tobyaw: (Default)
Toby Atkin-Wright ([personal profile] tobyaw) wrote2010-05-12 08:44 pm
Entry tags:

Legitimacy

There are fifty nine Westminster seats contested in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats hold eleven seats with 18.9% of the vote; the Conservatives hold a single seat with 16.7% of the vote. Together the coalition government gained 35.6% of the Scottish vote.

In 2005 Labour formed a government with 35.3% of the vote across the UK.

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-12 09:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I think this is an argument for reform of the voting system, isn't it?

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-12 10:20 pm (UTC)(link)
But it's also notable that a great fuss was made about the possibility of a 'Coalition of the Defeated'- a rainbow alliance, if you would, to keep the Tories out. But that alliance would have had at least 54.3% of the vote (Labour+Liberals+SNP+PC). I think realistically, any coalition Government will have over 50% of the vote. As they would need to, if electoral reform went forward far enough. I don't wish to be ruled on the whims of a minority!

Of course, I'm also in favour of making voting compulsary (in the Australian fashion) with a fine for failure to exercise it (even if it comes in as a 'none of the above').

[identity profile] sharikkamur.livejournal.com 2010-05-12 10:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I've thought for some time that voting should be compulsory - although in all fairness I'd definitely want the 'none of the above' option in that case.

If this is the start of sensible coalition politics then I welcome it. I just hope it lasts.
ggreig: (Topper)

[personal profile] ggreig 2010-05-13 10:42 am (UTC)(link)
You'll be suggesting a loyalty card next...

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-13 12:06 pm (UTC)(link)
I think a compulsary vote is fine. You don't have to cast your vote FOR anyone, afterall, either by voting for 'None of the Above', or by spoiling your vote.

Voting is a duty- it's part of the price we pay for the benefits of representation. Hence why I voted in a constituency where really my vote is entirely irrelevant!

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-13 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I meant in General Ekections, but actually, I'd throw Devolved and European in with those. Course, as much as possible those should be amalgamated onto the same polling day

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-13 12:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree that I think that the alleged 'Rainbow' Alliance would have been doomed to failure, simply because that sort of multi party coalitions are fundamentally unstable. I don't entirely agree, however, that the SNP and PC would have actually held out for preserved funding for Scotland and Wales- at least on this occasion. I suspect that the bribe for them would have been precisely the same as the bribe to the Lib Dems- voting reform. That would (if Alex Salmond was sensible, which I agree is open to debate) have been majorly to their advantages in future elections- it's ludicrous that the SNP can be the largest party at Holyrood but only have 6 MPs.

Now, the Scots Labour MPs may well have objected (I'd have been surprised if they hadn't), but a well run Whips department can usually keep that sort of thing under control, with a mixture of threats and bribes!
ggreig: (Default)

[personal profile] ggreig 2010-05-13 10:06 am (UTC)(link)
I saw someone propose an interesting, but almost certainly politically unacceptable solution to the constituency MP/proportionality problem.

We elect all our MPs on first past the post, then the value of their vote in Parliament is assigned proportionally by party; so the vote of an individual MP would be a real number rather than an integer.

Never gonna happen, but an interesting idea.
ggreig: (Topper)

[personal profile] ggreig 2010-05-13 10:45 am (UTC)(link)
The vote counting could easily be dealt with by an electronic voting system a la Holyrood. I'm sure if people are thirled to walking through the lobbies it could be triggered by some sort of proximity sensor.

The point about some MPs being more important than others is a more difficult one to answer, and might be where this method would fall over - besides the difficulty of explaining it to people.
ggreig: (Topper)

[personal profile] ggreig 2010-05-13 10:59 am (UTC)(link)
Good point.

Slightly worried about the equal size constituency thing; while I agree with it in principal and for almost all seats, I do think there's a case for some exceptions, such as Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Its geographical character is so distinct even from its closest neighbours that it does require sympathetic representation.

[identity profile] hobbitomm.livejournal.com 2010-05-13 12:04 pm (UTC)(link)
You could go for constituency MPs (and level up the population size of the constituencies to a more even value), with a regionally based 'top up' list of MPs who deputise for the constituency members (thus keeping their geographical link, albeit less strictly defined), whilst also levelling up the representation in the House to something more closely resembling the votes cast for each Party.