Is British democracy due for an upgrade?

[Josquius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8505255.stm

MPs back referendum on voting system
Counting votes
A referendum on changing the voting system would be held in 2011.

MPs have backed government plans to hold a UK-wide referendum on changing the voting system next year.

Voters would be asked if they want to keep "first past the post" or switch to the "alternative vote", which ranks candidates in order of preference.

But it is not certain the bill will become law before Parliament is dissolved ahead of the election.

The government says change is needed to restore trust in politics but the Tories say it is a waste of £80m.

MPs backed the referendum plan by 365 votes to 187 - a majority of 178 for the government.

A Liberal Democrat amendment to hold a referendum earlier and on a different voting system - the single transferable vote - was defeated by 476 votes to 69.

Trust 'damaged'

The government put forward its plan for a referendum to be held by the end of October 2011 in an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill.

But the wide-ranging Bill has to go through various Parliamentary stages before becoming law and is expected to face opposition in the House of Lords. Downing Street has also admitted "time is tight" to change the law ahead of a general election, widely expected in May.

At one stage during the debate former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney appeared in the public gallery for about five minutes - he chatted to a group of students from Argentina who spotted him before he left.

Opening the Commons debate Justice Secretary Jack Straw said trust in Parliament had been "profoundly damaged" by the expenses scandal.

Part of restoring trust must be considering which voting system could best serve them, he said.
   

Would AV have changed history?
Straw backs election night counts

"This is an important debate. This subject is a fundamental plank of our democracy and it comes at a time when this House is held in dangerously low regard," said Mr Straw.

"The alternative vote takes on the considerable strengths of our system and I suggest, builds on it. We propose a referendum because we believe it is not for us to decide, but it is important the people should have that choice," he added.

But several Tory MPs stood up to ridicule the idea - suggesting it was an act of "political cynicism" by Gordon Brown ahead of a general election and the issue was "utterly irrelevant" to most people.

'Belated conversion'

They have accused Labour of using the issue to make overtures to the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung Parliament.

Mr Straw's Conservative shadow, Dominic Grieve, said it would cost "£80m for a gimmick which the government wishes to foist on the electorate" at a time when "every pound matters".

He suggested the prime minister had had a "belated conversion to the cause of electoral reform which he has so successfully and personally obstructed for over a decade".


The current system delivered "clear, clean results" and allowed voters to "get rid of" MPs they did not want. He said proportional representation systems "saddle a country with impossible legislatures where you cannot have any proper governance carried on at all".

For the Lib Dems, David Howarth said the government's "deathbed conversion" to electoral reform did "look like a manoeuvre".

He said his party would support the government's amendment but only so they could "radically" try to amend it in favour of a referendum on a "more proportional" system.

Parliament Act

Mr Howarth said: "We cannot go on with a political system under which unpopular governments are elected by a little more than a third of those voting and who push through policies that two thirds of those voting have just voted against."

Some MPs suggested other voting systems should be considered - including the French system in which the top two candidates take part in a run-off election if no-one gets 50% of the vote.

The Tories say the current system results in stable governments and keeps out extremists - if they win the general election, expected to be held in May - they are expected to scrap any plans for a referendum.

Mr Straw has also said the government will back a Tory amendment which would guarantee general election votes are counted on polling night.

Some Labour MPs also believe the "alternative vote" would benefit the least unpopular - rather than the most popular - candidates, and could cost Labour seats.

But they believe the chances of the referendum becoming law are slim. One told the BBC: "It's dead before it's even started - so what's the point?"

Labour pledged a referendum on electoral reform in its 1997 election manifesto but the idea was kicked into the long grass by Tony Blair after his landslide victory.

WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE VOTE?
Voters rank candidates in order of preference and anyone getting more than 50% in the first round is elected.
If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates
This process continues until a winner emerges

We cannot go on with a political system under which unpopular governments are elected by a little more than a third of those voting
David Howarth
Lib Dems

I support this immensly. To my mind it just seems so much more democratic and allows for you to risk unpopular choices- a big factor in more people not voting lib dem is that many people see this as just taking a vote away from labour and potentiall letting the tories sneak in the backdoor (or vice-versa to a lesser extent normally, but these days with Brown vs. Cameron....shame it won't be in place before the election)
It'll also help give minor parties a real shot at things too.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Minor parties such as the BNP and religious nutters.

