andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-01-06 11:26 am
andrewducker) wrote2011-01-06 11:26 am
Annoyed by politics
I keep seeing articles talking about alliances between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, either for the next election, or for the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election that's happening a week today. In the latter case, many of the Conservatives basically seem to be saying "We don't have a chance of winning, so you Tory voters should vote LibDem instead, so that Labour don't win."
Not only do I disagree over there being alliances over elections (because it denies people a free choice), but I object to the fact that the current system encourages them. If we had AV then Conservative voters could vote the way they want to (Conservative) and then vote Lib-Dem as a second choice _if that's what they want_. Similarly, Lib-Dem voters could vote Lib-Dem first, and then either Conservative or Labour depending on which they preferred as a second-choice, etc., etc.
That way the parties could concentrate on standing for themselves, and not what other parties are doing, and electoral bargaining could at least wait until _after_ the votes were in.
As it is, the election results won't actually tell us what the honest choices of the electorate are. People will be voting tactically, to keep out the people they oppose, based on guesswork over who has the most chance of winning. It's a horribly broken system.
(Not that I think that AV is the bees knees, but it's decidedly better than FPTP. I think my ideal system would probably be AV with an AMS top-up, but that's a completely different debate.)
Not only do I disagree over there being alliances over elections (because it denies people a free choice), but I object to the fact that the current system encourages them. If we had AV then Conservative voters could vote the way they want to (Conservative) and then vote Lib-Dem as a second choice _if that's what they want_. Similarly, Lib-Dem voters could vote Lib-Dem first, and then either Conservative or Labour depending on which they preferred as a second-choice, etc., etc.
That way the parties could concentrate on standing for themselves, and not what other parties are doing, and electoral bargaining could at least wait until _after_ the votes were in.
As it is, the election results won't actually tell us what the honest choices of the electorate are. People will be voting tactically, to keep out the people they oppose, based on guesswork over who has the most chance of winning. It's a horribly broken system.
(Not that I think that AV is the bees knees, but it's decidedly better than FPTP. I think my ideal system would probably be AV with an AMS top-up, but that's a completely different debate.)
no subject
Every system is going to have some sort of cut-off, and I think getting 4% and not getting any seats would be acceptable if not ideal, but in practice I think parties on the margins, like the Greens or Racist UKIP, would do a little targetting and still get a couple of seats with high-profile candidates. The only ones who would definitely be kept out are parties like the Bastard Nazis, who wouldn't get a significant number of transfers - but frankly, while I *should* care about BNP voters not being represented, I can't feel that bad about it...
no subject
no subject
I personally view that as a good thing, specifically I think more Dr Richard Taylors in Parlt would benefit all of us. STV is the only electoral system that increases the chances of Independents and weakens party control that I'm aware of.
Essentially, Greens on 4% are struggling anyway-in some list PR/top up systems, like Germany or Israel, they wouldn't get any seats on 4%, there's a 5% cutoff to exclude extremist and minority/fringe parties (Germany allows parties below 5% to keep their top up if they get at least one constituency MP though). That means that the FDP (Liberals, but fairly right wing by standard terms) scrapes along and sometimes loses all its seats.
But STV strengthens candidates. Greens got 2% in 2010, but guarantee Lucas would get in with a massively over quota first preferences in Brighton & Area under an STV election.
German Cut Off
Re: German Cut Off
One of the reasons I went off the system was the ability to game it is too high and important. STV can be gamed, but nowhere near as much, and it's fairly obvious when it happens as well, from what I've seen/read.
Re: German Cut Off
Re: German Cut Off
Re: German Cut Off
I'm not comfortable with the idea that view points are excluded even from the debate just because they lack a certain mass of support. Not only is it wrong in principle but I look at parties like the Greens or UKIP and then at the early Labour Party and I think the future is being created now.