Clegg

[Sheilbh]

I'm not convinced it would be the result with PR either, mainly because it would let parties like UKIP flourish and blur the left-right dividing lines (not that I favour PR - I like voting for a man, not a list.) I am convinced that Tyr is right about what introducing STV would result in though, which is why his posts in the other thread nearly made me vomit.

I also don't know that Labour would stay together and, as you say, UKIP would get some votes.  I don't think anyone could predict what would happen in a PR system.  As a rightie you should be happy, judging from our continental brethren left-wing parties are uniquely bad for extraordinary incompetence and internal splits whether from the established party or with the Greens drawing votes from them.  I mean wherever you look - with a couple of exceptions - the stories are sad for the left.

On the voting for a man I favour the German system which is 50/50 constituencies and PR, that's precisely why I support it rather than some monstrous Israel style thing.

However, I don't think meaningful Lib-Dem/Tory co-operation is possible. There's a couple of major fault lines/incompatibilities in their policies - voting reform and Europe simply being the most obvious. Not to mention the way they've been encouraging tactical voting aimed at the Tories for two decades now. There's major antagonisms between those two parties that simply do not exist between Labour and the Lib-Dems.

Lib Dems are far more civilly libertarian and all about the decentralisation the Tories now support, they're also far more right-wing economically than Labour.  I think that, alas, the populist authoritarianism of Blair and centralising instinct of Brown will survive in Labour for some time - as well as the disregard for civil liberties.  If they do well it would effectively be a serious constitutional crisis, aside from that if a Tory government focused on Europe rather than the economy, their decentralisation agenda and civil liberties then they wouldn't deserve to govern.

I must admit to a feeling of horror at the level of support the Lib-Dems appear to have gained from the TV debate (assuming it is not a blip.) Having between 10% and 15% of the electorate swayed by a single debate strikes me as a worrying sign of the low level of general political awareness of the British public.

Well to be fair there was at least one poll from before the debate (though released afterwards) that had the Lib Dems at 27% enjoying a manifesto boost.  And for a very long time lots of people have had the Lib Dems as their first choice if they had a chance in their constituency.  Given the general mood with politics right now I can understand the 'fuck it, let's just vote Lib Dem' attitude.

[Barrister]

In my experience it is not terribly unusual for a smaller party (that often gets completely ignored the rest of the year) to get a bump during the writ period, largely because of the increased exposure.  They can often then come back to earth as they can start to sputter under increased scrutiny (though not always).

[Agelastus]

Lib Dems are far more civilly libertarian and all about the decentralisation the Tories now support, they're also far more right-wing economically than Labour.  I think that, alas, the populist authoritarianism of Blair and centralising instinct of Brown will survive in Labour for some time - as well as the disregard for civil liberties.  If they do well it would effectively be a serious constitutional crisis, aside from that if a Tory government focused on Europe rather than the economy, their decentralisation agenda and civil liberties then they wouldn't deserve to govern.

Rabid as I am about Europe, I am certain that a Tory government would concentrate on the economy, decentralisation and civil liberties, so I wouldn't worry there. One has to be solid at home before one can see about changing things abroad, after all - and anyway, to the joy of certain of our European partners, Brown held on long enough to deprive the country of the Tories promised referendum on the last European Treaty. Europe's going to be a dead-letter for at least a couple of years in the next parliament.

As for decentralisation? I haven't seen much hope in the plans of any of the parties, since none of them seem to have any sensible blueprint for federalising the country, which is in all honesty the only logical outcome of Labour's policies on devolution over the last three parliaments.

If a party said, "Right, let's ditch all this nonsense of Assemblies with one set of powers and Parliaments with another set of powers, and let's solve the West Lothian question" I'd probably vote for them regardless of their other policies. For example, I'd hive off Greater London as a capital district in the same way the USA and Australia have them, I'd split England into Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and an (enlarged) Anglia, and then I'd legislate so that the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and "English regional" parliaments all had the same powers.

Just my little fantasy, of course.

[Palisadoes]

In my experience it is not terribly unusual for a smaller party (that often gets completely ignored the rest of the year) to get a bump during the writ period, largely because of the increased exposure.  They can often then come back to earth as they can start to sputter under increased scrutiny (though not always).

It's also a lot easier for said smaller parties to take the position of the public in an argument. That is, as they are often overlooked in politics, they can come out as a voice representing the everyday person who also sees their own views as being overlooked.

