Voting systems
Due to the hung Parliament the question of how we vote has been cropping up with each Party offering a new system that in no way favours their own Party over the others. What's on offer or what could be offered? I'll give a run-down of the types and their pros and cons. What I won't be dealing with is the process of voting, the boundaries, or getting people out to vote. This is about how the people vote, how clear it is to them and how clear the result is. These are the main choices on offer.
Additional Member System
A combination of First Past the Post and the Party List system. The voter has two votes one for a single MP and one for a Party List drawn up by the Party.
Pros - Simple process. Each constituency keeps its MP while Parliament itself is balanced on proportional Party lines
Cons - Retains the FPTP failures whilst introducing MPs with accountability only to the Party. Partly complicated counting process.
Alternative Vote
Candidates are ranked by the voter in order of preference. Each set of votes are tallied until a candidate reaches 50% of the vote and can be declared the winner
Pros - Produces an MP whom the majority have some favour for.
Cons - Complicated counting process. Increases in complexity for both counters and voters as the number of candidates increase.
Alternative Vote Plus
Combines the Alternative Vote system with the Additional Member System. Voters rank candidates for both local candidates and Party Lists with each set of votes being tallied until a candidate reaches 50% of the vote and can be declared the winner
Pros - Produces a more balanced Parliament in keeping with the overall vote
Cons - Complicated counting process. Introduces MPs accountable only to the Party.
First Past the Post
Everyone votes for an individual candidate, the votes are counted, the candidate with the most wins.
Pros - Simple process. Tends to produce decisive results (don't snort, the fact that all the politicos and media types are running around in circles and shouting shows how well it normally works). Only one round of counting needs to be done.
Cons - Candidates often fail to reach 50% of the vote which means they win despite the majority of the electorate voting for someone else
Party List System
A proportional representation system using Party Lists.Constituencies elect more than one MP. Voters have one vote which is used towards a Party. The votes are tallied and distributed proportionally amongst the seats.
Pros - Simple process. A Parliament that represents the exact vote of the people.
Cons. - While the Parties are chosen by the people the MPs are chosen by the Parties. Complicated counting process.
Single Transferable Vote
Similar to the Alternative vote. Constituencies elect more than one MP using a ranking system. Any candidate reaching over 50% of the vote is deemed elected. If there are still seats available the second choice of all winning candidates is distributed between the others. This continues until all seats are filled.
Pros - Produces MPs whom the majority have some favour for.
Cons - Complicated counting process. Increases in complexity for both counters and voters as the number of candidates increase.
Supplementary Vote
A cut-down version of the Alternative Vote. Voters get one primary vote and one secondary vote. Primary votes are tallied and any candidate with over 50% declared the winner. With no clear winner secondary votes are tallied.
Pros - Fairly simple process. Should produce an MP whom the majority have some favour for.
Cons - May not produce a majority vote
In conclusion the Supplementary Vote is the simplest solution that offers a greater chance of producing a majority candidate than the current First Past the Post system.
My offering
Yay or Nay system
Voters have one vote but can use it for a candidate or against a candidate. First past the post rules apply when counting.
Pros - Allows voters to vote negatively rather than postively
Cons - Candidates are unlikely to reach 50% of the vote and the winner may not even reach a positive count.
On a non-objective Pro it would humble the hell out of anyone being elected only because they're not as actively disliked as the other candidates.
As always comments and other suggestions welcome.
9 comments:
I would like the Yay or Nay system but on a multi-member basis: one yay/nay vote for a constituency MP, one yay/nay vote for a parliamentarian, and one yay/nay vote for a Prime Minister.
The way it's going in the near future they will have to ask MP's to vote twice with the amount of people who cannot be bothered to vote
Having only one vote with which to vote against somebody is a tad silly, don't you think? I mean, I can give you a long list of people that I do not want to get in! Besides, voters should be focusing their energy on who they do want (presumably a much shorter list).
I would suggest that voting for three candidates in order of preference should be sufficient. It's fairly simple, and you only have to make (up to) three marks on the ballot paper.
The real problem, of course, is that there's nobody worth voting for. That's probably why we're in the current situation. I have literally no idea what the solution to that problem is!
So a Yay or Nay Vote Plus Plus then Tav? I'm not sure of the need for duplication of a constituency MP and a parliamentarian unless the latter is voted for via a Party List, which brings back the question as to whom they are answerable to.
The way things are going it pretty much is a vote just for the PM, how many voted for their candidate and how many voted for that nice Mr. Brown/Cameron/Clegg?
Robert, and yet voting this time around was very high because it mattered. It's easy to go along with the media and politicians dismissal that people "cannot be bothered to vote" yet as soon as their opinions seem to have an influence turnout rises.
Orphi - So that'd be the Alternative Vote which works great with three candidates, but what about in David's constituency with ten?
If you're advocating that you only need three 'votes' then that's an extended version of the Supplementary Vote. If you don't have to use all your 'votes' then those who rank just three out of ten perhaps lose out to those who ranked them all.
You say it's silly only having one vote, but didn't you say you were only voting so as to keep someone from being elected? With a negative vote you could have done so without providing a positive vote for someone you also didn't like.
An alternative would be having both a positive and negative vote, but I think that complicates matters.
But yes the root of the matter is that the voters don't like any of the candidates, but as I replied to Robert turnout this time around was high - 65.1%; which isn't great but does show that people will tend to vote if they think their opinion counts for something.
It's the perceived divide between Parliament and 'the people' that creates the apathy and the fault lies on both sides though perhaps biased towards those in power.
The Double Yay/Nay Plus Plus system would be interesting. Instead of trying to second guess if your vote will be wasted, you have the option to waste it yourself by voting for and against the same candidate.
By making a positive vote for one candidate, I inherantly didn't vote for half a dozen candidates I didn't want. If I had the opportunity to cast one negative vote, that would only affect one candidate.
Anyway, like I said, I think having a positive vote for up to three candidates in order of preference is probably the best solution in terms of how complex it is to vote and how hard to count. Then again, it seems others disagree… maybe we should vote on it?
Hmm not quite, by making a positive vote you're giving the impression that you are actively supporting that candidate when you are in fact choosing them as either the lesser of multiple evils or doing so tactically to ensure someone worse than them doesn't get in.
With a negative vote you're telling all the candidates that you don't think any of them are good enough to be supported but that this one candidate is the worst of the lot.
Anyway so yes it seems you're looking at an extended Supplementary Vote, which is fair enough, but why stop at three why not four, five why not go the whole hog and have the Alternative Vote system?
We definitely need to vote on this using um. Okay we need to vote on which voting system we use to chose a voting system. We'll use... ah. ;-)
Three is a reasonably small number. I wouldn't want to have to rank 15 candidates that I know nothing about.
On the other hand, I guess 2 ranks would also be acceptable.
Post a Comment