide support. The current system can lead to people who need help due to bad laws being forced to go to their MP, the minister who introduced it and is responsible for that law. They won't get help it'll be too embarrassing.

    Also I see elsewhere someone complaining of lists of MPs. We already have that in safe seats! They just put one name of the list in each constituency. Have five MPs in each area is an inporvement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

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

    @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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @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.

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

    @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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    @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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years 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.

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •