Advertise
-
Books
-
Titanic: was it all right when it left here?
Not according to metallurgists Tim Foecke and Jennifer Hooper McCarty whose research has suggested that dodgy Harland and Wolff rivets were at fault for allowing the Titanic’s hull to be ripped apart by the pressure of the iceberg impact. With six of the hull’s chambers exposed to the Atlantic waters, the “unsinkable” ship lasted less [...] read our review »
-
Propaganda of Peace: Media and culture during the peace process
Extract from Greg McLaughlin and Stephen Baker: The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Bristol: Intellect Books. 2010. Political opponents Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness were confirmed as First Minister and Deputy First Minister of a new executive in May 2007, closing yet another chapter in [...] read our review »
-
The Imperfectionists (Tom Rachman) – an insight into a newspaper that’s maybe not so fictional
‘news’ is often a polite way of saying ‘editor’s whim’ Given the shift from print to online and e-ink, maybe Tom Rachman’s The Imperfectionists was a suitable first first book for me to finish reading on the Kindle. Considering the economic pressures on the newspaper industry, his novel perhaps captures the spirit and soul of [...] read our review »
-
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 3 January 2011 at 10:33 am
Paul
I’m surprised you haven’t flagged up STV as proportional in nature because, depending upon the extent of multi-member constituencies used (the larger the number of representatives per constituency the greater the degree of proportionality it imports), it certainly delivers on this front.
The Electoral Reform Society conducted some detailed research based on the voting patterns exhibited during the 2010 general election, enhanced with additional sampling to demonstrate preferential tendencies amongst voters.
Under STV it was predicted that the election would have provided a Parliament with;
• 247 Conservative MPs (36.1% / 38%)
• 206 Labour MPs (29% / 31.7%)
• 162 Lib Dem MPs (23% / 24.9%)
• 35 Others MPs (11.9% / 5.4%)
Figures in brackets show (actual %of votes under FPTP/ %of seats predicted under STV)
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/?p=36
So whilst still not a wholly accurate reflection of the votes cast, a lot closer that either AV or FPTP. The minor parties still appear to lose out under this forecast result but it is only a prediction based to some extent on existing voting patterns – I think we both understand that the voting system itself profoundly shapes voting behaviour – I believe it’s likely that minor party candidates and/or independents would fare much better under STV than we might believe – STV empowers voters to express their political preference in both an ideological and individual fashion – in other words it is both party and candidate driven simultaneously.
Go to comment
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 30 December 2010 at 7:47 pm
I forgot to add one overriding caveat
There is no such thing as a perfect voting system – but some are less imperfect than others!
Go to comment
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 30 December 2010 at 7:41 pm
Paul Evans: “I’m not sure that this is evidence. You can oppose the right thing for the wrong reason.”
Well it’s pretty obvious to me why the majority of those in both the Labour and Conservative parties are opposing change away from FPTP and that’s because it damages their narrow tribal interests, ie. the likelihood of less of them in the Commons and more for their political rivals! Now that’s definitely what I call opposing the right thing for the wrong reason!
Paul Evans: “The problem with voting reform is that there is never a compelling reason to advance any particular prescription. As far as I can see, *every* proportional voting system increases the power of political parties, incentivises those parties to adopt simplistic populist positions and forces politicians to be more obedient to them.”
Really – I’m going to assume you do have some knowledge of voting systems and the merits (or lack of) in favour/against any of them?
STV (in the relatively small constituencies I’ve referred to) works specifically against party interests and tips the balance of power/influence much further in favour of the only person that should matter in any election – THE VOTER!
Why does STV do this when other proportional systems don’t – quite simply because STV doesn’t make use of top up lists – the list of candidates on the ballot paper remains open so individual voters can exercise judgement both within and across party lines – it’s their choice to endorse/censure individual candidates at will – this factor alone has the consequence of obliging candidates to pay much more attention to their electorates and a lot less heed to party managers offering to further their political careers< if only they'd behave themselves?
One of the major criticisms aimed at STV is that elected MPs end up spending far too much of their time attending to the hopes/desires/aspirations of their constituents (because they know that is more likely to lead to re-election next time round) rather than the business of National government – now I'm not really sure if this is a flaw but perhaps it is but I'm sure it's one (relatively minor) issue voters would be prepared to put up with?