Smaller parties can offer something more radically different, which can often appeal in times of crisis (such as the recession and after generations of apparently "failed" Tory-Labour governments). The small parties also seem to get overlooked in scandals by most of the public too, thus meaning they can avoid a lot of criticism from the uninformed.

[Josquius]

One comment on the lib dem rise- look at where these polls are coming from.
Many are from yougov. A website where you get paid 50p a time to do oppinion polls. The kind of people who will use this site will be those who are poor and have plenty of time on their hands...in large part students. It is already known students tend to support the lib dems more than the general population.

[And who is saying that?

Minsky hinted that way saying something about reform and a simple majority.
There is a set of Tory supporters with whom its all they ever prattle on about 'oh the British system is so biased against us. Even if we get 36% and labour 30% they win' blah blah.
Completely ignoring that the 3 party system is actually biased heavily in favour of the tories.

Well, I know from what Tyr has posted that he thinks it is democratic to permanently disenfranchise 40% of the population which is why he wants single transferable vote or PR. Why do you want PR? I'm curious.

Beats the other alternative of disenfranchising 60% of the population with majority rule.
With PR that 40% could still be right wing. They can be even more right wing than they would otherwise be and feel free to vote for UKIP or some other group of idiots who would otherwise be a wasted vote. The correct leanings of the general population however would be more properly reflected.

If a party said, "Right, let's ditch all this nonsense of Assemblies with one set of powers and Parliaments with another set of powers, and let's solve the West Lothian question" I'd probably vote for them regardless of their other policies. For example, I'd hive off Greater London as a capital district in the same way the USA and Australia have them, I'd split England into Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and an (enlarged) Anglia, and then I'd legislate so that the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and "English regional" parliaments all had the same powers.

That would be nice.
Sure beats the horrific idea of a common English parliament. At the very least there should be a north/south split.

I'm not convinced it would be the result with PR either, mainly because it would let parties like UKIP flourish and blur the left-right dividing lines (not that I favour PR - I like voting for a man, not a list.) I am convinced that Tyr is right about what introducing STV would result in though, which is why his posts in the other thread nearly made me vomit.

Indeed. Democracies are corrupt institutions ran by the jews. We must always make sure to limit democracy and misrepresent the people as much as possible.

[Palisadoes]

FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour. The last hung parliament we had in the 70s had Labour as the government despite the Tories being the largest party. The same could go for this - Labour could be the third party in share of the votes, yet still have the largest number of seats. I guess it doesn't help with the way the constituencies are drawn - MPs in traditional Labour areas (i.e. Scotland and Wales) often represent less constituents than MPs in other parts of the country.

This is why PR is the only credible voting reform for this country, in my opinion. It's the fairest voting method.

[Josquius]

FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour.

In a 2 party system- perhaps. Ish. But then most systems give underpopulated area disproportionate representation.
In our 3 party system though- definitely not.
You're a conservative- you vote conservative.
You're a progressive- do you vote labour or do you vote lib dem...hmm...decisions....

[Neil]

Its not as simple as the US where the states and electoral college and all that is just a way of organising the votes.
In the UK you're actually voting for your local representative. That whichever party has the most MPs gets to rule is neither here nor there.
I stand by the popular vote not being used in any official capacity. The only reform I want is a transferable vote.

Transferable vote?  That's a terrible reform.  No civilized country could possibly withstand that sort of thing.

[Palisadoes]

FPTP and also AV voting systems do heavily favour Labour.

In a 2 party system- perhaps. Ish. But then most systems give underpopulated area disproportionate representation.
In our 3 party system though- definitely not.
You're a conservative- you vote conservative.
You're a progressive- do you vote labour or do you vote lib dem...hmm...decisions....

You choose the party which aligns most to your views. Under a PR system this would allow for the "progressives" to not have their vote split due to wasted votes, but actually give a better representation of how the "progressives" are split on a national level (i.e. less wasted votes for one progressive party over the other since there are multiple seats for each constituency, thus meaning more than one "progressive" candidate can get elected to represent the constituents there).

[Agelastus]

Beats the other alternative of disenfranchising 60% of the population with majority rule.

The fact that a left-wing party has won the last three elections rather exposes the flaw in your argument.

That would be nice.
Sure beats the horrific idea of a common English parliament. At the very least there should be a north/south split.

Yes, when devolution in Wales and Scotland occurred I was thinking that a north-south split for England might work, perhaps with parliaments at Oxford and York due to the historic nature of the two cities. Then I realised that the Midlands did not really fit with either the north or the south so hit on the idea of a more equal split harking back in part to the "Heptarchy".