I oppose these changes; firstly they risk making UK government more democratic; secondly thay are merely a tactical ploy by Gordon Monopthalmos to cling to power; thirdly the more complicated ballot paper will be incomprehensible to a sizable minority of voters.

[Alatriste]

Minor parties such as the BNP and religious nutters.

I oppose these changes; firstly they risk making UK government more democratic; secondly thay are merely a tactical ploy by Gordon Monopthalmos to cling to power; thirdly the more complicated ballot paper will be incomprehensible to a sizable minority of voters.

I agree with you only in this obviously favoring Labour or rather, hurting Conservatives (and besides, it's quite unsportsmanlike to introduce such changes soon before an election) but otherwise 

- I don't think these changes will favor BNP or other fringe groups; on the contrary, with the proposed system their candidates would need to get more than 50% support and for them that's more difficult than being the candidate with most votes between many.
- I don't see what's wrong with making government more democratic
- Come on, how difficult can it be to list your favorite candidates in order? It's no more complex than a shopping list

[Richard Hakluyt]

If Britain was a democratic country we would leave the EU, have capital punishment and pedophiles would have their testicles cut off. I'm also somewhat dubious about how badly such matters as freedom and the economy would fare. I prefer representative democracy, we have our say every few years and vote for people who are, hopefully, somewhat wiser and more intelligent than the average.

I see your point about the benefit (or not) to the fringe groups. I'm not sure how it would play though. A lot of votes cast here are anti-Tory or anti-Labour. A transferable vote would permit a voter to vote for their fringe candidate and then cast his second preference as an anti- vote.

What makes you think that all voters can write and use a shopping list  ?

[CountDeMoney]

What'd definitely due for an upgrade is your immigration policies.  You have way too many whacky brown pipples moving to Britian, insha'allah.

[Viking]

If Britain was a democratic country we would leave the EU, have capital punishment and pedophiles would have their testicles cut off. I'm also somewhat dubious about how badly such matters as freedom and the economy would fare. I prefer representative democracy, we have our say every few years and vote for people who are, hopefully, somewhat wiser and more intelligent than the average.

I see your point about the benefit (or not) to the fringe groups. I'm not sure how it would play though. A lot of votes cast here are anti-Tory or anti-Labour. A transferable vote would permit a voter to vote for their fringe candidate and then cast his second preference as an anti- vote.

What makes you think that all voters can write and use a shopping list  ?

eh?

So, is it a first past the post race between Paul Dacre (editor of the daily mail) and Gordon Brown?

[Josquius]

I agree with you only in this obviously favoring Labour or rather, hurting Conservatives (and besides, it's quite unsportsmanlike to introduce such changes soon before an election) but otherwise

I don't see it as favouring labour too much, they will have to share the left with the lib dems, but hurting the conservatives- definitely .
The next election Brown vs. Cameron is going to be one of 'who do you hate least', the perfect place for a system such as this where people actually do have a viable 3rd choice they can safely vote for without it being as good as voting for the one they hate the most.
We just have to hope the tories win without a majority and labour and lib dems can force this through.

I oppose these changes; firstly they risk making UK government more democratic; secondly thay are merely a tactical ploy by Gordon Monopthalmos to cling to power; thirdly the more complicated ballot paper will be incomprehensible to a sizable minority of voters.

I like democracy.
An listing numbers isn't too incomprehensible, its already done with EU elections.
If you really want to you could always just put a X by whoever and forego having a second choice.
As for them being a ploy by Brown....his support of it probally is. But the reason he is using this ploy is because it is a good idea which the lib dems have been after for some time. Don't be against a good idea just because someone you don't like is also for it.

Minor parties such as the BNP and religious nutters.

Somewhat of a concern but I have faith it wouldn't end up that way. The religious nutters are definatly getting nothing. The BNP...Slight concern.



[/quote]

[Sheilbh]

This is my favourite system of PR.  But I don't support it.  I agree with RH this sounds far too much like democracy.  The people, God bless the, should be kept as far away from their government as feasibly possible.  Speaking of which, is it time to bring back the convention of allowing Peers to serve as PM?

