andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-01-18 12:35 pm
andrewducker) wrote2011-01-18 12:35 pm
Political Question
At the moment the House of Lords are debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
I've heard numerous claims that this bill is incredibly unfair, and blatant gerrymandering by the Conservative Party.
Looking at the details, I'm feeling baffled. I can see a claim that the exemption for the three Scottish constituencies (Two Liberal Democrat, on Scottish National Party) are biased in their favour. But I can't see how a system whereby people are grouped together in what's going to be a massively arbitrary manner (each area must be within 5% of the national average, and are set up by independent bodies - the Boundary Commissions).
I don't really have a stake in this one - I'd just like someone to explain how this system would give an advantage to any one party. I can see that it could _remove_ advantage from a party if the old system with much less equal constituency sizes gave that party an advantage, but I'm totally failing to see how it's anything like gerrymandering.
Am I missing something obvious?
I've heard numerous claims that this bill is incredibly unfair, and blatant gerrymandering by the Conservative Party.
Looking at the details, I'm feeling baffled. I can see a claim that the exemption for the three Scottish constituencies (Two Liberal Democrat, on Scottish National Party) are biased in their favour. But I can't see how a system whereby people are grouped together in what's going to be a massively arbitrary manner (each area must be within 5% of the national average, and are set up by independent bodies - the Boundary Commissions).
I don't really have a stake in this one - I'd just like someone to explain how this system would give an advantage to any one party. I can see that it could _remove_ advantage from a party if the old system with much less equal constituency sizes gave that party an advantage, but I'm totally failing to see how it's anything like gerrymandering.
Am I missing something obvious?
no subject
500 MPs, from party lists. Each party would get to add one MP per 0.2% of the vote they got. You could vote Labour if you wanted, and then rely on them to put together a decent list. Or if your favourite MP had left Labour because they were fed up with their anti-pigeon propaganda, they could form their own party, and you could vote directly for them (they'd probably want to have a second/third/fourth person lined up after them, in case they got a lot of votes.)
There would be a variety of votes left over after everyone was elected (due to fractions of the percentages needed being produced in the results), and they would be allocated in the same way that top-ups are done in Scotland at the moment - the party with the largest negative difference between "percentage of vote" and "percentage of MPs" would get one, and then the calculation would be repeated until there were 500 MPs.
That way everyone who isn't so massively on the fringe that they can't find 0.2% of the population to agree with them ends up represented. And nobody gets to complain that there are no politicians who believe the same thing they do.
I don't expect said solution to ever transpire, but it would make me happy.
no subject
Whilst your 0.2% threshold suggestion gets round this if the candidates for MP disagree between themselves about who should get on the list and be given priority I wonder if it does enough for me, the voter, if I think that candidate turquoise 10 is better than turquoise 6 even if the turquoise party as a whole are happy enough with the situation or the situation where I prefer Lilac 1 to turquoise 11 on some fairly narrow grounds that mean a lot to me.
My suggestion does of course create a huge ballot paper which may, in fact, be unworkable.
However, if you used electronic voting you could manage the ballot as an on line questionnaire.