Of course the other major brickbat levelled at STV is that's it's complex but this particular negative routinely emanates from one of the usual suspects, who just happens to have a vested interest in making damn sure STV never even gets on to the mainstream agenda!
The advent of AV will establish the notion of preference voting; 1,2,3 in the mindset of ordinary citizens. Once that hurdle is negotiated the debate can turn to more cerebral topics, such as the debate between single vs multi-member representation – bolt multi-member boundaries on to AV (and we already have multi-member representation at local govt level across much of the UK anyway, it's just that we elect in thirds for England & Wales to maintain the charade of FPTP) and hey presto – you have STV!
Go to comment
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 30 December 2010 at 10:55 am
sorry that should read “fundamentally disagree”
Go to comment
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 30 December 2010 at 10:54 am
@Paul Evans: “indeed I’m not sure that the voting system itself is the biggest thing that needs reforming”
I’d have to fundamentally with your conclusion on that point – and the fact that this single issue rallies our elected representatives to the barricades like no other rather gives the game away?
@Paul Evans: “the only strong view I have on the matter is that we shouldn’t inherit it, but should decide it ourselves”
Well isn’t that precisely where we find ourselves with First Past the Post – a legacy of Parliamentary traditions now well past its sell by date and isn’t the whole rationale supporting referendums in general that we (the people) make the decision ourselves?
Go to comment
Comment on Why referendums should be banned
on 15 December 2010 at 1:09 pm
Can’t disagree with the basic thrust of this analysis but in the end we get the democracy we deserve?
For me the best way to improve this general state of affairs is to foster an environment that will lead to increased public engagement – the most obvious manifestation of such engagement in political discourse is a valid ballot paper, duly placed in the ballot box – if people generally feel they have influence over the function of the democratic political process I believe such engagement will flower quite naturally – it’s not a quick fix solution I’ll readily admit but sustainable solutions never are?
Of course, what I’m alluding to here is the UK’s arcane voting method for Westminster elections, which allied with the highly centralised and relatively opaque nature of its institutional architecture, best illustrated by our uncodified Constitution, creates an potentially toxic cocktail of ambivalent and openly cynical citizens.
I’m a firm advocate of the Single Transferable Vote, which utilised in conjunction with relatively small constituency boundaries (say equivalent to no less than 3 but no more than 5 current single MP Westminster seats) would provide a relatively benign landscape in which a strong degree of locality (the fabled constituency link) would be maintained, introduce real choice (for voters) on the ballot paper, strongly motivate successful candidates to perform (greater accountability?) once elected to office and finally inject a healthy dose of proportionality (through use of multi-member seats) and thus fairness into the overall result.
Unfortunately the UK doesn’t do radical overnight change of this type so I suppose we must approach such transformation one step at a time, which is where next May’s referendum on AV comes into the equation. By convention, matters of constitutional import should be subject to referendum, precisely because they carry potential to profoundly change our democratic framework, at least that’s the theory?
Doubtless the Conservatives are quietly congratulating themselves over the manner in which their LibDem partners have conveniently installed themselves as the pantomime villains, taking the blame for every negative aspect of government policy output and gaining no credit for anything positive – the worst of all possible worlds for Clegg & Co!
Whether this will translate into a massive shift in public opinion against voting reform remains to be seen. Ironically the very same demographic most adversely impacted by the tuition fees farrago (students and young people) are the very same group most enthusiastically supporting the permanent demise of First Past the Post. On the minus side they’re also the least likely to actually turn up at the ballot box next May – this is the challenge facing the YES campaign as it gears up for the forthcoming plebiscite.
Is the referendum winnable – yes, I think it probably still is but only if the YES campaign is successful in exposing the merits of this vital issue to a wide enough audience – the NO campaign have everything to gain from burying debate in a confusing slurry of misinformation and outright subterfuge – it’s up to the YES campaign to get out there and make as big a noise as possible – if that sounds suspiciously like a lowest common denominator strategy, who am I to argue if it delivers the right result?
Go to comment