Which voting system do you want for the next election?

[SaveTheUK]

Simple poll, What is your favourite voting system.

More info about each can be found at http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

I've included the 6 that I believe are a possibility to be used.


My vote goes to AV+ for 3 reasons.

1) It maintains the link between constituency's and MP's
2) constituency MP's would require more support than they do with FPTP
3) It guarantees a degree of proportionality to the result.

[newspresenter]

How about proper Google Page Ranking? Get 9% of the vote, get 9% of the MP's.

[ryoden]

I had a look at their preferred STV and there are points that I don't find clear.

STV uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies.
What is a multi-member constituency? Are there going to be single member constituencies? Do you elect more than one person per constituency? Do they mean that you will have more than 1 member per party standing to choose between? Bearing in mind we are used to one person winning from a group of about 5 that stand in any given ward.

If your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted.

Well that's assuming you vote for more than one party/person I guess, otherwise your vote could still be wasted.

source wikipedia: Its critics contend that some voters find STV difficult to understand.

Indeed.

[Opinionated]

STV uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies.[/B]
What is a multi-member constituency? Are there going to be single member constituencies? Do you elect more than one person per constituency? Do they mean that you will have more than 1 member per party standing to choose between? Bearing in mind we are used to one person winning from a group of about 5 that stand in any given ward.

No as I understand it constituencies would be made bigger and each given two seats in parliament.

If your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted

. True that is a positive, it is truly proportional.

Well that's assuming you vote for more than one party/person I guess, otherwise your vote could still be wasted.

source wikipedia: Its critics contend that some voters find STV difficult to understand.

Indeed.

Any change is going to be confusing for the electorate the first few times it is used, that's not a valid reason for keeping the status quo.

[SaveTheUK]

Under the Lib Dems plans for proportional representation IIRC large superconstituencies would be formed some of which would have as much as 6 MP's using STV.

My problem with it is lets say a safe Labour seat with 6 MP's, most of the electorate will choose the 6 Labour candidates as their top 6 preferences, and smaller parties will still end up getting a raw deal.

[Streetwalker]

Id stick with FPTP but with an English Parliment, The current system is unfair to England.Not only do the other Union countries have their own parliments but have too much influence over ours.The worst could be yet to come,a coalition Lib /Lab /SNP/Taffs will see the Scots and Welsh not suffering the Imminent cuts that await the rest of us

[Midas]

As Opinionated rightly says, "Any change is going to be confusing for the electorate the first few times it is used", and having read through the summaries of all the different voting systems which are likely to be considered, I couldn't agree more. Not wishing to demean the intelligence of the average man or woman in the street, I'd bet that the vast majority of them wouldn't have a clue as to what the pros and cons of each system are, let alone understand exactly which is more proportional and which is less so, both on a constituency basis and on a national basis. I'll freely admit that even I have a problem understanding some of the aspects!

The only electoral system which is truly proportional on a national basis is that of a closed party list where voters simply vote for which party they wish to see leading the next government, however that does mean that the tie between MP and constituency is broken, something many people object to (although personally I can't see why). If we're ever going to reach a point where the makeup of the government is an accurate reflection of the views of the electorate though, something has to give, and in the interests of overall fairness to everyone, the constituency tie has to be it.

[SaveTheUK]

Midas I can see where you're coming from about the MP/constituency link, I do believe everyone should have a local MP in their constituency but the sad reality is that MP's vote the way their party whip tells them to vote, not what they believe is best for their constituents. If you're going to move to a fully blown proportional party list system the IMO more powers need to be devolved to local councils.

[Midas]

Midas I can see where you're coming from about the MP/constituency link, I do believe everyone should have a local MP in their constituency but the sad reality is that MP's vote the way their party whip tells them to vote, not what they believe is best for their constituents. If you're going to move to a fully blown proportional party list system the IMO more powers need to be devolved to local councils.

I totally agree that far more powers should be devolved to local councils, and that they should always be the first point of contact between the electorate and parliament. Local councils should also be used more to provide feedback on issues of national and local interest to Westminster, whether through referendums or simple local polls. If we're to have a proper democracy, we do need a far greater degree of public say in what's going on, and local councils are the obvious organisations to administer this.

I'd go further than that though, and say that the political structure of local councils should be a microcosm of that at Westminster; if the latter has say 200 Tory, 150 Labour, 100 Lib Dem and 70 other party MPs, the party makeup of local councils should reflect this as near as possible (bearing in mind their smaller size). It would simplify the whole structure and eliminate the often hugely wasteful problem of multiple layers of administration often each with a different party political makeup.

[Expounder]

I inadvertently voted AV+ on the posted voting page instead of the AV system which I think would reflect more democratically the views of the electorate........................................ ..Exp.

