To AV, or not to AV?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But your example would never happen, as there are not constituencies of those extremes (140k and 39k) - the range (at the moment) is 61k to 86k....

You are also comparing apples with housebricks, when you, on one hand, use constituency figures to support your argument, and then use national voting figures to also support it.

We vote for a local representative to a national parliament - if you want to parliament to reflect the national voting figures, we would need to completely change the way we select and vote our governments (and local and area councils, to ensure democratic evenhandedness).

I have seen extremes bigger than the gap you mention.

Marginals can be one with a majority of say 10 votes, but a neighboring seat may have a majority of 20k. The value of each vote in different seats varies by huge amounts.

How about a FPTP system but without constituency voting? would you object to that, so simply total tally for entire country. Simple as well.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I have seen extremes bigger than the gap you mention.

Marginals can be one with a majority of say 10 votes, but a neighboring seat may have a majority of 20k. The value of each vote in different seats varies by huge amounts.

How about a FPTP system but without constituency voting? would you object to that, so simply total tally for entire country. Simple as well.

But that breaks the local representation and accountability link, which I believe is very important.

btw, Scunthorpe in 1997 had a Labour majority of nearly 15K - in the by-election, it was down to 2.5K; things can change.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Err, that's proper PR isn't it?

Something I could say yes to. But we've been offered a bum steer. And I voted against it.

Correct it would be a PR version of FPTP.

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

But that breaks the local representation and accountability link, which I believe is very important.

Less important than a fairer voting system that reflects amount of votes cast.

Think about what your argument is and the current system.

Now lets give an example the current labour shadow chancellor. Did he manage to keep his safe seat dispite the corruption? Accountability didnt do much there did it? Because at the end of the day if an MP does something wrong if they in a safe seat they will still get voted back in again. probably 98-99% chance, the freak 1-2% chance they will get kicked out, much more likely their own party will kick them out if the press is too bad, which would happen anyway under a different system.

There was someone from the No camp on Sky News saying that it was a shame the Yes campaign dragged down the tone of the debate!

[Chrysalis]

Ok an adjusted variant of the idea I posted.

one vote per person on national FPTP no constituencies.

Parties get amount of seats based on amount of votes achieved.

Obvious downside is independents would have a harder time of it as harder for them to reach out on national level than local level.

For accountability allow an area to vote their MP out if performing badly. So eg. have a place that can be contacted by disgruntled voters, if enough in an area complain about a particular MP then that MP is kicked out and another replaces them. Not another election but be replaced by someone from same party.

The main issue I see with this is how ind's are handled. I dont see how the current system is particurly good for local relationship's between mp's and their voters because before the election I had never heard of my MP and after the election she has never replied to any emails I sent to her. She will in all likelyhood be reelected next election barring her not standing.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Ok updated idea.

Keep constituency voting but have it not apply for local parties, so like this.

People vote for either a party or ind MP.
If a ind wins that area, then he gets seat, votes for that area for other parties could either then discard or keep them towards general pool of votes.
All areas with no ind winning (vast majority of areas) votes go to national pool.
Allow MPs to be kicked out with a compliance committee that voters can use.
if an ind is kicked out there is an election in area but only for ind's.

there obviously wouldnt be then voting for individuals to represent a party in your area as well as even which party gets which areas but in all honesty most people dont vote for individuals they vote for parties.

[Ignitionnet]

Or you could just follow the example of the Germans. Merge each 2 of the current constituencies into a single larger one, which will have one MP elected via FPTP and a second via PR, ideally regional PR so that the second MP also retains some link with his/her constituents and more appropriately reflects the area's views rather than having Labour use some of their PR elected MPs to put MPs into pretty much anywhere outside of bits of London in the South East or have the Tories put MPs into North-East England.

Still have a number of areas that would elect a steaming, stinking turd if it had the appropriate colour rosette but those not voting for that candidate can feel their vote counted for something in the PR.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Or you could just follow the example of the Germans. Merge each 2 of the current constituencies into a single larger one, which will have one MP elected via FPTP and a second via PR, ideally regional PR so that the second MP also retains some link with his/her constituents.

Still have a number of areas that would elect a steaming, stinking turd if it had the appropriate colour rosette but those not voting for that candidate can feel their vote counted for something in the PR.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise - bloody Germans, thinking things through in a logical manner.....

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Or you could just follow the example of the Germans. Merge each 2 of the current constituencies into a single larger one, which will have one MP elected via FPTP and a second via PR, ideally regional PR so that the second MP also retains some link with his/her constituents and more appropriately reflects the area's views rather than having Labour use some of their PR elected MPs to put MPs into pretty much anywhere outside of bits of London in the South East or have the Tories put MPs into North-East England.

Still have a number of areas that would elect a steaming, stinking turd if it had the appropriate colour rosette but those not voting for that candidate can feel their vote counted for something in the PR.

so a half and half system sort of a compromise, thats something I guess and would be better then what is now.

[Tezcatlipoca]

The "No" vote is expected to be 69%...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

Hmmm, country says no...

Quite emphatically.

[LondonRoad]

I can't say I'm really surprised. Yes campaign was poor because nobody could really get excited about AV. Supporters of PR, as I am, where placing pictures of Nick Clegg on the dartboard when details of his soul selling.... I mean negotiations with DC were revealed.

The slim chance of seeing PR in Westminster changed some months ago to nil chance in my lifetime.

I remember when the election process for the Scottish parliament was announced the political experts at the time insisted that it was very unlikely that a party would form a majority administration...... or was it unlikely that Labour would form a majority administration.

[Chrysalis]

yep his mistakes started when he backed down from STV to AV, the tories needed him for power and STV should have not been negotiable. This country barring a revolution will likely now not see this again as a voting issue for decades, wasnt it last before ww2 this was put under vote? it actually won the MP vote but lost in the lords.

Well it's all over and done with now and i doubt very much there will be another vote on this in my lifetime and being honest good right now we have more important things to sort out. I do think those who pushed for this so quick have shot themselves in the foot by doing so as people have so many other real life concerns at the minute that reform of the voting system was never really on anyones mind. It would have been better to wait a few years let the country recover let people get back to some form of normality and then try and get reform through.

I do think this amongst other things is going to come back hard on the lib dems in future and last night might end up not being that bad compared to what might come in the future certainly if the lib dems round me are anything to go by.

[Tezcatlipoca]

So... What now for Clegg? Will he survive after suffering massive defeats with this & the elections?