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

[unbeliever]

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.

 

At all costs we need to avoid falling into whatever trap created the US 2 party system. I know that smaller parties are under-represented in the UK, but in the US they're practically non-existent. I fear that the fact that the government is involved in the organisation of party candidate selection in the US has a lot to do with that.

[apelike]

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.

 

I was also not aware of that but to my mind it does seem a better system and far fairer.

 

The one thing I don't like is the fact that you cant be a candidate for any party unless selected by it. Sometimes I have not voted for a party because I just didn't like the candidate put forward.

[tzijlstra]

I was also not aware of that but to my mind it does seem a better system and far fairer.

 

The one thing I don't like is the fact that you cant be a candidate for any party unless selected by it. Sometimes I have not voted for a party because I just didn't like the candidate put forward.

 

This is an issue that is addressed in the Dutch system where the party puts together a list of candidates in order of the party-preference (ie. as agreed by that party) and where you vote for the person that you would most like to see elected.

 

It has the effect of giving voters more of a say in which people make it into the parliament although, to be fair, it rarely throws up odd results, with the majority of voters simply voting for the name they know best - the party leader.

 

I have witnessed a few oddities in my time though, particularly locally. My local party put the list together but, as we expected to only get 3 seats the numbers 5-10 were basically filling. Turned out that the number 5, because he was a coach of the local football team, had huge name recognition and ended up in spot number 3. He didn't want to be in spot number 3...

[unbeliever]

The one thing I don't like is the fact that you cant be a candidate for any party unless selected by it. Sometimes I have not voted for a party because I just didn't like the candidate put forward.

 

Under any kind of PR system, you're going to end up voting (at least partly) for a party and not an individual candidate. You can of course look at the party lists before voting and decide whether you like them, but you're voting on the list, not any individual. That's the weakness and the objection to the whole PR approach and there's no way around it.

This is probably why AV was offered instead. It's certainly why I like it. It gets you closer to proportionality and removes the need to consider tactical voting; but still allows you to cast your vote for, and only for, individual candidates.

[Obelix]

This was split from the consequences thread as it was drifting from the main topic there.

 

There is a great unease from both sides about how narrow the margin was, and the deeply divisive nature this has had on the UK. This most people seem to agree was that the referendum was not well presented, both in terms of the question and the way it was run.

 

So how would you have handled it?

 

My opinion is that we have representative democracy, but certain powers and rights, both inherent and acquired are too important to allow our representatives to decide on soley my themselves. For such actions the final approval of the legislature should be sought.

 

Please note that I said "final". For us to have validly decided to leave the EU, we should first have had a meaningful debate in Parliament, and then passed a law repealing the common markets act, and *requireing* the PM to enact Article 50 on a specific day, subject to a confirmation by the people. This stricty would have been a plebiscite not a referendum as it would lead to a direct action. However I shall refer to it as a referendum.

 

For the motion to pass, and for such an important motion I would require a supermajority. For an early general election, it requires that two thirds of MP vote for the motion. That would seem to be a good place to start.

 

To carry the referendum through it should ask a simple question not an either/or.

 

It should list the consequences of the choice

 

It should only list the following responses. Yes - this carries the motion, and No change - which avoids the negative connotations of voting for "No"

 

I would therefore expect a referendum question to read

 

"Parliament has decided that the UK should leave the European Union. This decision once made cannot be changed. It will mean that our future involvment in Europe will be partly decided by the remainder of the EU. This will take place on <date> if more than 2/3rd of people voting choose to do so. Do you wish for this to happen?"

 

Your thoughts on how you would do it, are ever welcome.

[unbeliever]

This was split from the consequences thread as it was drifting from the main topic there.

 

There is a great unease from both sides about how narrow the margin was, and the deeply divisive nature this has had on the UK. This most people seem to agree was that the referendum was not well presented, both in terms of the question and the way it was run.

 

So how would you have handled it?

 

My opinion is that we have representative democracy, but certain powers and rights, both inherent and acquired are too important to allow our representatives to decide on soley my themselves. For such actions the final approval of the legislature should be sought.