[Midas]

I inadvertently voted AV+ on the posted voting page instead of the AV system which I think would reflect more democratically the views of the electorate........................................ ..Exp.

I've changed it for you Exp.....

[SaveTheUK]

The saying that AV means MP's would require support of a majority of their constituents is incorrect, all it means is that over 50% of the constituents would choose the MP in a straight choice between him and the guy who came second.

[newspresenter]

True that is a positive, it is truly proportional.

No its not, it means a vote for one party encourages another to succeed.

[newspresenter]

Under the Lib Dems plans for proportional representation IIRC large superconstituencies would be formed some of which would have as much as 6 MP's using STV.

My problem with it is lets say a safe Labour seat with 6 MP's, most of the electorate will choose the 6 Labour candidates as their top 6 preferences, and smaller parties will still end up getting a raw deal.

But you have to get 51% of the first vote, which rarely happens except for Bootle (71% 2005). If not 51%, then i think the least candidates second vote is taken into account and so on?

[newspresenter]

Id stick with FPTP but with an English Parliment, The current system is unfair to England.Not only do the other Union countries have their own parliments but have too much influence over ours.The worst could be yet to come,a coalition Lib /Lab /SNP/Taffs will see the Scots and Welsh not suffering the Imminent cuts that await the rest of us

In this election, 28 million people out of 29.6 who voted won't be represented constituently, FPTP is the most unfair voting system ever designed, thats why the main 2 party's don't wana change it.

[newspresenter]

The only electoral system which is truly proportional on a national basis is that of a closed party list where voters simply vote for which party they wish to see leading the next government, however that does mean that the tie between MP and constituency is broken, something many people object to (although personally I can't see why). If we're ever going to reach a point where the makeup of the government is an accurate reflection of the views of the electorate though, something has to give, and in the interests of overall fairness to everyone, the constituency tie has to be it.

It doesn't, say for example Labour got 200 MP's, all they do is split the country into 200 regions, the same can apply for all party's, that way everyone can get the assistence from the party they prefer. In the euro we have 10? regions.

[ryoden]

Any change is going to be confusing for the electorate the first few times it is used, that's not a valid reason for keeping the status quo.

Not it's not, but my point was that they could try and make it a bit more obvious as to how it works, thanks for the explanation though.

[newspresenter]

The threshold % Google Page Ranking, after you get the national %, what do you have to achieve to get 1 MP?

[DTE]

Id stick with FPTP but with an English Parliment, The current system is unfair to England.Not only do the other Union countries have their own parliments but have too much influence over ours.The worst could be yet to come,a coalition Lib /Lab /SNP/Taffs will see the Scots and Welsh not suffering the Imminent cuts that await the rest of us

Actually, since devlution only bout 3 englishb statues hav been pasefd tht needed suportv from non-english mps.

[uncon]

Actually, since devlution only bout 3 englishb statues hav been pasefd tht needed suportv from non-english mps.

pubs aint closed yet darling - you could drink some more.

Come on DTE, you are one of my favourite posters

[TheMixer]

I find it rather cheap and snide for anyone to want to change a system just because they haven't won an election under it. The Labour party came from nothing to est. itself as a major political force which disproves any contention that it's not fair. I think the Lib dems need to have the courage of their convictions and keep plugging away at it until they manage to win their own mandate. If they never do then that's just tough crap just like it is for my beloved Libertarian party.

[Midas]

It doesn't, say for example Labour got 200 MP's, all they do is split the country into 200 regions, the same can apply for all party's, that way everyone can get the assistence from the party they prefer. In the euro we have 10? regions.

Perhaps what I should have said was that the closed party list system theoretically breaks the direct link between MPs and constituencies. In other words people simply vote for a party, period. That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't get the same local MP year after year though; it's common sense to have stability in that respect, it's just that they won't be basing their votes on that person, and if there's a change in the overall constituency vote to another party, they won't know who it is until after the results are announced - it might well be someone local, but then again it mightn't be.

[Expounder]

Although the politicos may have a grasp of the various P.R. options on offer, the British electorate like changes in small doses that is easier to understand, this must be the AV system. Once you try to get STV and others which means voting for a party label into the mix of options it would be a complete turn off for the public who would probably say leave it as it is.

With AV at least you would still have a local-ish candidate the only difference there would be is that you would vote for your 1st 2nd 3rd choice candidate. At least who ever got elected would have received 50+% of the vote.

Breaking up the existing constituency system in one step would be too much to comprehend for most people many who find it irksome just to turn up at the local polling station and vote. For some, that's even too much trouble to do. This could lead to even more disinterest in politics.

[joethfc]

That is a good point Expounder, there is always the worry people would be fooled into not voting for it because it was too much of a change.