What more evidence do we need to change our voting system?

[unbeliever]

I think for those types of election, Mayoral and leadership election its fine but for a general election not so good.

 

 

 

 

But if that candidate loses then the votes automatically go to a candidate that you didn't also want.

 

 

Usually under AV, if you don't want to specify a second choice, or a third or whatever you don't have to. Then if your candidate is knocked out, your vote is not transferred.

I didnt think that PR used a top-up list?

 

Under good PR systems, you basically run a FPTP system and then achieve proportionality by allocating extra seats from candidate lists to those parties which lost out in the FPTP results. i.e. That got a smaller percentage of members elected than they got share of the vote. That's pretty standard for practical PR.

 

According to the Electoral Reform Society in the Pro AV column it say: It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes. That I would also assume be the same with independents.

 

On my browsing I just came across this as well:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/electoral-reform-labour-snp-ukip-and-lib-dems-to-campaign-for-proportional-representation-a6859711.html

 

Not sure if I can defend this, but I'm not terribly upset that the fringe parties find it hard to get people elected.

 

 

AV appeals to me because I sometimes feel driven toward tactical voting. Let's say that I really want Labour to lose in my constituency. I'd like the Conservative candidate to win, but he's polling behind the Lib Dem. I can put a 1 for Conservative and a 2 for Lib Dem under AV.

 

Under FPTP I have to either vote tactically or risk ending up with the Labour chap.

 

Under PR they assume that I voted Conservative because I like the Conservative party. Maybe I just liked that one Conservative candidate. Instead of transferring my vote to the Lib Dem, which is what I would have done. The give me the Labour MP I didn't want at all on account of the anti-Labour vote being split and then reallocate my vote to some random Conservative off a list. That's not right.

Edited June 28, 2016 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

Under good PR systems, you basically run a FPTP system and then achieve proportionality by allocating extra seats from candidate lists to those parties which lost out in the FPTP results. i.e. That got a smaller percentage of members elected than they got share of the vote. That's pretty standard for practical PR.

 

You will have to qualify this as I don't have a clue what you mean.

[unbeliever]

You will have to qualify this as I don't have a clue what you mean.

 

Oh hi.

 

I'm referring to PR systems where there are party top-up lists as opposed to PR systems where there are just party lists.

[tzijlstra]

Oh hi.

 

I'm referring to PR systems where there are party top-up lists as opposed to PR systems where there are just party lists.

 

No, still don't get it. Let me try and understand - in some PR systems you just vote for a party and in others you vote for people representing that party?

[Litotes]

No, still don't get it. Let me try and understand - in some PR systems you just vote for a party and in others you vote for people representing that party?

 

Yes...

 

e.g. Scotland

 

When you vote in a Scottish Parliament election, you have two votes – one to elect your constituency member and one to elect your regional member.

 

In the constituency ballot, you choose the candidate you want to represent your constituency.

 

In the regional ballot, you choose from a list of party or independent candidates to represent your region.

 

On the lilac coloured ballot paper you will vote for your constituency MSP. The ballot paper lists the name of each candidate along with their party name and party logo.

 

Simply put a cross (X) next to the one candidate that you wish to vote for.

 

On the peach coloured ballot paper you vote for a party or independent candidate competing for the seven regional seats for your region of Scotland. The ballot paper lists political parties and independent candidates.

[unbeliever]

No, still don't get it. Let me try and understand - in some PR systems you just vote for a party and in others you vote for people representing that party?

 

Take for example the Bundestag

 

They run, as I was saying a FPTP almost identical to the UK system. But they have PR. They achieve this by to the constituency members, adding as many members from party lists as are needed to satisfy proportionality.

[phil752]

Take for example the Bundestag

 

They run, as I was saying a FPTP almost identical to the UK system. But they have PR. They achieve this by to the constituency members, adding as many members from party lists as are needed to satisfy proportionality.

 

so you never get to vote for a person just a party

[unbeliever]

so you never get to vote for a person just a party

 

Both. This is the virtue of the Bundestag style top-up list system.

As Litotes says, they run the same system in Scotland, but I'm pretty sure they ripped it off from the Germans.

 

They first elect a candidate for each constituency is essentially the same way we currently do in the UK. But when you vote you also cast a second vote for a party (which may or may not be the party of the constituency candidate you just voted for, but probably is most of the time). When the votes come in they look at the nationwide vote percentages for the parties and add members from party lists so that the number of members from each party is proportional to the percentage of the vote that party received.

That means that there are 2 classes of members in the Bundestag: Those from constituencies and those from lists. I'm not sure what the list members are doing when the constituency members are talking to their constituents as those members don't have any constituents. Maybe they hoover the building or something.

 

The wikipedia entry on the Bundestag explains it better than I can.

Edited June 28, 2016 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

Interesting stuff. I never looked into the German system as I had no need to, I knew they were federal and that was about it. Might be a good system here. That way you ensure appropriate local representation (provided a demand to stand for a constituency is that you are local) whilst also getting rid of the myriad of tiny constituencies we have here and open it to, for example Yorkshire.

[phil752]

Both. This is the virtue of the Bundestag style top-up list system.

As Litotes says, they run the same system in Scotland, but I'm pretty sure they ripped it off from the Germans.

 

They first elect a candidate for each constituency is essentially the same way we currently do in the UK. But when you vote you also cast a second vote for a party (which may or may not be the party of the constituency candidate you just voted for, but probably is most of the time). When the votes come in they look at the nationwide vote percentages for the parties and add members from party lists so that the number of members from each party is proportional to the percentage of the vote that party received.

That means that there are 2 classes of members in the Bundestag: Those from constituencies and those from lists. I'm not sure what the list members are doing when the constituency members are talking to their constituents as those members don't have any constituents. Maybe they hoover the building or something.

 

The wikipedia entry on the Bundestag explains it better than I can.

 

I favor the American system of primaries, were anyone can select themselves to represent a party, i hate our system of parachuting candidates into safe seats, but i guess it would still be down to money.