Electoral system reform

[wevans]

Well in the UK next May we're getting a referendum on changing the way we elect our representatives. It's not the Proportional Representation that the Lib Dems promised pre-election, but it's a change nonetheless.

However I'm not entirely convinced that the Alternative Vote system is an improvement over First Past the Post.

So convince me. Which voting system will you be voting for next May and why?

[iGeorge]

I'll be voting for first past the post.

AV is a nice idea in theory, but in practice all it will do is give the Lib Dems more MPs. That wouldn't be a problem, except the Government is made from whoever can form an overall majority in Parliament. Under FPTP, it's a rare occurrence that any one party cannot do this, but of course that just happened in the most recent election, and so the Lib Dems have the power to go into Government with either the Conservatives or Labour. Now I'm a big fan of the coalition and all that they've done so far, but I don't like the process of how it came about. AV would only increase the likelihood of a hung parliament every election, and make the Lib Dems kingmakers every time. Great if you're a Lib Dem supporter, but it's hardly fair at all.

If I were supreme overlord, I'd make the House of Commons fully representative and have the Government directly elected separately. But I'm not, so living with the political system we've got now, FPTP is better.

[wevans]

The main reason I don't completely support PR atm is that there are only three major parties. Every election we'd have either Labour or the Tories making up the majority of government with the Lib Dems, having come "third", in government each time. Although tbh if their principles are as fluid as they've been thus far into the coalition that might not be that strong an argument.

I don't really see how AV will make that massive a difference though... I guess in many ways that's both its curse and its blessing.

[iGeorge]

Aug 5, 2010 5:45:29 GMT -8 wevans said:

The main reason I don't completely support PR atm is that there are only three major parties. Every election we'd have either Labour or the Tories making up the majority of government with the Lib Dems, having come "third", in government each time. Although tbh if their principles are as fluid as they've been thus far into the coalition that might not be that strong an argument.

I don't really see how AV will make that massive a difference though... I guess in many ways that's both its curse and its blessing.

The Lib Dems principles were always closer to the Conservatives than with Labour. The Conservatives are much more socially liberal than Labour (think ID cards, 90/42 days detention, control orders and Labours criminalisation of just about everything) and the Lib Dems have been moving much more right wing economically, especially under Nick Clegg. They could still form a coalition with Labour, but nobody should have been surprised when they went with the Conservatives.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Whilst I support the use of AV over FPTP, I can help but harbour concerns over the other parliamentary reform plans being pushed by the government. For one thing, a 500 member commons would lead to, in my view, some malapportionment issues regarding parliamentary constituencies (that and it's blatant gerrymandering)- at a population of approximately 62-63 million, a 620-630 member parliament would be far better, 1 MP per 100,000 people.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg for me.

Aug 5, 2010 5:53:59 GMT -8 iGeorge said:

The Conservatives are much more socially liberal than Labour

Being the cynic I am, I have a feeling that they only seem that way at the moment because they're being moderated by the Lib Dems. Had the Tories won a majority of seats, I have a feeling that they'd fall right back, or at least disturbingly close to the socially conservative policies of the Thatcher government. Social liberalism is not something I personally would associate with the Conservative party, ever. Their past record puts me off them no end.

[wevans]

You can't really make a blanket statement on social liberalism/conservatism. Some issues they are far more liberal than Labour, others they are far more conservative. I also can't help but laugh at any implication that any "moderating" is being done on the part of the Lib Dems

[Lord Twaddleford]

Aug 5, 2010 7:03:11 GMT -8 wevans said:

You can't really make a blanket statement on social liberalism/conservatism. Some issues they are far more liberal than Labour, others they are far more conservative. I also can't help but laugh at any implication that any "moderating" is being done on the part of the Lib Dems

If the Conservatives had a parliamentary majority, they would be far more ambitious with their legislative agenda than they are now, no doubt about it. In order to get the Lib Dems to support them, the Tories have had make a number of concessions, as is the case with any coalition government. There're things that the Tories would've pushed had they received a parliamentary majority that they won't because they need the support of another party. Moderation is inherent in any parliamentary coalition, it just varies depending on the ideologies of the cohabiting parties. There is nothing to laugh at, and I also fail to see how I'm making a blanket statement on anything- all I said (or implied) was that I still see some Thatcherite elements left in the Tory party.

[Anselm]

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Aug 5, 2010 5:53:59 GMT -8 iGeorge said:

The Conservatives are much more socially liberal than Labour

Being the cynic I am, I have a feeling that they only seem that way at the moment because they're being moderated by the Lib Dems. Had the Tories won a majority of seats, I have a feeling that they'd fall right back, or at least disturbingly close to the socially conservative policies of the Thatcher government. Social liberalism is not something I personally would associate with the Conservative party, ever. Their past record puts me off them no end.

