Electoral Reform

[Kickstart]

Hi

As the liberals seem to have had a surge of popularity again, and with it looking possible that we might get a party getting the majority of seats while nothing like the majority of votes, electoral reform seems to have come up again.

How would you reform the electoral system? If a PR system would you consider it worthwhile to prevent tiny minority parties from having undue power from holding the casting vote, and if so how? Would you want to keep some form of local representation, and if so how?

My personal feeling would be some form of localised PR. Maybe each county (or similar populated areas) has a PR based election against a pool of candidates. This way there would still be some local representation, and truly tiny parties wouldn't be a serious issue. However, not certain on this (and not certain that the 2nd point is acceptable).

Any other ideas?

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[D O G]

For a start I'd significantly reduce the number of MPs to be within the 150-200 range. There is no way we need 650 people to bloat the gvt.

That would in itself reduce the problem of of small but powerful parties in a PR system.

I also like the idea of banning political parties altogether - they destort the representation of the people.

[Dr. DaveJPS]

the only problem is that PR will probably grind things to a halt wilst it thrashes itself out.

the main thing i would change atm is rather than an elected house of lords (as it would just lead to party politicking and that doesn't work as proved by the lower house, where things are far too swayed by public fervour at the time). i think it should be a jury service principle with people receiving the equivalent wage as their current profession (and inflation) for say the 6 years they serve (with the option of leaving for personal reasons/if they wish). plus if serving the full 6 years the title may be kept after leaving.

just my
____________________
"intelligent inattention is preferable to unintelligent tinkering"
www.davejps.com

[Itchy]

Simple solution is free marketism.

With perhaps 5-10% flat tax on everything to keep the country ticking over.

Everytime you buy something or pay for something you vote and thus things that are not wanted do not exist.

Companies do not produce VHS players anymore because there is no demand.

Currently our government is based upon coercion effectively guns to your head, the difference betweeb NK Somalia and here is efficiency. An inefficient government needs to exercise its power by executing its slaves regularly, i.e. Somalia and NK.

The Mongols defeated the Chinese not in open warfare but by making examples of people. They would go to Beijing and raze it to the ground and have piles of skulls everywhere to scare the Chinese to surrender which they did.

The UK government merely kidnaps a few people and it cowes everybody else into submission and they pay their taxes without much complaint. The UK government's use of forceis therefore incredibly efficient there we get the odd tax protestor here and there who are swiftly dealt with and not executed.


The government now is effectively demanding protection money (fiat money depends on their ability to oppress you) and they then buy the things they tell you that you want some of these things may include things you want.

Boiled down to bikes

I like Hondas and therefore I buy Hondas
I dislike Wuyang bikes therefore I do not buy Wuyang bikes.

The government buys hondas and Wuyang bikes.

Applied to government

The government may buy things I want say NHS while buying things I don't want say diversity coordinators or those 5 a day coordinators.

But rather than giving you a choice they coerce the money out of you via taxes which are as above backed by force to buy the things you don't want.


It is all good and well saying you can vote them out but this creates an inefficiency in that if there is no demand for VCRs then the government only finds out 5 years later when they have budgetted for 5 years worth of VCRs.

If you buy only what you want the inefficient and unwanted vanish overnight making massive tax savings and rubbish like the milenium dome doesn't ever get built as there is no demand in which to support the temporary joint stock coalition body to build it.


There is no free rider problem either as if there is insufficient demand then the product and or service is simply stopped. For example you don't see many pig farms in Saudi do you?
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[Kickstart]

Hi

DOG - do quite like the idea of a smaller number of MPs, but not sure if would save anything major in terms of money while potentially would make them less likely to take any notice of individuals. I very much like the idea of banning political parties in this way, forcing them to vote in line with what their "constituents" want, just unsure of how it could be done in practice.

DaveJPS - Do quite like the idea of people being placed into the House of Lords like that. However in some ways given how little power the HoL have I am not that desperate for reform there. Doesn't help that they have tried to reform it and (to my mind) made no positive difference (and house mainly appointed by the government seems pointless except as a rubber stamp).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[pa_broon74]

I've always thought a jury type system for the H of L's was a good idea. People serve for the term of the government and then never again (stops nepotism.) The problem with it is, you might get some right numpties in there, there would need to be some checks about the calibre of person let in. Not sure how that would work.