 

Please note that I said "final". For us to have validly decided to leave the EU, we should first have had a meaningful debate in Parliament, and then passed a law repealing the common markets act, and *requireing* the PM to enact Article 50 on a specific day, subject to a confirmation by the people. This stricty would have been a plebiscite not a referendum as it would lead to a direct action. However I shall refer to it as a referendum.

 

For the motion to pass, and for such an important motion I would require a supermajority. For an early general election, it requires that two thirds of MP vote for the motion. That would seem to be a good place to start.

 

To carry the referendum through it should ask a simple question not an either/or.

 

It should list the consequences of the choice

 

It should only list the following responses. Yes - this carries the motion, and No change - which avoids the negative connotations of voting for "No"

 

I would therefore expect a referendum question to read

 

"Parliament has decided that the UK should leave the European Union. This decision once made cannot be changed. It will mean that our future involvment in Europe will be partly decided by the remainder of the EU. This will take place on <date> if more than 2/3rd of people voting choose to do so. Do you wish for this to happen?"

 

Your thoughts on how you would do it, are ever welcome.

 

Under this system, I see that the 1975 referendum result which took us into the EEC would have vetoed it. (Even without the slightly loaded phrasing). It seems highly unlikely that Nice, Maastricht and Lisbon would have been ratified either. So it's fine with me.

Edited June 29, 2016 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

Under this system, I see that the 1975 referendum result which took us into the EEC would have vetoed it. (Even without the slightly loaded phrasing). It seems highly unlikely that Nice, Maastricht and Lisbon would have been ratified either. So it's fine with me.

 

You appear to be happy with the process detailed because it gives you the results you want? Rather than on it's merits of attempting to reduce social division. That's not really the best way of doing it in my opinion.

[unbeliever]

You appear to be happy with the process detailed because it gives you the results you want? Rather than on it's merits of attempting to reduce social division. That's not really the best way of doing it in my opinion.

 

I couldn't help but try to balance your use of the example of the EU exit vote with a counter-example showing that we would never have been in the EU in the first place.

 

My concern is (as I mentioned on the other thread) parliament transferring power permanently to external bodies which it was only granted temporarily by the people. I believe that a super-mandate (if I may call it that) is required for such an action.

Your system would, I believe, achieve that. Therefore subject to some discussion of the detail I favour it.

[Obelix]

I couldn't help but try to balance your use of the example of the EU exit vote with a counter-example showing that we would never have been in the EU in the first place.

 

My concern is (as I mentioned on the other thread) parliament transferring power permanently to external bodies which it was only granted temporarily by the people. I believe that a super-mandate (if I may call it that) is required for such an action.

Your system would, I believe, achieve that. Therefore subject to some discussion of the detail I favour it.

 

I appreciate that point but I specifically didn't look up what would have happened as I didn't want it to cloud my judgement.

 

I'm not entirely sure I like the term super-mandate but the meaning is clear so I think it's worth adopting that terminology.

 

The obvious follow on to this is then to ask when should these questions be asked? What constitutional changes should be put to this question, which is tricky as we don't have a constitution.

 

I'd motion that there are certain acts of Parliament so important that any changes to them should be subject to such questions. These being Magna Carta, The Habeus Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement, Petition of right, the Bill of Rights, and the Claim of Rights, and the Act of Union, and the Parliament Acts.

 

Beyond these, I'd add anything else that affects the sovereignty of the UK and that's about it...

[unbeliever]

I appreciate that point but I specifically didn't look up what would have happened as I didn't want it to cloud my judgement.

 

I'm not entirely sure I like the term super-mandate but the meaning is clear so I think it's worth adopting that terminology.

 

The obvious follow on to this is then to ask when should these questions be asked? What constitutional changes should be put to this question, which is tricky as we don't have a constitution.

 

I'd motion that there are certain acts of Parliament so important that any changes to them should be subject to such questions. These being Magna Carta, The Habeus Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement, Petition of right, the Bill of Rights, and the Claim of Rights, and the Act of Union, and the Parliament Acts.

 

Beyond these, I'd add anything else that affects the sovereignty of the UK and that's about it...

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

A few possibly borderline cases to consider:

The fixed term parliament act.

The changes (arising from a combination of acts) to the system for determining constituency boundaries and simultaneously reducing the number of MPs

Any changes to the means by which people are selected for the upper house.