I do think though that the Conservatives have changed - and being an activist within the grassroots, I would say that too (honestly - you can trust me on that, I'm not a politician yet). The party's certainly more socially liberal, I think there are quite a few more civil libertarians (and out-and-out libertarians too) within the party. Take a look at attitudes towards gay rights for example now.

With the issue at hand, I'm not sure that AV is anything of an improvement over FPTP. I agree with Churchill when he called it "the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates" - you basically get the candidate who has the least opposition rather than the most support - and I don't see how this is anything positive - you want a positive reason to support someone, not just several negatives to discount the other candidates. And come on, 1st choice yes may be the preferred vote, but 2nd 3rd and 4th, how many of those will actually be anyone they would have ever considered voting for? Might it be the case that, in effect, some people have 2 votes, registering a protest vote for a minor party and then calling the result with their second preference? Is that really fair?

I also find it quite amusing how the Conservatives and Lib Dems will vote through an AV referendum when it wasn't in their manifestos, whereas Labour won't when it was. Oh the brilliance of trust. Either way, I think that asking about AV is a waste of time - why not stick a few other options on, i.e. PR and STV (as it happens I'm open to the idea of, say, 3-member STV constituences).

As for success, well failure, I think it'll fail if supporters of FPTP and supporters of PR team up to oppose AV. That could give quite strong opposition from two sides.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Aug 5, 2010 7:20:19 GMT -8 Anselm said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Being the cynic I am, I have a feeling that they only seem that way at the moment because they're being moderated by the Lib Dems. Had the Tories won a majority of seats, I have a feeling that they'd fall right back, or at least disturbingly close to the socially conservative policies of the Thatcher government. Social liberalism is not something I personally would associate with the Conservative party, ever. Their past record puts me off them no end.

I do think though that the Conservatives have changed - and being an activist within the grassroots, I would say that too (honestly - you can trust me on that, I'm not a politician yet). The party's certainly more socially liberal, I think there are quite a few more civil libertarians (and out-and-out libertarians too) within the party. Take a look at attitudes towards gay rights for example now.

I never said they hadn't changed- period, but rather I feel that there're still those older elements lurking about and influencing policy, et cetera et cetera. Besides, the important thing to realise is that in threads like this, most of what I say is just mindless ranting.


I still won't vote Conservative for love, money or tea however.

[Anselm]

Aug 5, 2010 7:25:32 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:20:19 GMT -8 Anselm said:

I do think though that the Conservatives have changed - and being an activist within the grassroots, I would say that too (honestly - you can trust me on that, I'm not a politician yet). The party's certainly more socially liberal, I think there are quite a few more civil libertarians (and out-and-out libertarians too) within the party. Take a look at attitudes towards gay rights for example now.

I never said they hadn't changed- period, but rather I feel that there're still those older elements lurking about and influencing policy, et cetera et cetera. Besides, the important thing to realise is that in threads like this, most of what I say is just mindless ranting.


I still won't vote Conservative for love, money or tea however.

I wouldn't think you would All parties are broad coalitions, so yes the Conservative Party will have the social conservatives and assorted loonies, and Labour will have the diehard communists and assorted loonies too. Maybe I'm making sweeping generalisations but either way not all members are like that - I think it's about relative strength of the groups of members, i.e. think of it like seats within a Parliamentary coalition and the (for the Conservative Party let's say) we could have the One Nation grouping, the social conservatives, and the economic liberals - there's probably a libertarian grouping in there somewhere too, not sure where it would fit in, somewhere between economic liberal and One Nation I guess. It just depends on the relative sizes of these groups, and thus influence over the leadership and the policy.

The leadership is also important, as I think has been seen with Cameron - certainly a lot of the socially conservative types/old conservatives have left/really don't like him (I won't say the right-wing, it's too ambiguous a term, but that's for another thread) because of the way he pulls the party.

I think that has some relevance actually for electoral reform - if you include localism in that especially, with the Hannan/Carswell led Direct Democracy grouping - and if you look at how the Conservatives officially support a mostly elected Lords, give things away like AV referendums - it's a sign I think of either the leadership or relative groupings, perhaps even the current state of the country - which I think is a very Peelian notion to make in fact, accepting something is inevitable and so taking the issue for yourself and shaping it in a, shall I say conservative way.

[wevans]

Aug 5, 2010 7:19:27 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:03:11 GMT -8 wevans said:

You can't really make a blanket statement on social liberalism/conservatism. Some issues they are far more liberal than Labour, others they are far more conservative. I also can't help but laugh at any implication that any "moderating" is being done on the part of the Lib Dems

If the Conservatives had a parliamentary majority, they would be far more ambitious with their legislative agenda than they are now, no doubt about it. In order to get the Lib Dems to support them, the Tories have had make a number of concessions, as is the case with any coalition government. There're things that the Tories would've pushed had they received a parliamentary majority that they won't because they need the support of another party. Moderation is inherent in any parliamentary coalition, it just varies depending on the ideologies of the cohabiting parties. There is nothing to laugh at, and I also fail to see how I'm making a blanket statement on anything- all I said (or implied) was that I still see some Thatcherite elements left in the Tory party.

You and George both did, I just think it's more complicated than "Tories are more liberal socially than labour" or vice versa. It depends.

There are a lot of Thatcherite elements still in the party. And say what you like, but it looks to me like the Lib Dems are making far more concessions than the Tories.

And on topic, I agree with Anselm's middle paragraph. I mean in a system of AV would I give my 4th choice to the Tories because the alternatives are UKIP and the BNP?

Having said that, will adding second, third and fourth choices from the otherwise "wasted" votes really make that much difference to the end result?

[Morgoth]

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Aug 5, 2010 5:53:59 GMT -8 iGeorge said:

The Conservatives are much more socially liberal than Labour

Being the cynic I am, I have a feeling that they only seem that way at the moment because they're being moderated by the Lib Dems. Had the Tories won a majority of seats, I have a feeling that they'd fall right back, or at least disturbingly close to the socially conservative policies of the Thatcher government. Social liberalism is not something I personally would associate with the Conservative party, ever. Their past record puts me off them no end.

Well the Tories opposed 42 days detention and intended to abolish ID cards long before the coalition, so your cynicism is unjustified.

What social conservative policies of the Thatcher Government? Apart from the disastrous Section 28, there were hardly any social conservative (or indeed social) policies of the Thatcher Government at all - that was it's greatest failing.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Aug 5, 2010 7:31:49 GMT -8 Anselm said:

I think that has some relevance actually for electoral reform - if you include localism in that especially, with the Hannan/Carswell led Direct Democracy grouping - and if you look at how the Conservatives officially support a mostly elected Lords, give things away like AV referendums - it's a sign I think of either the leadership or relative groupings, perhaps even the current state of the country - which I think is a very Peelian notion to make in fact, accepting something is inevitable and so taking the issue for yourself and shaping it in a, shall I say conservative way.

If change is inevitable then you might as well take control of it yourself...

All this talk of electoral reform kinda reminds of the 1868 Reform Act that was sponsored by Benjamin Disraeli (a Tory/Conservative), passed in lieu of a bill proposed by William Gladstone (a Whig/Liberal). An example on taking the initiative on matters of reform I'd say. Of course, the irony here was the Disraeli's bill was more radical than Gladstone's!

---

Aug 5, 2010 7:42:59 GMT -8 Morgoth said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Being the cynic I am, I have a feeling that they only seem that way at the moment because they're being moderated by the Lib Dems. Had the Tories won a majority of seats, I have a feeling that they'd fall right back, or at least disturbingly close to the socially conservative policies of the Thatcher government. Social liberalism is not something I personally would associate with the Conservative party, ever. Their past record puts me off them no end.

Well the Tories opposed 42 days detention and intended to abolish ID cards long before the coalition, so your cynicism is unjustified.

What social conservative policies of the Thatcher Government? Apart from the disastrous Section 28, there were hardly any social conservative (or indeed social) policies of the Thatcher Government at all - that was it's greatest failing.

My cynicism is perfectly justified. The Tories were in opposition at the time, knew the plans were unpopular and capitalised on it for political gain- shameless populism, and that's enough to make me feel cynical about any party. I'm not exactly a Labour fan either, but with a lack of any other viable option, I prefer them to the Conservatives.

As for the Thatcher government matter, just because Section 28 was the only obvious legislative example, it doesn't mean that her ministry wasn't inherently socially conservative, because it was.

[Anselm]

Aug 5, 2010 7:50:13 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:31:49 GMT -8 Anselm said:

I think that has some relevance actually for electoral reform - if you include localism in that especially, with the Hannan/Carswell led Direct Democracy grouping - and if you look at how the Conservatives officially support a mostly elected Lords, give things away like AV referendums - it's a sign I think of either the leadership or relative groupings, perhaps even the current state of the country - which I think is a very Peelian notion to make in fact, accepting something is inevitable and so taking the issue for yourself and shaping it in a, shall I say conservative way.

