Early Risers.

[jjb1970]

I support proportional representation as the fairest form of election. If you get 40% of the vote then you get 40% of the MPs or whatever (obviously there would have to be some formula to match the percentages to number of seats with some rounding up or down).

 

At one time I was against as I still believed in the link between an MP and their constituency, but over the years I have become steadily more cynical on that one and now think half our MPs would struggle to identify their constituency on a map as few have any real interest in them outside of the election cycle and fewer still actually represent local interests. Given that I see no reason to pretend that MPs are primarily there to represent their local constituency, they're just party voting fodder to do as they're told.

 

I don't like transferrable vote as it effectively gives more than one vote, I think it should be one person - one vote. A straight PR system addresses the unfairness with first past the post, is simpler and keeps it to one person - one vote. The other argument against has always been it results in perpetual coalition government and elevates the power of fringe minority groups. The first may not be a bad thing (and the last 7 or 8 years of first past the post have hardly been stable in Britain) and for the second it may be good or bad but surely allowing minority interests to have a voice rather than being excluded from politics would be a case of democracy working.

[Ozexpatriate]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think it should be one person - one vote. A straight PR system addresses the unfairness with first past the post, is simpler and keeps it to one person - one vote.

I don't follow. "First past the post" elections (of representatives) are one-person / one-vote here. One-person / one-vote easily leads to plurality, (rather than majority, where no one has more than 50% of the vote) when there more than two parties.

 

I'm guessing by "proportional representation" you are talking about a national legislature where the representatives are not beholden to districts but allocated based on national party tallies?

 

In the US, each congressional district is intended to be roughly equal in terms of residents - the intent being that representation is proportional. Districts are adjusted after each decennial census. In practice there is a lot of 'round up' variation due to "whole numbers" of representatives per state. It doesn't prevent gerrymandering.

 

Each congressional representative in Texas has 777,000 constituents and California has about 755,000; versus Wyoming (one representative) where there are about 579,000 constituents or Montana (two representatives) with about 552,000. In Oregon it's about 708,000.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ozexpatriate
Updated numbers

[jjb1970]

I am thinking of the transferrable vote system where you have a vote which ranks choices and although it is said to be a single vote effectively provides a multiple vote because of how the system works. I think how we might rank other candidates is irrelevant, we vote for an option and that should be it, a genuine PR system would mean each vote is fairly treated and if enough people vote for a small party to reach the threshold for a single MP then they'll get an MP. At the moment our first past the post system effectively excludes anyone outside the main parties from Westminster unless there is a local exceptional circumstance such as when Martin Bell won a seat.

[Ozexpatriate]

9 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I am thinking of the transferrable vote system where you have a vote which ranks choices

So, preferential voting then?

[jjb1970]

Basically any system which includes more than a single choice.

[monkeysarefun]

37 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

Basically any system which includes more than a single choice.

 

Consider if you will this election result:

 

The "I hate Dogs and if I get elected I'll deport them all!" party.           20% of the vote

The "Hey, leave the Dogs alone!" party                                                     16% of the vote

The "Dont you DARE deport the dogs!" party                                           15% of the vote

The "Dogs will NEVER be deported by me!" party                                     15% of the vote

The "I'll actually import MORE dogs!" party                                                15% of the vote

The "I'll deport YOU!" party                                                                            15% of the vote

The "Actually, cats are nicer than dogs.."  party                                            1% of the vote 

Informal:                                                                                                              3% of the vote.

 

Now under the First Past the post system as per UK etc, The "I hate  Dogs and if I get elected I'll deport them all!" party will win with 20% of the vote, despite 76% of those voting being anti-dog deportation , and dogs will get deported ("We HAVE A MANDATE!).

 

Under Preferential voting as per Australia the result  would go to preferences since no party got 50%. More than likely after allocation the "Hey, leave the Dogs alone!" party would come out ahead, gaining the preferences of the 4 other pro-dog parties, while the pro-cat party preferences probably went the other way, meaning the final result is 

"Hey, leave the Dogs alone!"  at 76%

"I hate Dogs and if I get elected I'll deport them all!" party  21%.