I've decided after much struggling that I can't, in conscience support Cameron and the Tories - not even slightly - and, as I'm in a marginal seat, I'll be voting for Brown again.

[Viking]

FPP has it's advantages.

First of all it makes it impossible for wierdo fucked up parties like the BNP make it to parliament, unless they have an outstanding candidate.
Second of all it make sure that the winner of a national election tends to win with large enough majorities to actually rule and suffer attrition of MPs and public support.


Both of which are advantages. In britain I get the impression that the main complaint about FPP is that the wrong party wins the election. In my view that is the worst possible reason to change the system.

[Richard Hakluyt]

We will be using the old and familiar system for the upcoming election. I would regard Brown's ramblings as an attempt to cosy up to the Lib-Dems in the event of a hung parliament.

We are in a mess, so I'm hoping that the next election will result in a strong government with a mandate; the last thing we want is Gordon Brown propped up by minority parties.

Theoretically that should mean that I would cast my vote for the Tories, well, we will see.

[Sheilbh]

Theoretically that should mean that I would cast my vote for the Tories, well, we will see.

This is the problem.  I can't stand Brown.  I think the man's demolished/demolishing Labour and that, while I've generally agreed with him as PM, he was a disaster as Chancellor.  I think his government is broadly incompetent (with one or two exceptions) and would hope that he'll ousted the day after the election - regardless of result.  Despite all that I can't bring myself to vote for the Tories and Cameron, there's something about Cameron that just makes me recoil.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is rather odd, Sheilbh, but after losing several elections with baldy right-wing bastards in charge.....the tories have changed their MO at precisely the wrong time.

The problem for any potential anti-Labour voter right now is the mystery or enigma of whatever Cameron is supposed to be. At times he looks like a Blair manqué .........which is pretty bad...

I think that much of the electorate would be far more comfortable with Hague right now.

At the same time I think it is totally fair to blame the structural fiscal deficit on Brown.........it is objectively fair........

[Sheilbh]

It is rather odd, Sheilbh, but after losing several elections with baldy right-wing bastards in charge.....the tories have changed their MO at precisely the wrong time.

The problem for any potential anti-Labour voter right now is the mystery or enigma of whatever Cameron is supposed to be. At best he looks like a Blair manqué .........which is pretty bad...

The other trouble is that I don't think the Tories have worked out how to deal with Mandy yet.  They were planning to run against Gordon Brown interpreted by Ed Balls: Tory cuts vs Labour investment.  This played into Tory hands because what that really boils down to is Tory honesty vs Labour bullshit.

Mandy knows people aren't stupid.  Now he's in charge you get messages such as that Labour are going to cut spending over the next year and the year after.  Labour get the deficity and they're able to make the far more accurate point that how quickly and how deeply you cut could really effect whether or not we slide back into recession.  All the Tory lines they used for the past 6-12 months are suddenly weapons against them, but not because they're going to cut while Labour will invest.  Rather because Mandy gets to co-opt Ken Clarke's line about the possible need for tax increases and is able to use Osborne's lines from the conference to suggest that these guys just aren't ready and don't quite know what they're doing.

I don't know if people would vote for Hague but I wish there was more of Hague about Cameron.  I mean Blair had Brown, Campbell and Mandy.  Cameron's got Osborne, Steve Hilton and Oliver Letwin.  I know which group I find more convincing.

At the same time I think it is totally fair to blame the structural fiscal deficit on Brown.........it is objectively fair........

Yes but I think it's his fault for what he did as Chancellor, when he built up a big deficit during peaceable economic growth. 

[Viking]

c'mon, if the Tories were being run by a David Duncan Hague then Brown might really have a chance at survival... Your only true choices are Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes but I think it's his fault for what he did as Chancellor, when he built up a big deficit during peaceable economic growth.

That's the problem though, it means that the foundations of New Labour Britain were built on sand, throw in a couple of badly-conducted wars and the whole project looks buggered.

I agree that the government has actually performed better recently than in the past, but doubt whether many will credit them for that.

On the other hand, the tories are still unpopular and distrusted; what people wanted appears to be New Labour's vision of Britain.........hence the gloom and despondency.