PR works in Scotland, it works because they don't really have a choice. There have been a great many decisions made, some good, some bad. On balance though, it seems to be working. The Libdems want it because from they're point of view it is unfair, the tories don't because traditionally, if there vote is ever diluted, its usually to the libdems. labour I don't think care, they're vote when set against the other two are always going to be shored up by dim Scottish voters, due to fear of Thatcher and fear of independance.

I would advocate a lucky dip box, you can mark that and someone (pre-vetted) is then picked from a list; it'll be a wee surprise. Could be a footballer, could be a comedian or it could just be the woman from the chip shop.

Someone on the BBC HYS board (a hotbed of daily mailesque hysteria) was bleating on about the BNP or UKIP being able to return MP's. If that did happen, it wouldn't only be down to a system of PR, it would be down to dissatifaction with the current crowd. The currect democratic system actually channels support towards fringe parties, in Scotland we had greens and socialist MSP's in place, they all got swept aside during the last Scottish election because the bigger issues took precedence.


____________________
Didn't catch anything.

[Dr. DaveJPS]

[pa_broon74]

[The Shaggy D.A.]

[Itchy]

[Dr. DaveJPS]

this was why i put it as a rather lower level (so not say once you've paid £100K worth of tax) ( picked 30Kpa as an achievable level for most) so more people would be included in said lottery.

and of dodgy people will get in no matter what, that is the issue of the any lottery.
____________________
"intelligent inattention is preferable to unintelligent tinkering"
www.davejps.com

[Robby]

I wouldn't want an elected HOL, I'd rather keep the hereditary and appointed peers and let them serve for life, and give the HOL more power.

The reason being that a 5 year government is very short term, and a short term view can create massive problems and not give much stability. A lord with 20 years experience and 20 years or more to serve with guaranteed job security can take a long term view and make decisions that are better for the country in the long term, without needing to bow to political pressure or worry about votes and image.

As for the commons, I would rather see less party politics. Banning political parties altogether wouldn't work, you would just see the party being entirely shady and underground instead of obvious. Getting rid of the whip would appeal, so that the decision making lies with the individual MPs and not the PM.

I don't like it when an MP or candidate tells me what they believe in. Their job is serve their constituency, so their beliefs don't matter a bit. If the constituency opposes a new act, the MPs job is to vote against it.

[Kickstart]

[stinkwheel]

I'd like to see the government (by that I mean those who are appointed to make decisions rather than the whole big shouting match) formed by a representative portion of the members of parliament for one thing.

With first past the post system and majority politics. It boils down to the elected representatives of a large proportion of the country have no input into the running of the country other than to sit on the opposite bench shouting down whatever the incumbent government proposes.

Not sure exactly how you'd do it. I suspect the comittee system would be one way. You assign comittees proportionally and they must agree to a high level of confidence that what they are proposing is the correct course of action before it can be submitted to parliament to legislate on.

So say you had a 10 man comittee drawn out of a hat consisting of 6 labour, 2 conservatives, a lib dem and an independant deliberating if the national speed limit should be reduced to 50mph on rural roads. They would take advice from experts and discuss the matter. Rather than the usual 50% which would mean labour could railroad the whole lot through on their majority, there should be a requirement for say a 7:3 ratio in favour of the proposal before it can be passed on for legislation.

Essentially make the status quo the default position and in order to change the law there should be a large, clear and representative majority in favour of it.

It always struck me as wrong that a piece of legislation which could radically alter the way of life and rights of all citizens of this country can go through on a 51% vote in favour. That means 49% were opposed to it and their view counts for nothing.

Consensus politics seems to me the right way to go but the UK parliament is so totally polarised down party lines, I can't see it changing unless one could somehow make it impossable to effect legislation WITHOUT consensus. There would be an initial period where party one would shout "black" and parties two and three would automatically shout "white" but I suspect once they realised they were getting nothing done, reluctant mutterings of "grey" would be forthcoming.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[Kickstart]