View Single Post
Old 09-05-2010, 21:42   #761
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: 2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

I'm fine with STV my only concern is how it translates to the current constituencies. It would need to be done by borough, county or a similar administrative division and would cause upset among some constituencies - there would be a number of MPs without one or constituencies that have been assigned one.

Overall not a bad idea and not actually massively different from FPTP so long as it's done that way - each of the enlarged constituencies electing directly via FPTP then across the area a 2nd MP being assigned to each of those larger constituencies based on STV results across the administrative area would ensure local accountability and if the electorate weren't happy with who they were assigned a robust process to remove them democratically would be a prerequisite as part of the reform.

As a compromise STV could even be used alongside the current system to elect a second house if election to the Commons via it were so unpalatable.

I must admit the more I think about it the more I like it. It's all kinds of democratic.
Ignitionnet is offline