 

No vote was counted twice, they were allocated at the end  as per the voters wishes, they are not counted in more than one vote tally. I cannot think of any other method that implements preferential voting but does not  redistribute the preferences (or "Transfer" them as you describe it?)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[Ozexpatriate]

24 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

Basically any system which includes more than a single choice.

Which is preferential voting. @monkeysarefun's post articulates a lot of reasons why it is useful. By introducing chaos it can break up predictability, entrenched two-party hegemony and attendant representative complacency, and the sense of disenfranchisement felt by voters preferring an alternative in a 'safe seat'.

 

There are more levers for engaged, informed voters to wield.

 

It is far more complex and leads to Balkanized parties with even more back room preference/coalition deals pre- and post- election in 'how to vote' negotiation and pay-back patronage.

 

In the hands of uninformed voters it can result in unintended consequences that don't really represent the "will of the people".

 

Any method of voting will be 'gamed' by the participants.

[Ozexpatriate]

16 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

meaning the final result is 

"Hey, leave the Dogs alone!"  at 76%

"I hate Dogs and if I get elected I'll deport them all!" party  21%.

And the leader of "Dont you DARE deport the dogs!" gets to be the Treasury Minister (in charge of funding the dog shelters), the leader of "Dogs will NEVER be deported by me!" gets to be Defence (against cats) Minister and the leader of "I'll actually import MORE dogs!" gets to be Minster for Foreign (breeds) Affairs etc, etc. 😉

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ozexpatriate

[jjb1970]

I think it's fairer that if party A gets 30% of the vote they get 30% of MPs, party B gets 25% of the vote they get 25% of MPs etc etc. Given that the link between MPs and constituencies is tenuous at best I think the advantages of proportional representation outweigh the risk of cutting links between locals and their MP.

 

The preference system still favours the main parties and works to exclude minority parties. We might think some minority groups are crazy, but if, for example, 5% of the population votes for party Z then that's not an insignificant number. The main parties try and tell people it's a wasted vote and that people are 'wasting' their vote if they cast it for a minority no hoper party, but that's profoundly undemocratic in promoting a vision of democracy as being a private club for two or three principal parties and excluding anyone not with the program. I generally vote for one of the no hopers as an alternative to spoiling my ballot paper.

 

One of the big issues facing democracies in many countries is increasing disengagement and cynicism on the part of voters, but if people feel (quite reasonably) that their views are ignored and that none of the choices that might have a chance of securing a seat represent anything they want to vote for it's not surprising if people just walk away from it. 

[Ozexpatriate]

12 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The preference system still favours the main parties and works to exclude minority parties.

The opposite is the best reason FOR preferential/ranked choice voting. Minority party/candidates are the reason that some municipalities in the US (like New York City) have introduced preferential voting.

 

Minority parties are the biggest beneficiaries of preferential voting. They may not get as many first preference votes but get a lot more influence/power based on where their second/third/etc preferences go.

 

The proliferation of minor parties in Australia is a direct result of the existence of preferential voting, and its absence is why in the US there is still essentially a two-party system at the national and state levels.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ozexpatriate

[jjb1970]

But why not just have a proportional vote? Second, third, fourth choices etc are shouldn't matter. 

[Andy Hayter]

But do you want a government made up of say 15% communists and 16% ultra right nationalists, who will be continuously disruptive of the governing process?

Yes it does reflect the views of nearly 1/3rd of the population but equally does not reflect the wishes of 2/3rds.

[iL Dottore]

Just two thoughts on voting:

1. No matter who you vote for, the government always get in!
2. If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us vote.

 

 

[Ozexpatriate]

4 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

But why not just have a proportional vote? Second, third, fourth choices etc are shouldn't matter. 

Which brings me back to this:

1 hour ago, Ozexpatriate said:

I don't follow.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional". First past the post is proportional if districts all have the same number of voters.

