While I appreciate the video educating me on the approval system. I disagree with its final conclusion as proportional representation is more tried and tested. As it counts 95% of the vote, allows smaller parties/independents to compete and improves the government’s performance on economy, inequality, social justice and climate.
The countries that rank the highest in international rankings such as Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and Iceland all use a form of proportional representation.
The single transferable vote blows instant runoff right out of the water as it’s ranked and proportional avoiding the pitfall strengthening the 2 big parties. It works great in Ireland, as they have friendly politics and regularly elect independents.
Devolve English powers away from Commons and Lords too.
Ideal set up would be:
3 regional assemblies, cut England in a Y shape to give approximately similar population regions, voted through PR. All regional level, domestic decisions are delegated. Replaces the Lords.
Rename the Commons to British Senate (or whatever) and they control national decisions and general UK policy.
Monarchy is given the remainder of the existing one generation to continue to receive the rents, but after Charles will be disbanded as a government institution.
What do you mean “…Lords with PR”? PR is a result of a voting system, not a voting system itself. Do you mean Party Lists, so the people vote for parties instead of individuals and the parties decide who sits in the Lords?
If so, it doesn’t sound like much of a change to me.
There is a whole lot more to my post that that half a sentence.
But basically saying that we should have two different methods of representation in the two houses, both by coverage and by voting method to prevent certain areas/parties overwhelming, and being overwhelmed by others.
Why should London get to dictate how the North is governed simply by there being more people, but for like, why should the North get to dictate how money is spent in London?
There should be county councils for deciding local matters, “super councils” to decide regional matters and a national government to decide national and overseas policies.
On the other hand, if the only issue is that I picked PR for one and STV for another, and you would prefer a different voting mechanism then I’m completely fine with that too. However having PR, AV or whatever would be much better, IMHO, than the current Lords which never replaces it’s representation, and I disagree that it would be exactly the same as the current state.
You keep saying PR as if it’s one thing. There’s a whole family of systems that give proportional representation to greater or lesser degrees. STV is one, but seeing as you proposed that for the commons you seem to be ruling it out for the lord’s.
So I was asking which system you’d prefer? I personally dislike anything where the parties get told “you have 100 seats, fill them with whoever you like” commonly known as party lists. It removes the ability for voters to vote a particular person out.
In my opinion, PR is either open or closed list systems. STV falls under alternative voting methods (from my point of view), because it does not proportionally represent. Either way it really doesn’t matter because as my first reply said, that’s not the bit I give the biggest shit about.
Replacement of FPTP is a start, while replacement of our terrible two house system where we have no say over the second house would be better, and replacement of both would be best.
STV for both is fine, I was just suggesting a candidate based system for one house and a party based system for the second to try and counter too much of the “one policy candidates” but not eliminate the ability for people to show what they really care about.
Not that we will get either, so I’m not sure why you are quite so aggressive about it.
While I appreciate the video educating me on the approval system. I disagree with its final conclusion as proportional representation is more tried and tested. As it counts 95% of the vote, allows smaller parties/independents to compete and improves the government’s performance on economy, inequality, social justice and climate.
The countries that rank the highest in international rankings such as Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and Iceland all use a form of proportional representation.
The single transferable vote blows instant runoff right out of the water as it’s ranked and proportional avoiding the pitfall strengthening the 2 big parties. It works great in Ireland, as they have friendly politics and regularly elect independents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Replace commons with STV, and Lords with PR.
Devolve English powers away from Commons and Lords too.
Ideal set up would be:
3 regional assemblies, cut England in a Y shape to give approximately similar population regions, voted through PR. All regional level, domestic decisions are delegated. Replaces the Lords.
Rename the Commons to British Senate (or whatever) and they control national decisions and general UK policy.
Monarchy is given the remainder of the existing one generation to continue to receive the rents, but after Charles will be disbanded as a government institution.
What do you mean “…Lords with PR”? PR is a result of a voting system, not a voting system itself. Do you mean Party Lists, so the people vote for parties instead of individuals and the parties decide who sits in the Lords?
If so, it doesn’t sound like much of a change to me.
There is a whole lot more to my post that that half a sentence.
But basically saying that we should have two different methods of representation in the two houses, both by coverage and by voting method to prevent certain areas/parties overwhelming, and being overwhelmed by others.
Why should London get to dictate how the North is governed simply by there being more people, but for like, why should the North get to dictate how money is spent in London?
There should be county councils for deciding local matters, “super councils” to decide regional matters and a national government to decide national and overseas policies.
On the other hand, if the only issue is that I picked PR for one and STV for another, and you would prefer a different voting mechanism then I’m completely fine with that too. However having PR, AV or whatever would be much better, IMHO, than the current Lords which never replaces it’s representation, and I disagree that it would be exactly the same as the current state.
You keep saying PR as if it’s one thing. There’s a whole family of systems that give proportional representation to greater or lesser degrees. STV is one, but seeing as you proposed that for the commons you seem to be ruling it out for the lord’s.
So I was asking which system you’d prefer? I personally dislike anything where the parties get told “you have 100 seats, fill them with whoever you like” commonly known as party lists. It removes the ability for voters to vote a particular person out.
I already said that I honestly don’t care.
In my opinion, PR is either open or closed list systems. STV falls under alternative voting methods (from my point of view), because it does not proportionally represent. Either way it really doesn’t matter because as my first reply said, that’s not the bit I give the biggest shit about.
Replacement of FPTP is a start, while replacement of our terrible two house system where we have no say over the second house would be better, and replacement of both would be best.
STV for both is fine, I was just suggesting a candidate based system for one house and a party based system for the second to try and counter too much of the “one policy candidates” but not eliminate the ability for people to show what they really care about.
Not that we will get either, so I’m not sure why you are quite so aggressive about it.
But who else will the BBC and droves of lost tourists fawn over
I’m not suggesting execution. Just that they are outside of government.
The BBC can carry on fawning over them, just like all the other irrelevant celebrities with no real world use.