Secret Squirrel first here examines outlined ideas on changing the electoral system and expounds why these ARE unsuitable........he will then go on to explain First Past The Post system in use, and why..........it IS good, but also what the problem with it is.
So without further ado here are proposed system changes and why they are...........utterly and completely and for all time, ridiculous and utterly and completely UNACCEPTABLE.
* Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR). Under this system, parties would list candidates they are standing for election. The public would then vote for a party and the number of candidates elected would depend on the percentage share of the vote the party received across the area. The idea is that the party?s representation in Parliament would reflect the level of support it has across the country.This is interesting, a form of dictatorship as it were, the people have no choice of a candidate up front,the candidate elected thence becomes unseen......does it matter then..................yes it does, it is a dictatorial format of system......the candidates themselves then have no format of own policy nor thought with respect to government whatsoever.The party leader will pick whomever he wants willy nilly.
* Alternative Vote (AV) Under AV candidates are ranked by preference, and those preferences would be counted where no candidate had won 50% of the vote. However, we have already voted against introducing AV after a referendum in 2011 when 67.9% people rejected it and, as a result, we kept FPTP.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc.
* Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) This would see the voting system described above brought into use, but with an additional regional vote, which could force parties to campaign in places other than marginal seats.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc
* Single Transferable Vote (STV) Under STV each person gets one vote which they can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference.So, 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.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc,I don't want my vote transferred to a Labour, or UKIP or whatever.
What's wrong with first past the post, as in example
Candidate Party A 4000votes
Candidate Party B 3500votes
Candidate Party c 1000votes
Candidate Party D 50votes
So, sanely the will of the majority in that constituency is clearly Party A candidate, and he wins. Tell me why should Party B matter at all, so what they got 3000votes(which tallies in the total popular vote).Sanely UKIP got 4 million votes,one seat BECAUSE in one constituency the majority of voters selected UKIP,and only there, in others they came close, but lost, but added to the total of popular votes as they were spread so round and about....but face it, sanely, a loss is a loss, a looser is a looser.The popular vote is a direct reflection of the popularity of the winning Prime Minister.There have been elections in Canada and America, using the First Past The Post system, as in the will of the majority in any constituency, where the sum total of the winning leadership(example we shall call it Prime Minister), where the seats totalled the MAJORITY for government, BUT the popular vote numbers were greater for the loosing party (parties)....why.. Well quite simply it means the constituencies are NOT equally balanced with respect to the numbers of voters in a given constituency,there is no balance as in Constituency A has 5000 voters, whilst constituency B has 2000 voters constituency 3 has 1000 voters,as examples, so obviously, here if all vote the same,yet differently, B&C can elect 2 conservatives,exampled, A will vote and place Labour, BUT Conservatives win due to numbers, not of voters BUT seats, due to constituency,voter imbalance with respect to representation by population NOT being equal,(recall they vary in size between 21,837 to 89,519 voters) as in constituencies vary wildly in terms of NUMBERS OF VOTERS IN EACH! Therein you see, lies the rub, NOT having representation by population and so there is this imbalance in voter representation by population. There it is explained, and you know the cure, the voting constituencies must be redrawn in terms of a certain stated population of voters in each, being equal in all.There it is, the problem,why there is a problem, and the solution to the problem. Squirrel has the answers,electoral reform, redraw the electoral maps such that all constituencies have equal voter numbers in each and every one,and so it becomes, representation by population, as it was intended to be.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment