Well having spoken 2 ppl about this & seen people wanting such a post I decided to let them go nuts So here it is - personally I think Alternative Voting does seem quite acceptable, despite getting rid of any notions of simplicity, it provides us with a system we can easily implement without great changes to existing system & see far less of a 2-party system arising where, hopefully, consense is reached with a 3rd party where it is a close call. Of course, unlike PR it doesn't create the 'who's leading my government?' scenario & extreme indesicion - the same indesicion that got the Nazis into power I might add. Btw before you formulate strong opinions you might want to look at this site here:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votings...ms/systems2.htm

This gives alot of insight into Voting systems even if coming to a conclusion that is quite contraversial

I like the AV+ system, it seems to have the best of both worlds, eliminates the need for tactical voting and makes every vote count,

I voted for Proportional Representation (preferably using open party lists). If you combined this with forcing the most popular MPs from the lists of the governing party/parties, it gives voters not just a say in which party forms the Government, but specifically which MPs are part that Government. Also, having larger constituencies (abolishing constituencies althogether might result in poor distribution of candidates... 50% coming from London for instance)

As for Proportional Representation creating weak, indicisive Government and unstable politics, that is because it more accurately represents the views of the population. At present, the UK Government (elected by, and therefore representing, a minority) can get anything through the Commons if the whole party supports the bill. This makes the other parties (supposedly representing those that didn't vote Labour) effectively useless at stopping anything the Government tries to pass. This is undemocratic and means power is centralised in the party with geographically concentrated support.

PR prevents governments being formed by a party with minority support. Other systems do this as well, but only through manipulating the allocation of votes. Because of its more accurate representation of public opinion, PR is my favoured voting system. What is more important - having decisions that are potentially publicly disagreeable made quickly and efficiently, or a drawn out decision making process that eventually does its best to suit everyone?

On a related point, am I the only person that thinks that it's completely rediculous to have the timing of a General Election decided by the Prime Minister?

The problem with PR, Daedalus, is this. Let's look at Israel, which uses PR. The Knesset (Parliament) is dominated by the two (fairly) moderate centrist and right parties. However, neither has a straight majority, so in order to get anything through the Knesset they have to come to an agreement with the extremist right-wing fundamentalist party. This party has very little support, only around ten seats, but that's enough to swing the vote either way. They're given an equal standing, politically, with the much more popular parties, despite having much less support.

PR only accurately represents the electorate's views on paper - the reality is that extremist parties gain a disproportionate amount of influence.

I voted AV. I have always thought that you should have at least 50% rooting for you.

If it's just whoever got the most votes, what if there's three candidates, and 31% voted for #1, 32% voted for #2 and 37% voted for #3? That would mean that number three would get the spot, and 63% of the population would be unhappy with the selection. It just doesn't seem right.

I don't really have much to say.

XD

Jazmin

I'm very much in favour of the right kind of electoral reform in the UK.

First Past the Post does not provide democracy to the majority of the electorate... however unfettered PR can be just as bad - providing weak governments in mmulti-fractured legislatures that have to rely on sometimes even less democratic coalitions.

As has been mentioned above - the Israeli model makes for an interesting discussion - but I would suggest that Italy is even worse in this respect.

Perhaps following the German model - a mix of first past the post and PR - could be the answer?

My first real concern with PR is that, if unchecked, it could allow in far right / left extremist parties. Nazis, Stalinists, Extremist Religious groups of any / all religions... groups that I personally feel should be denied the legitimacy of political office.

I'm sure this may go against the feeling of some pure liberals who will defend to the death the political rights of everyone, even if they don't agree with them. But I feel that democracy should have in place the means to protect itself and society as a whole from any elements that seek to destroy it.

Anyway - on another board the suggestion was put forward of the following parliamentary reform:

An entirely elected upper house (The Lords now becoming a Senate) - voted into power through a List System form of PR. This way we have a First Past the Post Lower House (Commons) and a PR eleccted Senate... providing a strong Executive with a more equitably chosen and electorally accountable Legislature.

My issue with an entirely elected second house is that it becomes effectively an extension of the House of Commons. While I agree the second house requires reform, it's a very complex issue.

I'm all for unicameralism in Canada, where our ridiculous eyesore of a Senate is still unelected. It's a very expensive rubber stamp and has NO power whatsoever. The Prime Minister of Canada can basically force through whatever he wants in the House of Commons (because of voting on party lines, and our silly majoritarian first-past-the-post democracy), and if he doesn't like the Senate's verdict? Easy. Appoint new senators in your party, and even use his constitutional powers to expand the size of the senate, and then fill *those* seats with new senators. Brian Mulroney did it, when he forced GST through. The Senate, (which was largely Liberal), refused to pass the Conservative Bill, so Mr. Mulroney simply created more seats in the Senate, and then filled them all with Conservatives. The bill passed.

Get rid of it, I say. Just dump the whole bloody Senate. Ridiculous waste of money. Then, get some form of proportional representation (or another system that works better) so that the people of Canada are *actually* represented in government, and not just the people of Ontario.

Fair enough... PR has it's weaknesses, but it's fundamentally a good system. If other reforms were introduced with it, they could potentially eliminate this weakness. Although I realise it too has flaws, secret parliamentary ballots would make alliances between parties pointless as there'd be no way of measuring the benefit. It would also remove the bully-boy tactics of politics - the Top Up fees bill (whatever it was called) would most likely have not been passed by the Commons had there been a secret ballot. However, this also raises the problem of rogue MPs, and even the potential for say, a right-winger to get a seat under a left-wing banner. There'd be no way of ensuring MPs stand for what they say they do.

Bah... I still think that PR is a good system, it just needs a few creases ironed out of it to prevent fringe groups weilding disproportionate amounts of power through alliances.

I think the AV system is absolutely what Canada and the US needs. Ranking the candidates by preference isn't hard either.. I mean, so long as you know your number system, it's no problem. It's the only way you can get out of the two party system in the US.. There is no need for strategic voting, or voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you want to vote Libertarian, or Green, or.. Natural Law, you can, and it won't be throwing your vote away.. you can pick the dems or the republicans or reform or NDP / Liberal / Conservatives as your 2nd option.

Of course.. this change will never come about unless the people take to the streets to bring it about, or a third party government manages to get power some how without that election reform: The two 'traditional' parties have absolutely no interest in bringing about this kind of alternative voting reform. They have no desire to dilute the 50/50 power they have..

aw shucks
-cm

Which is pretty much what AV+ is

I don't know exactly...i'm just not exactly happy with the US way of doing things at the moment...but i do think the electoral system could be beter.

[spam]

I LOVE how it says 'Electoral System' and then 'Black Magic' right next to it. That's awsome.

[/spam]