Electoral reform

[joe-90]

We'd all vote to tax the rich apart from the rich themselves. So what would that prove?

 

[RedHerring2]

We'd all vote to tax the rich apart from the rich themselves. So what would that prove?

Well, if we could vote on issues, not on party policies, it would possibly prove that there were far more 'not rich' than there were rich.
Does that answer your question?

 

[skitzee2k]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

OK so if someone wants higher public spending but lower tax they DON'T have to compromise?? Is this what you are saying?

The bit that I'm disagreeing with is: that a compromise along party lines must always be accepted.
I might support the ban on fox hunting, I might support Political system reform, I might support the cut in inheritance tax. It doesn't mean that I have to forsake two of them in favour of the one of them.
I want to vote on the issues not go aong the party lines. That's true political reform.
I may want to vote for lower taxes on fuel, alcohol, for instance, but for higher taxes on higher wage earners.
I may want to vote for political system reform.
I may want to vote to overhaul the tax credits system. I may suspect the cost of administering it is higher than the value of the awards it makes.
I may want to vote for some public spending cuts. etc, etc.
Perhaps none of the candidates matches my requirements. I may have to vote for a compromise but I will continue to argue for real political reform.

...but this is exactly the problem, YOU being one person might want to vote that way, but added all together you will barmy laws where beer drinkers have voted to have lower tax than on champagne because there isn't enough people to vote for lower champagne tax.

Meaning in all aspects of society we will have inconsistent and ineffective laws done by people not looking at the big picture but on each issue.

However there is a way to get all those things you have talked about, and that is to start a party on those principles and see if people vote it in. If not, that is democracy.

If we have to spend just as much time as MPs deciding each and every single line of policy we would have a 60000000 strong house of commons...that is why we elect people to do it for us, we elect them on THEIR principles and opinions, if we don't agree with them, don't vote for them.

 

[RedHerring2]

I fully understand your position Skitzee2. And perhaps in this time and near future it's a reasonable argument.
I think you're underestimating the general intelligence of the electorate.
The "the governed people don't know what's best for them" smacks of colonialism or similar to me.
But I'm not talking about now and here. I'm talking about the start of a true democratic system which will take many years, even decades, to develop and be accepted as normal. The culture of politics will, must change to this type of real democratic feel.
It's not a case of flicking a switch and the new system is in. It's a case of incremental development. But it has to start somewhere.
As I said earlier, the first development would put/keep the representative in touch with the real people. The system must allow for the presentation of arguments, counter-arguments, reasoning and debate.
If voters want to vote along party political lines or with allegiances they are free to do so. And if they choose not to vote then that's fine.
The system would allow for proxy votes so you could sign your vote to your representative if you wanted and retrieve it when you wanted.

I couldn't start a party along those lines because I couldn't afford it and I don't have the time.
I'm also suggesting that it may take 25-50 years to implement, maybe more, not technically but politically.
Also the first one to put his/her head above the parapet with a suggestion like this is likely to be out of favour for a long time. As I said before, it's also turkeys voting for Christmas.

Incidentally, I'm not nit-picking, well maybe I am, but until we enfranchise children I don't think that we'll be allowing the full population of UK to vote for anything. So 60,000,000 becomes nearer to 30,000,000. Otherwise the kids would be voting for more swings, more kids TV, more pocket money, etc.
But seriously, a lot of people might also choose to not participate, say another 40%. It wouldn't matter the system would have to be developed to enfranchise all those eligible. They're already on an IT system somewhere. By then the voting population may be more like 40,000,000, who knows.

 

[RedHerring2]

InkyPete, I've got you back now but I don't think I need to respond to your point 'cos skitzee2 has and I couldn't add anything of note.

 

[skitzee2k]

I
Incidentally, I'm not nit-picking, well maybe I am, but until we enfranchise children I don't think that we'll be allowing the full population of UK to vote for anything. So 60,000,000 becomes nearer to 30,000,000. Otherwise the kids would be voting for more swings, more kids TV, more pocket money, etc.

Just to be pedantic, the current electorate is around 45 million..but when when they allow 16 yo's the vote I am sure it'll head up more..

I just think we are missing the point about MPS, they are not there to listen to your opinions. They tell you THEIR opinions. Then you choose which MP to vote for depending on that.

 

[RedHerring2]

I just think we are missing the point about MPS, they are not there to listen to your opinions. They tell you THEIR opinions.

I agree with you that's the way it is. That's one of the problems with the current system.
I don't agree that's the way it should be!
They are public servants and should represent their electorate! That means bing responsive to all their electorate, not the party line. For instance, if there is an issue that their electorate is vastly in support they should argue vehemently for that issue. And of course vice versa.
However if there is an issue that is finely divisive amongst their electorate they could be ambivalent on that issue.