 

[monkeysarefun]

25 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

And the leader of "Dont you DARE deport the dogs!" gets to be the Treasury Minister (in charge of funding the dog shelters), the leader of "Dogs will NEVER be deported by me!" gets to be Defence (against cats) Minister and the leader of "I'll actually import MORE dogs!" gets to be Minster for Foreign (breeds) Affairs etc, etc. 😉

 

Cute! (Unfortunately however the leaders of the other dog-loving parties did not win so have no place in parliament, though @iL Dottoremay find a role for them somewhere....)

[Ozexpatriate]

1 minute ago, monkeysarefun said:

the leaders of the other dog-loving parties did not win so have no place in parliament

They may not have been elected to the House, but there's plenty of seats for them in the Senate where if not placated they'll block supply (of dog food)! 😉

[Ozexpatriate]

5 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us vote.

Ironically it does, which is why in some places, some of those elected, are working very hard not to let some people vote.

[iL Dottore]

Another thought about the political process: autocratic regimes, such as those in China and in Russia, are heavily criticised for their heavy-handed crack downs on dissent.
 

However, if the autocratic leaders paid careful attention to what has happened in the Democratic countries in the West since about the year 2000, the autocrats would soon learn that public and noisy dissent is actually A Good Thing because (a) the populace gets to blows off steam and (b) after the noise dies down, the government gets to go ahead with its plans anyway (well, most of the time). And a wise autocrat would realise that it is better to have the opposition out in the open, noisy and visible, rather than quietly plotting in the dark behind the scenes.

 

However, it does seem that the autocrats do tend to take any kind of dissent very, very personally….

[jjb1970]

13 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

But do you want a government made up of say 15% communists and 16% ultra right nationalists, who will be continuously disruptive of the governing process?

Yes it does reflect the views of nearly 1/3rd of the population but equally does not reflect the wishes of 2/3rds.

 

That might be true, but it is also an argument against democratic representation. If people knew their vote would actually count they might be more considerate of how they cast it. If 15% of people truly are Communists and 16% ultra right nationalists (noting that the two are not necessarily that far apart) then why shouldn't their positions have a voice in Parliament? If the 2/3 really hate the other 1/3 then they can cooperate to form a government.

[jjb1970]

14 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Which brings me back to this:

I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional". First past the post is proportional if districts all have the same number of voters.

 

 

In first past the post, if a candidate gets 20% of the vote and all others get less then the one with 20% of the vote wins. If that was replicated across all constituencies you can quickly end up with a government a small minority voted for. In a preference system it seems to promote a lowest common denominator in which we get a government of least objection and which many will still be excluded. In a truly proportional system in which seats are a function of numbers of votes most people know their votes are represented.

[Barry O]

Ey up!

 

To the Back and Hip, thank you for giving us the support by giving GDB pain. Despite cortisone jabs and exercises we too are making sure that he knows we are here. Long live the cold and damp!

 

Yours infriendship,

Baz hip and back.

[Barry O]

Ey up again!

 

Whatever voting system you use you need sensible people put forward to be elected.according to Dr Eldest Herbert this is a common problem everywhere in the world. Having seen politicians in the UK, Oz and Kiwiland recently I wouldn't trust any of them... as for the Americas .. ditto,

 

Time we moved away from our thoughts on voting systems and back to drivelling...

 

I am off to the fang hackers this morning.. and not excited to be going..

 

Baz

Edited March 27, 2023 by Barry O

[TheQ]

8 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

I said it before and I'll say it again so I can post another picture -  all this can be fixed by  simply having young ladies in gold bikinis wandering around paying the parking fees for you.

 

Get it sorted!

 

 

It's currently 4C and 40 mph winds out there,

I suspect if we had meter maids, it would be full length thermal long johns, heavyweight trousered , puffer jacket, and a beany hat.

[jjb1970]

5 minutes ago, TheQ said:

It's currently 4C and 40 mph winds out there,

I suspect if we had meter maids, it would be full length thermal long johns, heavyweight trousered , puffer jacket, and a beany hat.

 

I take it you've never been to Newcastle or South Shields then?🤣🤣🤣

[polybear]

Bear's Monday Funnies.....