Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Rinty · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: h

The easiest and laziest way to combat the failing of politicians to engage with voters.

If voting systems were fairer, if people were confident that local authorites, devolved parliaments etc could actually get things done, we might see a rise in votes.

The freedom to boycott elections is one of the fundamental democractic rights we enjoy.

If politicians didnt have to try to persuade voters to turn out and vote for them, the election would be down to who could organise and pay for the slickest spin/media campaign.

This is a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

IF Convenor · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:07 am Post subject:

I agree. Voters need to feel that their vote will mean something. Right now, there is a Labour majority in the House of Commons on the basis of about a third of the votes cast. How can that be right? Two thirds of the people who bothered to vote did not vote Labour and yet there is a working majority of Labour MPs in the Commons!

When you consider Scotland's position vis a vis the UK, it gets even worse; how many years did we suffer Thatcherite Tory governments without ever voting for them? Scotland's voters know they have absolutely no influence over who governs the UK.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3777

Aventinian · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:17 pm Post subject:

You can lead the horse to the polling station, but you cannot make him engage in intellectual political thought to determine what he does therein.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

SLG · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: h

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

which system would people prefer? i actually really like the scottish parliament system, it gives the opportunity for representative democracy and a good chance of a stable government but also allows smaller parties to get a real foot hold in politics.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Rinty · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: h

I prefer the STV system that we will be using at next years council elections but six and seven member wards would be better than 3 and 4, certainly 5 at least is required for it to work well.

Lists should be open rather than closed party lists. This would give local representation but mean a fair spread of the vote.

So Scotland would have a few larger constituencies and rather than try to make them all the same size, which creates some geographical nightmares. Constituencies should be based on a local identifiable area and the amount of seats returned is commensurate with population. Like oue euro elections but without the closed party lists.

Ayrshire for instance is an identifiable area that is currently five seats and about a third of a region. An eight member constituency of Ayrshire could be one seat. Smaller constituencies such as Orkney and Shetland could return perhaps three or four, Glasgow could two seats with 8 or nine members each.

IF Convenor · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject:

I agree with you, Rinty.

Closed party lists just mean the usual hacks get in regardless of what the public thinks of them. An open list would allow the voters to actually select the candidates they want.

STV with large enough multi-member constituencies is my preferred option. I also think five members is about the minimum acceptable for true representative democracy.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

stv can be a really complex system though, would you also include the d'hondt mechanism for dishing out executive positions then?
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Rinty · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: j

No. I still think that an executive should be formed by the party(s) who win control of the parliament. As I said, I would have open list, D'hondt ussually relies on party lists.

It was used for selecting NI's executive positions but it may have been more suitable there due to the ridiculous entrenched sectarian make up of the so called power sharing mecansim.

STV in the form that I am advocating is very simple for the voter and relatively easy to count. You simply list the cadidates in oredr of preference from 1 down to the amount of people you wish to vote for.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

they also use dhondt in holland i think, apparently it has caused some problems there.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Neil · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:

Compulsory voting would be tackling the symptom not the disease.

The disease being that, in Westminster only about 40% of people get represented by somebody they voted for so it is difficult to take democracy seriously.

Fairness demands that I mention that the previous Holyrood elections have had even lower turnouts that Westminster. I hope that will not be the case next year.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken