It strikes me that the choice is not so much between First-Past-The-Post and some form of Proportional Representation, but between a rotating two-party dictatorship and ... something else (whatever that ends up being).
If we end up not liking that 'something else', we can just vote for whichever of the two largest parties comes closer to our own views (and there's surprisingly little difference between them, actually).
So that's this week's Fun Online Poll: If we had Proportional Representation, would you vote for one of the two big parties or would you vote for one of the smaller ones?
Vote here or use widget in the sidebar.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
An ideal topic for a Fun Online Poll!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Why don't they try preferential - it's a good system?
There are only 2 ways to run an economy (he said, a bit arrogantly): socialism or Capitalism.
This is what the choice between the 2 main parties should represent and this underpins the justification for FPTP.
This WAS the choice until blair and nulab dropped the rather more obvious signs of socialism (such as Clause 4). (Unfortunately, they didn't discard their propensity to bankrupt the UK, which they have just accomplished again recently in a shameful repeat of 1979.)
The only flaw in FPTP is that it can lead to a socialist government and bankruptcy, after which we all start again from zero.
My cure for the problem is a multiple voting system where some voters qualify for extra votes and the influence of the less intelligent (who tend to be socialist) is diminished.
JH, what's 'preferential'? If it's 'number your favourite candidates in order' then it's not much of an improvement.
G-B, that's not much of a choice, frankly. I'd prefer at least a choice between capitalist-libertarian and capitalist-authoritarian; and even more specifically I'd prefer geo-libertarian to capitalist-libertarian.
I doubt whether The Underclass bother voting much, so that problem takes care of itself.
gordon bennet
You assume that stupid people vote for socialism and forget the elitist appeal of statism. At its core socialism is merely a means for the educated elite to gain political ascendency, there to rule us for our own good. I acknowledge that to achieve this control they create two dependency classes - (a) the recipients of government handouts and (b) the bureaucrats dispensing government handouts but that's incidental.
I have heard a variant of your idea that might appeal. This proposed a two house government. One would be in charge of revenue gathering, the other revenue spending. One house would be elected by all adults (the spending). The other house (tax) would be elected by all citizens who were net contributors to the state. ie. If you received welfare greater than your tax contribution you didn't get a vote to the tax raising house.
The intention was to obviate the flaw in a redistributive democracy that 51% of the population can legally vote to deprive the 49% of their wealth.
Not saying I support it but it's an interesting idea.
----
The problem with PR is not that we can elect the government we want but that we can't get rid of the government we don't want. FPTP at least changes the government. PR frequently results in a system whereby the large parties dilute their policies to gain size and rely on small partners to govern. It means that PR results in a series of MOR governments that can only be changed slightly. Mostly importantly it seems to go hand in hand with an increase in the size of the bureaucracy as seen in virtually every European state.
TDK, "it seems to go hand in hand with an increase in the size of the bureaucracy as seen in virtually every European state"Wot? A bit like the UK, FPTP with a bureacracy/quangocracy as big as anywhere?
As to depriving net-non-taxpayers of the vote, I am sure this will go down a storm with pensioners ...
I was thinking in terms of the EU election which is PR. Despite the Lisbon treaty/constitution not being passed it is still being enacted. The bureaucracy is in control.
I accept that domestic government has grown despite FPTP. The question is what system is most likely to sweep the whole mess away? I doubt PR stands a chance.
As to depriving net-non-taxpayers of the vote, I am sure this will go down a storm with pensioners ...Well I did say I wasn't supporting the idea. However your objection can be easily met.
Measure the net contribution from the age 18 (or maturity). That way someone can be unemployed for periods but have still built up enough credit. The same would hold for pensioners of which group many would be judged net contributors and hence be eligible to vote.
Nevertheless if the intention is to prevent those citizens who would vote themselves an entitlement from electing a government that was capable of granting it, then it would serve its purpose.
I think a better objection would be that women would tend to be excluded more than men because they more frequently leave the workforce.
I note that in you comment and in mine, the first para past the html loses the return character.
I've noticed this bug on blogger a few times now. Very annoying.
TDK, the EU Parliament elections are a fig-leaf for the EUrocracy and not the cause thereof.
But I do like the general idea of splitting the revenue and spending sides; but this could also be done by having an annual referendum (or similar) whereby John & Jane Q Public set the total spending limit.
TDK, the EU Parliament elections are a fig-leaf for the EUrocracy and not the cause thereof..
No dispute.
I was not making the claim that they were the cause. More that democratic systems have failed to prevent the bureaucracy from gaining power.
However, I fear that you are focusing on a badly worded sub-issue rather than the main one.
My point is to wonder aloud what system might be best placed to reverse the process of bureaucratisation. Perhaps you think PR is a better system than FPTP?
TDK, the only real way to combat ever larger state powers and spending is information and education in basic maths and logic.
Would PR help in this regard? I suppose it might do if there were a couple of committed low-tax, low-spend, anti-bureaucracy parties, else maybe not.
G-B, yes, we should have just two choices on how we want to run the economy: how about Chicago School and Austrian School? :-)
Your idea for extra votes is interesting but has the serious problem that the system by which intelligence is defined will be gamed by whoever is in power now to favour their supporters.
TDK: Interesting. Some points:
* How do we stop the spending house making long term commitments that don't affect this years budget? e.g. on pensions?
* Role of borrowing? Ideally, it should be forbidden for government to borrow money, except in a serious emergency (the last of these in the UK was WW2). Why? Anyone who can borrow over the long term but can only think in the short term is highly likely to make bad choices. The problem is not just that "51% of the population can legally vote to deprive the 49% of their wealth", but that we can impose obligations on future generations.
* Do we just count welfare received against your vote to the tax raising house? What about the salary of public sector workers? On balance I wouldn't include it in the calculation.
Ed, that is genius - make state borrowing illegal (above and beyond paying back what they already owe). That would fix half our problems at a stroke.
An extra vote would be awarded for each tick in the following boxes:
* lived/worked abroad for 2 or more years;
* graduate of approved university in approved subject;
* stable marriage for 15+ years;
* taxable income over (say) 50,000 pa;
* officially working for a CHRISTIAN church;
* 1 extra vote in the gift of the monarch.
Hat tip: Nevil Shute, "In The Wet"
The idea is that you give more power to those who already live a lifestyle which represents the ideal for the country.
Intelligence is not a direct metric (which could be gamed?) but generally correlates with these criteria.
Other ideas:
* 1 vote for each £ of tax paid;
* the only allowable tax would be Income Tax, on the basis that currently we are taxed all over the place in various sneaky ways. If politicians cannot ask you upfront and directly for a given sum of money then they shouldn't get it.
Education is a whole other topic but whilst the state controls it, schools will never seriously teach anything that threatens the status quo.
I don't share your optimism re PR. A minority low-tax, low-spend, anti-bureaucracy party would either remain permanently on the periphery or would compromise to get a government post. Such a compromise would defeat the objective. OTOH if the libertarians were capable of being the dominant party in a coalition then it would have won FPTP.
I'm incline to support the argument of Sean Gabb (possibly Chris Tame instead) that an incoming Libertarian government would have to abolish the apparatus within days of being elected. It's hard to imagine statist coalition partners acquiescing.
Do we just count welfare received against your vote to the tax raising house? What about the salary of public sector workers? On balance I wouldn't include it in the calculation.
Such a question! And while we're both enjoying Mr Wadsworth's hospitality.
How do we stop the spending house making long term commitments that don't affect this years budget?
Well, again I have to stress that the idea is not mine, but my understanding is that given that the spending house is elected by all they can choose to spend on welfare but the amount is limited by what the taxing house has raised. I should imagine that the taxing house controls borrowing else the system makes no sense.
TDK, education could be partly fixed by vouchers but also by parents teaching their kids.
I don't get the logic that libertarians either want to win by FPTP (which they never will) or not at all.
Sean Gabb is right to say that 'the apparatus' gets abolished ASAP, but surely he doesn't mean abolish democracy as well?
There is no perfect system, period. The bottom feeders, aka Mps without portfolio, feed from the taxpayers. The Telegraph should do a series now on tax avoidance by UK corporations, no Tories read the Guardian attempt.
The point of proportional representation is that it would destroy the two main parties. Both are alliances of factions with sharply divergent views and policies, who stay together because only as a single party can they get power in FPTP.
I think the Labour party would split in two, the Tories into three, and most of the followers of existing smaller parties (including the Lib Dems) would switch to one of the five fragments.
That is why AV+ was developed by the Jenkins committee - it is carefully calibrated to turn a two-party system into a three-party system without being genuinely proportional.
It is easy to overestimate the benefit of PR - many European countries that use better systems than ours don't seem to get noticeably better governments out of them.
Sean Gabb is right to say that 'the apparatus' gets abolished ASAP, but surely he doesn't mean abolish democracy as well?.
Wot?
I can't see where you draw that conclusion.
AMcG, I didn't like the sound of AV+ anyway!
If it came to it I think that Labour and Tories would merge into the authoritarian-high tax-home-owners'-party, but that's just my jaundiced view.
BTW, I used to live in Germany and I don't overestimate PR, it's just that I'd like my vote to count.
TDK, I know what Sean Gabb said, and it made perfect sense, he said abolish most government departments and all the quangos and so on. I'm more interested in what you would abolish (and which bits you'd keep).
AMCGuinn is right: PR would fragment the main parties with possibly a grand alliance Labour
and Conservative homeowner party occupying the middle; some Tories might go in the direction of UKIP.There might be a retro public ownership Old Labour party to the left of the grand alliance.Some politicians might take a punt on LVT if they thought a coalition could form round it? Not very likely.But there is zero chance of LVT in the present One Party High-House-price state so getting a few more various parties is a possibility.Running a Get House Prices Rents Down (the ringing slogan :Get'em down)candidate in a bye-election in a constituency with a lot of young voters might be worth it under the most favourable PR conditions.
