PR needs to be accompanied by strict regulations stopping / reducing dirty money going to political parties & party leaders. £13.7m from arms dealer harbourne to farridge in 2019/20 ?!*! Election expenses are only declared for short campaigns. Suggest parties should be required to declare all donations over £50 for whole period since previous election. If undeclared then fine party pays needs to equal all of donation & 20% to go to a newly unshackled from govt electoral commission.
I would just add a mention the need to also cut down on the grubby money funding our politicians.
Realise this: Politicians' main career focus is, at best, to get elected. Not to actually run the country well. That is at best an incidental skill set.
Courting votes, courting airtime/publicity, and especially courting campaign funding, is the vital area for them to perform well. Fail at this and they are out of a job.
A committee discussing setting up the constitution of a new country would surely say, “If we are going for democracy then for fairness and common sense we need political representation to be proportional to the votes of the public.” There is widespread agreement that democracy, although far from perfect is the least bad system. People may vote foolishly; they often do but eventually they will learn. So distorting the system, and FPTP is a distortion, to achieve an end is not a good policy. And Mr Kieran produces some excellent and convincing arguments why PR would not be a charter for extremists to get control.
Media likes excitement, good versus bad, issues with two sides for maximum conflict. But life is often more complicated and PR encourages intelligent argument. I shudder when I hear someone say, “I have voted Tory / Labour all my life until now…” Do they not sound like football supporters? People who vary their voting are called, somewhat derisively ‘floating voters’. We should be called thoughtful voters!
I believe voters mostly are in favour, but politicians will say to themselves, “I am where I want to be and there are many causes I believe in. If I vote for PR I might not be here any more!
yes under FPTP a small pressure group can take over executive of a large party and then when voter vote for the large party, they re actually voting for the small pressure group.
Just think if Republican party had put up two candidates for president, would Trump have been the preferred Republican candidate?
in FPTP each party puts up just one candidate so voter do not have choices.
multi-member districts means fuller party slates and voters have choice of which to vote for.
STV in multi-seat constituencies is the first essential step towards (re) building our democracy. Candidates should write their own electoral address and when they get to the HoC they should vote with their convictions, not at the whips behest. Every MP should be part of government and the HoC should elect the PM.
I read it and believe Mark Kieran's arguments are more convincing. But I applaud respectful argument. I voted for and currently support the Labour party but have some criticisms of Starmer. If I was a Labour MP I would have to keep those criticisms to myself in case I gave support to the 'other side'. That is not a good situation.
Can we NOT imply that Reform UK is "far right"? If you want your campaign to have any authenticity at all, aligning Reform UK with the "far right' is not a good look!
OK it is populist then. What I believe happens is that someone like Farage, who can speak indefinitely without pausing, gets the attention of every voter who has something to complain about, and there are plenty of them, and says to them that he understands their problem and will fix it. That's all that is needed to get their vote. How he will fix it is not discussed.
PR needs to be accompanied by strict regulations stopping / reducing dirty money going to political parties & party leaders. £13.7m from arms dealer harbourne to farridge in 2019/20 ?!*! Election expenses are only declared for short campaigns. Suggest parties should be required to declare all donations over £50 for whole period since previous election. If undeclared then fine party pays needs to equal all of donation & 20% to go to a newly unshackled from govt electoral commission.
Very helpful article.
I would just add a mention the need to also cut down on the grubby money funding our politicians.
Realise this: Politicians' main career focus is, at best, to get elected. Not to actually run the country well. That is at best an incidental skill set.
Courting votes, courting airtime/publicity, and especially courting campaign funding, is the vital area for them to perform well. Fail at this and they are out of a job.
A committee discussing setting up the constitution of a new country would surely say, “If we are going for democracy then for fairness and common sense we need political representation to be proportional to the votes of the public.” There is widespread agreement that democracy, although far from perfect is the least bad system. People may vote foolishly; they often do but eventually they will learn. So distorting the system, and FPTP is a distortion, to achieve an end is not a good policy. And Mr Kieran produces some excellent and convincing arguments why PR would not be a charter for extremists to get control.
Media likes excitement, good versus bad, issues with two sides for maximum conflict. But life is often more complicated and PR encourages intelligent argument. I shudder when I hear someone say, “I have voted Tory / Labour all my life until now…” Do they not sound like football supporters? People who vary their voting are called, somewhat derisively ‘floating voters’. We should be called thoughtful voters!
I believe voters mostly are in favour, but politicians will say to themselves, “I am where I want to be and there are many causes I believe in. If I vote for PR I might not be here any more!
yes under FPTP a small pressure group can take over executive of a large party and then when voter vote for the large party, they re actually voting for the small pressure group.
Just think if Republican party had put up two candidates for president, would Trump have been the preferred Republican candidate?
in FPTP each party puts up just one candidate so voter do not have choices.
multi-member districts means fuller party slates and voters have choice of which to vote for.
STV in multi-seat constituencies is the first essential step towards (re) building our democracy. Candidates should write their own electoral address and when they get to the HoC they should vote with their convictions, not at the whips behest. Every MP should be part of government and the HoC should elect the PM.
A repudiation of the arguments presented by Mark Kieran - https://westenglandbylines.co.uk/politics/democracy/voting-reform-and-the-far-right-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
I read it and believe Mark Kieran's arguments are more convincing. But I applaud respectful argument. I voted for and currently support the Labour party but have some criticisms of Starmer. If I was a Labour MP I would have to keep those criticisms to myself in case I gave support to the 'other side'. That is not a good situation.
Can we NOT imply that Reform UK is "far right"? If you want your campaign to have any authenticity at all, aligning Reform UK with the "far right' is not a good look!
OK it is populist then. What I believe happens is that someone like Farage, who can speak indefinitely without pausing, gets the attention of every voter who has something to complain about, and there are plenty of them, and says to them that he understands their problem and will fix it. That's all that is needed to get their vote. How he will fix it is not discussed.
The right know this. That’s why they joined the Conservatives.