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.
AV is not an improvement as it’s harder for smaller parties/independents to win, the politics remains adversarial, there is a lack of minority and women representation, strategy voting is involved. Also notice how Australia is behind the countries of Norway, Denmark and Switzerland in the international rankings.
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.
Preferred is a very strong word as a summary of my position.
I said that I preferred two different voting methods for the two different levels of chambers, and as such suggested PR for one of them.
I would prefer removal of the Lords and devolution of English powers to regional authorities leaving the renamed Commons to deal with national/international positions and delegating basically everything that would get devolved to Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland to the three Regional Authorities.
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.
AV is not an improvement as it’s harder for smaller parties/independents to win, the politics remains adversarial, there is a lack of minority and women representation, strategy voting is involved. Also notice how Australia is behind the countries of Norway, Denmark and Switzerland in the international rankings.
https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Country_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
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.
You can have local representation with the single-transferable vote and mixed-member proportional systems.
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.
Party-lists is the most proportional, followed by mixed-member proportional and then single transferable vote.
You’re the first person I have met who preferred party-lists, I suppose the people in my area really like the local representation.
Preferred is a very strong word as a summary of my position.
I said that I preferred two different voting methods for the two different levels of chambers, and as such suggested PR for one of them.
I would prefer removal of the Lords and devolution of English powers to regional authorities leaving the renamed Commons to deal with national/international positions and delegating basically everything that would get devolved to Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland to the three Regional Authorities.