DBC, that's the other interesting thought - your putative LVT party would appeal to young people, tenants and very high earners, but would they stay with it once they became home-owners, landlords or pensioners ..?
The answer to the original question depends upon whether any new parties emerged. I'm not too keen on any of the active minor parties but presumably there would be some kind of realignment and new parties would be formed under PR.
I've got a lot of sympathy for the kind of right liberal that exist in much of Europe (like the German Free Democrats) but they don't have any equivalents in the UK.
Dunno is the answer to MW's question.But presumably to shut the Get 'em down party supporters up, you would have to change the system to get them housed and once in place,this system would last.I cannot see any party could stand on a platform of explicitly denying the rights of future generations to homeownership.( I'm probably being naive)
BTW as I observed in the late 70's when I used to get articles published in Vole ( and get paid for them,a rare distinction),the present party system is the longest running cartel in the country.Woolworth's ,the British motor industry , the Coal Board have all come and gone but the political parties carry on regardless.
On seconds thoughts, the Big Political Cartel has not lasted up until now.It has been replaced by the Existing Homeowners Party which is a cross party monopoly .So that's so much better then.
Preferential is the Australian system where the one who comes last - the second preferences go to who was stipulated. then the next one drops out and preferences are distributed etc.
JH, ta, I thought so. That system's quite common (it's like the French presidential) but it doesn't go far enough - it's not much consolation to me if my MP is only my third or fourth choice. I can imagine that the Lib Dems would love this though.
I believe a Citizens Dividend would be a strong force for a smaller bureaucracy, as the costs of a larger state would lower the CD.
MW - Why do you want your vote to count? Isn't the result more important than the mechanism?
I do think PR - either STV or a list system like the EU election - would be slightly better, but good government is what matters to me, not what Mencius Moldbug called the "homeopathic dose of power" that is even a fairly counted vote.
AMcG, if my vote doesn't count, it's not a good result, by definition. I don't think I could ever vote Tory or Labour ever again.
So STV is a non-starter for me.
The system for the EU elections isn't that bad, actually - the dispute is how many members a multi-member constituency should have - the Lib Dems would like a maximum of four (ensuring themselves at least fourth place and a quarter of MPs).
As a Ukipper, who'd get (say) 20% of the vote, I'd like to see 6-member constituencies. DBC Reed's Geo-Libertarian party would want at least 10-member constituencies (I would vote for them if there were such a party and such a system). And if you're in LPUK you'd need at least 20-member constituencies to get any MPs. And so on.
But if you had a single list for the whole of the UK or the whole of England, then we're back to the problem of parties running the show with no place for independents.
So what's the optimum? I don't think there is one.
So the least bad PR system must still be FPTP with top-up-seats.
I don't think we mean the same thing by "the result" - I mean the actual quality of government.
Is the point of the system to produce good government, or is it to give you a warm feeling of participation?
If we had some system that produced good government (far-fetched, I know), I wouldn't care about how much effect my vote had.
Wait a minute!One moment I am making airy fairy suggestions on your blog ; the next I am leading a Geo-libertarian party into elections. Do me a favour!
Neither am I too keen on anything describing itself as Libertarian,even when it earns the Geo- prefix by including LVT ,as apart from the licensing laws,I tend to favour law and order where Libertarianism, at least in its American form, tends to degenerate into High Tory anarchy for Boys:I've got the money, why can't I have hookers,drugs, hand guns and fast cars?
FPTP proved itself a nightmare during the Thatcher - Lib Dem era when results kept coming in: Thatcherites 40%; Lib Dems 30% Labour 30% which Thatcher, the Great Scientist,took as ringing endorsement .I can't see how it can or should be preserved.Surely some system where second and third choices are taken into account being added to candidate's score until s/he has 51% of the votes cast has to be better? I know I also saw the first series of Auf Wiedersehen Pet when they had to paint their hut a colour nobody liked because second choices were taken into account by electoral expert Barry.I also took part in a Union election where we had to vote who we did n't want until one was left: an elimination ballot .Enjoyable in a slightly sadistic way but time consuming.
I think a Reduce House prices and rents party might get a few second or third preference votes .Also I think such an outfit should be single issue/ time-limited so once level house prices are achieved, it should go out of business.Half the trouble with the Political Cartel members is that they have carried on re-inventing themselves beyond the point where they are any longer recognisable.
@ DBC, the fact that you don't want the job makes you all the more qualified to accept it and then retire when your work is done ...
Re second choices - see also Harriet Harman becoming Deputy Leader of Labour Party (one of my pet theories, which a Labour party activist recently repeated back to me).
Post a Comment