The AMS list vote provides proportionality. In Wales it doesn't really achieve that as the legislature is too small. Scotland does decently. For a big chamber like the commons, might it get unwiedly, especially if they use the German MMP variant? That means overhang seats to achieve proportionality and their current legislature is over 700. They want to reduce the size of their legislature but scope for reform is limited as the small parties like it. Also, the party list means that swamp creatures will be near impossible to remove. Think of how we are in decline, norms are breaking etc. We are headed down a similar route as the US. Decency cannot be relied on. Once the list meets corruption that will be a toxic combination which will become hard to reform. Don't kick the can and think it will be fixed later. Electoral reform can take generations. Use STV (multi member districts with ranked voting). That gives voters more control over who to elect even within the party. So if an MP from your preferred party keeps voting party line even against the interests of your district you can rank them lower or not at all. You can rank MPs in your party or another party that you can accept higher. That gives MPs an incentive to not just serve the party but also their voters. Voters will have the power to keep them honest and incentives in the system will be good rather than negative incentives like now. MPs will have to reach out further than their own base as 2nd and 3rd preferences from other voters will still help them.
Even if we had proportional representation, England would still not have a parliament and government that reflected the votes cast in England. Time for an English parliament elected under a proportional system.
Having listened to the entire debate on ParliamentTV the basic argument from the First Past the Post supporters (mainly Tory) were: (1) The Electorate are too stupid to understand anything more complicated than FPTP! (2) FPTP has provided Strong & Stable governments for generations - why change something that works? (3) The AV referendum in 2011 proved that the majority are perfectly satisfied with the current FPTP system. (4) FPTP ties the member of parliament to his / her constituency, is accountable at the ballot box, everyone knows who their MP is and is able to take issues to them regardless of political persuasion. Responses to the above FPTP arguments included: (1) Electorates in most EU countries seem to survive with their own versions of PR. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly are both elected via PR and under FPTP the London Assembly would not have any Conservative representation! (2) FPTP hasn't provided a government with majority support of the electorate since the 1930's! The Conservative / LibDem coalition of 2010 to 2015 was at least representative of >50% of the electorate! "Strong & Stable" is hardly a phrase you could apply to the last two Conservative so-called victories! (3) The 2011 referendum was as much an opinion poll about Nick Clegg as it was about AV - just one particular form of voting. The evidence of Tactical Voting, the greater range of political opinion today, the number of people who do not vote and difficulty of engaging the population in politics (mayoral, police commissioner elections!) point to the fact that politics has changed and FPTP is not longer fit for purpose. (4) The link between MP and constituent seems to ignore the fact that if your MP is not of your political persuasion why would you necessary consider taking the matter up with someone who may have a fundamentally different point of view? The only argument that made any sense to me was that FPTP tends to cut out radical minority parties from gaining power and having an undue influence on policy. The Conservative / DUP "special relationship" achieved under the current system was pointed out... and ignored! The PR supporters, mostly NON-Tory made the usual points about fairness and the fact that the FPTP is leading to polarised political tribal support which has absolutely NO time for any alternative points of view. The most compelling argument for PR is the opportunity for voters to vote with their conscience recognising that such a vote would result in representation in some form. Unlike Tactical Voting under FPTP which forces voters to support Candidate A in order to keep Candidate B out! Hence the assumption that the 13.6M who voted Conservative in 2017 are all dedicated Tory supporters is hardly realistic - I might even find it necessary to vote Tory to keep Corbyn's current loony Labour party out!
That is my MP for my constituency, i'm happy hes raising awareness about this.
The AMS list vote provides proportionality. In Wales it doesn't really achieve that as the legislature is too small. Scotland does decently. For a big chamber like the commons, might it get unwiedly, especially if they use the German MMP variant? That means overhang seats to achieve proportionality and their current legislature is over 700. They want to reduce the size of their legislature but scope for reform is limited as the small parties like it.
Also, the party list means that swamp creatures will be near impossible to remove. Think of how we are in decline, norms are breaking etc. We are headed down a similar route as the US. Decency cannot be relied on. Once the list meets corruption that will be a toxic combination which will become hard to reform. Don't kick the can and think it will be fixed later. Electoral reform can take generations.
Use STV (multi member districts with ranked voting). That gives voters more control over who to elect even within the party. So if an MP from your preferred party keeps voting party line even against the interests of your district you can rank them lower or not at all. You can rank MPs in your party or another party that you can accept higher. That gives MPs an incentive to not just serve the party but also their voters. Voters will have the power to keep them honest and incentives in the system will be good rather than negative incentives like now.
MPs will have to reach out further than their own base as 2nd and 3rd preferences from other voters will still help them.
Even if we had proportional representation, England would still not have a parliament and government that reflected the votes cast in England. Time for an English parliament elected under a proportional system.
The problem is that english voters apparently aren't clearly on board with regional assemblies. It should certainly be looked into further.
Having listened to the entire debate on ParliamentTV the basic argument from the First Past the Post supporters (mainly Tory) were:
(1) The Electorate are too stupid to understand anything more complicated than FPTP!
(2) FPTP has provided Strong & Stable governments for generations - why change something that works?
(3) The AV referendum in 2011 proved that the majority are perfectly satisfied with the current FPTP system.
(4) FPTP ties the member of parliament to his / her constituency, is accountable at the ballot box, everyone knows who their MP is and is able to take issues to them regardless of political persuasion.
Responses to the above FPTP arguments included:
(1) Electorates in most EU countries seem to survive with their own versions of PR. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly are both elected via PR and under FPTP the London Assembly would not have any Conservative representation!
(2) FPTP hasn't provided a government with majority support of the electorate since the 1930's! The Conservative / LibDem coalition of 2010 to 2015 was at least representative of >50% of the electorate! "Strong & Stable" is hardly a phrase you could apply to the last two Conservative so-called victories!
(3) The 2011 referendum was as much an opinion poll about Nick Clegg as it was about AV - just one particular form of voting. The evidence of Tactical Voting, the greater range of political opinion today, the number of people who do not vote and difficulty of engaging the population in politics (mayoral, police commissioner elections!) point to the fact that politics has changed and FPTP is not longer fit for purpose.
(4) The link between MP and constituent seems to ignore the fact that if your MP is not of your political persuasion why would you necessary consider taking the matter up with someone who may have a fundamentally different point of view?
The only argument that made any sense to me was that FPTP tends to cut out radical minority parties from gaining power and having an undue influence on policy. The Conservative / DUP "special relationship" achieved under the current system was pointed out... and ignored!
The PR supporters, mostly NON-Tory made the usual points about fairness and the fact that the FPTP is leading to polarised political tribal support which has absolutely NO time for any alternative points of view. The most compelling argument for PR is the opportunity for voters to vote with their conscience recognising that such a vote would result in representation in some form. Unlike Tactical Voting under FPTP which forces voters to support Candidate A in order to keep Candidate B out! Hence the assumption that the 13.6M who voted Conservative in 2017 are all dedicated Tory supporters is hardly realistic - I might even find it necessary to vote Tory to keep Corbyn's current loony Labour party out!
Did he just say America is a republic, not a democracy like UK?
When was this debate held? Just trying to find it on Parliamentlive.tv
Found it - parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c52f8c49-55ac-44c8-bf23-b1705afadaf8
So was this debate just all people for reform or were there any arguments against?
The whole debate was 3 hours so we are just putting up highlights. You can watch the whole thing on Parliamentlive.tv