If change is inevitable then you might as well take control of it yourself...

All this talk of electoral reform kinda reminds of the 1868 Reform Act that was sponsored by Benjamin Disraeli (a Tory/Conservative), passed in lieu of a bill proposed by William Gladstone (a Whig/Liberal). An example on taking the initiative on matters of reform I'd say. Of course, the irony here was the Disraeli's bill was more radical than Gladstone's!

Disraeli's bill is what I'm thinking of, but I'm also thinking of Peel's reform of the Corn Laws. Accepted as inevitable, maybe it's just a matter of the conservative politician realising that it's a just solution and thus wanting their name on it in years to come - or it might be as I said trying to get the best possible solution (in there opinion maybe) to a problem that will need solving somehow - I don't know. Cameron also was impressed by Disraeli at Brasenose I've heard, which probably means something.

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Whilst I support the use of AV over FPTP, I can help but harbour concerns over the other parliamentary reform plans being pushed by the government. For one thing, a 500 member commons would lead to, in my view, some malapportionment issues regarding parliamentary constituencies (that and it's blatant gerrymandering)- at a population of approximately 62-63 million, a 620-630 member parliament would be far better, 1 MP per 100,000 people.

Sorry for not picking this up in my last post, but constituencies are based on number of electors rather than population. The system is already quite skewed in Labour's favour as it is because the boundary review doesn't take account quickly enough of people in broadly-Labour voting areas moving into broadly Conservative-voting areas, and thus constituency sizes are mucked up. To bring forward a boundary review would be ideal there - my problem is just that they seem to be making a bad name for it, especially in Wales where there is ignorance of any historic boundaries and just patching up of seats into each other - Newport seems to have bits of it as one "Newport" constituency, then bits pushed into Cardiff East, bits into Caerphilly, bits into Torfaen and bits into Monmouth. That's from Newport West and Newport East as they are now - it's all a bit silly and whether it's the civil service deliberately trying to discredit it I don't know, perhaps cynical's a better word. Or maybe I'm the cynical one.

Personally, I don't really mind how many MPs there are at Westminster (honestly don't think it makes loads of difference, and as long as it doesn't get out of control) - but it's power to me that counts, and I'd rather see less central power and more devolved to counties. Traditional counties. Maybe I'm a radical after all, or maybe I'm being a traditionalist conservative. Adds something else to my last post.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Aug 5, 2010 7:56:45 GMT -8 Anselm said:

Aug 5, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -8 Lord Twaddleford said:

Whilst I support the use of AV over FPTP, I can help but harbour concerns over the other parliamentary reform plans being pushed by the government. For one thing, a 500 member commons would lead to, in my view, some malapportionment issues regarding parliamentary constituencies (that and it's blatant gerrymandering)- at a population of approximately 62-63 million, a 620-630 member parliament would be far better, 1 MP per 100,000 people.

Sorry for not picking this up in my last post, but constituencies are based on number of electors rather than population. The system is already quite skewed in Labour's favour as it is because the boundary review doesn't take account quickly enough of people in broadly-Labour voting areas moving into broadly Conservative-voting areas, and thus constituency sizes are mucked up. To bring forward a boundary review would be ideal there - my problem is just that they seem to be making a bad name for it, especially in Wales where there is ignorance of any historic boundaries and just patching up of seats into each other - Newport seems to have bits of it as one "Newport" constituency, then bits pushed into Cardiff East, bits into Caerphilly, bits into Torfaen and bits into Monmouth. That's from Newport West and Newport East as they are now - it's all a bit silly and whether it's the civil service deliberately trying to discredit it I don't know, perhaps cynical's a better word. Or maybe I'm the cynical one.

Personally, I don't really mind how many MPs there are at Westminster (honestly don't think it makes loads of difference, and as long as it doesn't get out of control) - but it's power to me that counts, and I'd rather see less central power and more devolved to counties. Traditional counties. Maybe I'm a radical after all, or maybe I'm being a traditionalist conservative. Adds something else to my last post.

One man's radical is another man's reactionary...

Electors, population- either the current apportionment system is messed, no arguments. I know if I had my way I'd assign 1 MP to every 100,000 people/electors/jelly babies and have all constituencies be multi-member using STV as you mentioned earlier, though I'd all for some size variation between constituencies (3 members minimum, perhaps 7 member maximum), but just so long as population:MP ratios are more or less equal. Hope I made sense there.

In fact, let me highlight my biggest gripe about our current system: this monstrosity of a parliamentary constituency. Its population is barely over 20,000. The largest parliamentary constituency in terms of population has 101,000 people. Make of that what you will.