It actually worries me that you like my idea, given how much I despise your general politics...

Indeed. Democracies are corrupt institutions ran by the jews. We must always make sure to limit democracy and misrepresent the people as much as possible.

The fact that you can post this with even a slightly straight face given your desire for a permanent "dictatorship of the left" via electoral reform makes me shudder.

[jimmy olsen]

That would be an interesting result, but we'll see what happens.  You would have thought that Bush losing the popular vote in 2000 would have prompted reform to the electoral college in the US, but that didn't happen either.

Both parties have to be burned that in relatively close succession to get  any serious movement for reform. If Kerry had won Ohio and lost the popular by a few million then we would have seen a big push for it.

[MadImmortalMan]

I like the idea of PR in theory, but the main thing that would keep me from ever supporting it is that all of the PR systems I know anything about implement it by taking control over who the actual legislators are away from the people and giving it to some party bosses--at least partly. That's a dealbreaker for me. If I could ban political parties altogether I would--but if we have to have them, we should at least preserve the voter's right to vote for an actual person and not a color.

[Gups]

I like the idea of PR in theory, but the main thing that would keep me from ever supporting it is that all of the PR systems I know anything about implement it by taking control over who the actual legislators are away from the people and giving it to some party bosses--at least partly. That's a dealbreaker for me. If I could ban political parties altogether I would--but if we have to have them, we should at least preserve the voter's right to vote for an actual person and not a color.

I think most PR systems have a constiuency link. The two proposed by the Libs (STV) and Labour (AV+) both do.

[Gups]

Rabid as I am about Europe, I am certain that a Tory government would concentrate on the economy, decentralisation and civil liberties, so I wouldn't worry there. One has to be solid at home before one can see about changing things abroad, after all - and anyway, to the joy of certain of our European partners, Brown held on long enough to deprive the country of the Tories promised referendum on the last European Treaty. Europe's going to be a dead-letter for at least a couple of years in the next parliament.

I'm surprised by this comment. Europe remains the most important issue for both the Tory rank and file and for a plurality of tory candidates. There's a clear manifesto commitment to renegotiation and while I would expect a Tory Govt to act prgamatically I's also expect them to make a lot of anti-Euro noise. The Libs would not be able to stomach this in coalition. We also have major policy clashes on immigration & crime the two dog whistle issues for most Tories.

I's put the chances of a Tory/Lib coalition at barely above 0%.

[Josquius]

The fact that you can post this with even a slightly straight face given your desire for a permanent "dictatorship of the left" via electoral reform makes me shudder.

Except it wouldn't be this.
1: The left is far from united. There would still be the issue of whether the lib dems or labour are ranked higher in your choices. And hell. Even the tories have a lot of left wing policies this time around, they can (and are trying to) attract a certain kind of progressive voter.
2: All through history we've moved steadily leftwards. As we moved left the old centre became the new right and so on.
The system though tends to lag behind, as the tories themselves learned in recent elections by trying to be too conservative for a population which has moved on.
The system won't permanently exist with 6x% of the population on the left and 3x% on the right. The centre will shift and we'll end up with more even numbers.
It could be that at some time the right do win as the centre left would prefer the centre right to the loony left.

The fact that a left-wing party has won the last three elections rather exposes the flaw in your argument

Not really.
Labour has been popular whilst the tories not only had their dodgy recent history in power stopping them but also their current state.
Just look to the 80s. Thatcher won a lot despite being a complete disaster- there was no option with labour in dissaray.

Transferable vote?  That's a terrible reform.  No civilized country could possibly withstand that sort of thing.

Australia and Ireland have it and it works fine. According to wikipedia a few local places in the US do too.

You choose the party which aligns most to your views. Under a PR system this would allow for the "progressives" to not have their vote split due to wasted votes, but actually give a better representation of how the "progressives" are split on a national level (i.e. less wasted votes for one progressive party over the other since there are multiple seats for each constituency, thus meaning more than one "progressive" candidate can get elected to represent the constituents there).

You'd be totally changing the system though. Part of the goodness of our system is you have your own MP. Who cares if you vote for UKIP and this is pooled nationwide into a UKIP MP on the other side of the country. And what about the poor people there, only 1% of which wanted UKIP?
The only way around this I can see would be to seperate elections for the PM from elections for MPs.
Which...would ruin the system, we could get a Labour government but a majority of Conservative MPs.