What electoral system do you prefer?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jun 10, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Majoritarian electoral system

    0 vote(s)
  2. Party lists

    0 vote(s)
  3. Mixed system

    0 vote(s)
  4. Other

    0 vote(s)
  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8092235.stm

    There are several electoral systems and no one is ideal. They are:

    1. Party lists (with prohibition to form coalitions). It is the worst system. Russian rulers switched to it to be at power constanly.

    2. Party lists (with an ability to form coalitions). It prevent independent candidates to be elected. Big barrier (in Russia it is 7%) in fact bars small parties to be represented in a parliament.

    3. Majoritarian electoral system without 2d round. It bars small parties with significant but dispersed support from a parliament. Also a party that has relatively low support (35% or so) could have an absolute majrity in a parliament. It is not fair.

    4. Majoritarian electoral system with 2d round. It is much better. During first round you have more freedom to express your will and you would not fear that a candidate that you object would win just because you are not supported his rival who is more acceptable for you. Majoritarian electoral system has a big plus. You have a person who represents namely you.

    5. Mixed system: 50/50. 50% are elected through party lists and 50% in individual constituencies. Germany has this system and it is the best from my point of view. Russia previously had this system but for Russian ruling elite, for moron Putin and his thieves-tycoons it was not good. It allowed independent persons (uncontrolled by the elite) to be in theory elected.

    So what system do you prefer?
  2. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
    - Winston Churchill

    To a certain extent I'm not sure that the voting mechanism matters that much. First past the post has the advantage of producing stronger governments but it tends to disenfranchise voters in 'safe seats' and those who would prefer small(er) parties.

    I would prefer a mixed system of first past the post constituencies and some party lists at regional or national level. Parties like the Greens or for that matter the BNP do have enough support to justify a few representatives.

    I would far rather see the breaking of the whip system and in breaking the stranglehold of the parties on their MPs. Primaries perhaps.

    BTB: KGB Resident: As important as democracy is the rule of law and freedom of speech, press and conscience. Colonial Hong Kong had a serious democratic deficit as does post colonial HK but it had and has maintained the the rule of law and freedom. Russia does have democracy but falls down in the other areas.
  3. The party system and whipping does not serve the country well. We elect MP's based on their capability to represent the constituency, whipping ensures that his first priority is to support his party. Its time MP's went back to do what they were originally elected to do, representing his constituency.
  4. Single Transferable Vote.

    We impose it on everyone else as it's simple and ensures that the nutters have a difficult time getting elected.

    For those reasons alone I doubt Westminster will ever adopt it.
  5. I prefer the system practised in some countries (mainly African or South American) where the Army storms the Parliament building, shoots the governing party and replaces them with someone else. This has the effect of periodically clearing out the deadwood and keeps the replacement politicians on their toes.

    It also has the effect of ensuring that some of the clowns that were around in the '70s don't reappear 20 years later, (mis)running us!
  6. I tend to think that first past the post has some advantages, though it can leave certain groupings under-represented.
    I'm not really sure if party lists would be the answer to the Whip system, as to be included in the list then you have to toe the line.
    Over here there is a party list system where you submit a certain number of names, say 20, and you win a percentage of the vote that entitles you to 15 seats, then the top 15 on your list get the seats. It does ensure that the top bods don't lose out, but does mean that the more party orientated get to the top of the list as it is the top guy who effectively chooses. It also means that the Top bods don't have to face the possibility of not being included, and one thing that impressed people here in the last UK election was when Bliar had to face his rivals over the vote, including the father of a dead soldier. That can only be healthy for democracy.

    Surely the way to obviate the Whip system is simply to rule it out, so that MPs can vote more in line with constituents wishes or conscience. But I doubt that will ever happen under the lot we have now.

    I am hugely suspicious of the proposed change as it smacks of desperate measures to stay in power, either by pleasing voters or finding a system more to one's Party's advantage.
  7. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I want a few nutters in Parliament. They represent the views of some people. As despicable as they are maybe a few BNP MPs making a fuss might have forced the Government to act more responsibly on immigration. Likewise a few Greens might have affected environmental concerns.
  8. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Dwarf: The list does put the party in too great a position of power. Thats why I would favour First Past the Post constituencies with regional/national lists to bring in the under represented.
  9. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Monarchy would be rather traditional - perhaps with a bit of plutocrasy thrown in.
  10. Go along with that, everyone should have representation. My biggest problem with elections is that I know who I want to vote against but find it difficult to find someone I want to vote for.
    Buggerall has a good point, plus a few (responsible) characters makes Parliament more entertaining than the grey lot of suits there are today.

    Raving Monster Looney Party anyone?
  11. An intereresting point about the transferable vote systems is that, with 2 left-of-centre parties and only one worthwhile right-of-centre party in the UK, we could end up with either Labour or Lib-Dems in power in most constituencies (not in Suffolk though, clearly :D ). That's probably why Brown has suddenly come over all PR-happy.

    I don't like the party list idea, because I want an MP who is acountable to his/her constituency. We should, however, have the power of recall if the thieving losers overstep the mark.
  12. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Boris for PM...
  13. Single Transferable Vote
  14. elovabloke

    elovabloke LE Moderator

    I see the PM has really changed like fcuk. Once again announcing this to the media before bringing it up in the House.

    Lets try a fully elected 2nd chamber (PR) with nobody in the Cabinet who has not been elected for starters. Stick with what we have for Commons.
  15. PR. The big parties will lose their monopoly, but that's got to be a good thing.