They certainly try to be all things to all men at election time. But after that they have no time for and lose touch with their electorate, apart from the few who really are decent.

 

[skitzee2k]

I just think we are missing the point about MPS, they are not there to listen to your opinions. They tell you THEIR opinions.

I agree with you that's the way it is. That's one of the problems with the current system.
I don't agree that's the way it should be!
They are public servants and should represent their electorate! That means bing responsive to all their electorate, not the party line. For instance, if there is an issue that their electorate is vastly in support they should argue vehemently for that issue. And of course vice versa.
However if there is an issue that is finely divisive amongst their electorate they could be ambivalent on that issue.

They certainly try to be all things to all men at election time. But after that they have no time for and lose touch with their electorate, apart from the few who really are decent.

...this is where we disagree.

I believe after their election they have been given their mandate. These ARE public servants but they have stood because THEY have strong views on something.

For example, if I stood on the principle of getting a higher tax on alcohol and was elected...should I then have to go against my priciples and campaign for lower tax if the electorate said so?? Hell no! I stood because I wanted to make a change, not because I wanted to be a 'Yes Man' to the electorate.

This is why it is SO SO SO important to vote for the right person to begin with......and why I might add, we have more than ONE possible person to vote for.

In your system you would only have one person I take it?

 

[Lincsbodger]

The best strategy would be to make everyone take a bloody politics exam if the want to vote,,,,then you wouldnt get the brain dead voting labour.

 

[RedHerring2]

I believe after their election they have been given their mandate.
For example, if I stood on the principle of getting a higher tax on alcohol and was elected...should I then have to go against my priciples and campaign for lower tax if the electorate said so?? Hell no! I stood because I wanted to make a change, not because I wanted to be a 'Yes Man' to the electorate.

And for all those issues not mentioned in the manifesto
And for the fluidity of the economy
And the fluidity of the world political situation
And for the variations in peoples personal circumstances,
And for the fluidity in demographics. (Including the changes in boundaries to exclude/include certain voters.)
etc, etc


Sorry, I think the representative should do what it says on the tin.

No I don't think a 'one person' option is acceptable. You don't have a 'one person' only need apply for normal vacancies. Why should it be different for political representatives.
The reason why we have so few candidates is the financial and politcal support of the major parties.

 

[D_Hailsham]

The best strategy would be to make everyone take a bloody politics exam if the want to vote,,,,then you wouldnt get the brain dead voting labour.

I suppose we could revert to the system in use in the 19th Century, when only the landed gentry were allowed to vote.

 

[Lincsbodger]

The best strategy would be to make everyone take a bloody politics exam if the want to vote,,,,then you wouldnt get the brain dead voting labour.

I suppose we could revert to the system in use in the 19th Century, when only the landed gentry were allowed to vote.

Why not. At least the landed gentry would have a vested interest at keeping the EU vultures at bay.

 

[skitzee2k]

I believe after their election they have been given their mandate.
For example, if I stood on the principle of getting a higher tax on alcohol and was elected...should I then have to go against my priciples and campaign for lower tax if the electorate said so?? Hell no! I stood because I wanted to make a change, not because I wanted to be a 'Yes Man' to the electorate.

And for all those issues not mentioned in the manifesto
And for the fluidity of the economy
And the fluidity of the world political situation
And for the variations in peoples personal circumstances,
And for the fluidity in demographics. (Including the changes in boundaries to exclude/include certain voters.)
etc, etc


Sorry, I think the representative should do what it says on the tin.

No I don't think a 'one person' option is acceptable. You don't have a 'one person' only need apply for normal vacancies. Why should it be different for political representatives.
The reason why we have so few candidates is the financial and politcal support of the major parties.

ok, firstly, for things not in the manifesto, you have to judge by their character of the party (which is why it is nice to know what party they belong to).

secondly, Why have more than one person standing? if they are only ever going to do what they are told anyway?
Which then leads on to the government not actually needing to change, because they will just do whatever they are told.

This kind of "Do exactly as we say" option would lead to only having one party, with no check on their power.

 

[joe-90]

Has anyone ever seen the film - 'The rise and rise of Michael Rimmer'?

It was about exactly that.

 

[RedHerring2]

They are public servants, they are employed by the people and just like any other employee they are judged on their potential, experience, past achievements, etc
They still need to be re-elected every so often.
Your arguments are for 2 or 3 party politics, to limit the political arena to narrow political options. This is precisely why so many people are disillusioned.