General / Off-Topic Alternative voting system for UK Parliment

[Surfinjo]

Sorry do you mean wrong about the figures, pretty sure they're right.
.

Not the figures, the comparison of FPTP with DRPV

Under FPTP, one MP can be elected with a 37% majority and another with a 70%, but they both still represent single constituencies, the whole constituency, they alone, one member, one constituency.

The importance of the single member constituency cannot be underplayed. Mess with that and partys become more important than individuals.

 

[beelbeebub]

Not the figures, the comparison of FPTP with DRPV

Under FPTP, one MP can be elected with a 37% majority and another with a 70%, but they both still represent single constituencies, the whole constituency, they alone, one member, one constituency.

The importance of the single member constituency cannot be underplayed. Mess with that and partys become more important than individuals.

I prefer the idea that constituency has a directly elected representative, who (in theory) is here to represent their constituents first and foremost.
:
That is what I dislike about PR, it relies on parties picking their representatives. This puts parties at the centre of the system.
:
I think we are on the same page with the above.
:
Where I'm losing you is that I see no reason why a single geographic area must be represented by one person. It implies that an entire area (say a town) is either one way or the other e.g. Lab or Con. This is clearly rubbish. there will always be variations. Even in a d hard welsh pit town there will be conservatives and in a posh county town there will be labourites. no matter how small you make the constituencies, make the individual post codes, there will always be variation.
:
If two people represent their constituency why is that worse? Remember these people have been selected as local representatives in just the same way as now.

 

[Surfinjo]

I prefer the idea that constituency has a directly elected representative, who (in theory) is here to represent their constituents first and foremost.
:
That is what I dislike about PR, it relies on parties picking their representatives. This puts parties at the centre of the system.
:
I think we are on the same page with the above.
:
Where I'm losing you is that I see no reason why a single geographic area must be represented by one person. It implies that an entire area (say a town) is either one way or the other e.g. Lab or Con. This is clearly rubbish. there will always be variations. Even in a d hard welsh pit town there will be conservatives and in a posh county town there will be labourites. no matter how small you make the constituencies, make the individual post codes, there will always be variation.
:
If two people represent their constituency why is that worse? Remember these people have been selected as local representatives in just the same way as now.

Depends upon the system. National list yes, that's how it's designed. At the other end, STV, no.

My own feeling about milti-member constituencys is they risk conflict between the representatives. They can end up competing with each other instead of looking after the interests of the constituents. Moreover, a lazy or incompetent representatives can hide behind the achievements of a good one.

But in any case, I see no advantage. DRPV risks giving victory to someone with relatively small support on equal footing with another with huge support.

 

[beelbeebub]

Depends upon the system. National list yes, that's how it's designed. At the other end, STV, no.

My own feeling about milti-member constituencys is they risk conflict between the representatives. They can end up competing with each other instead of looking after the interests of the constituents. Moreover, a lazy or incompetent representatives can hide behind the achievements of a good one.

But in any case, I see no advantage. DRPV risks giving victory to someone with relatively small support on equal footing with another with huge support.

I disagree that it does. It literally does the opposite.
:

Say you have 2 constituency, metro and island. Metro has 60k registered voters who all vote. Island has 40k registers voters of which only half vote.
:
Under STV, metro and island would have 1 MP each. The metro MP (red party) won in the first round with a landslide of 50k votes. The island MP (blue party) also won in the 1st round with 10.1k votes.
:
Say red and blue MP's are opposed on all matters i.e. the metro MP's vote in parliament would be cancelled by the island MPs.
:
Despite STV, the metro MP who represents 50k metro voters is cancelled by the island MP who only 10.1k people voted for.
:
Under DRPV, the metro MPs have 40k (red) and 10k (blue) whilst island would have 10.1k (blue) and 9.9k (red)
:
So on national matters metro would vote 30k in favour of red (40k - 10k) whilst island would vote 0.2k blue (10.1k - 9.9k).
:
That would seem fairer than the one MP one vote system.
:
Now assume there was an issue where the island MP's agreed, say a ferry tax. In that case if they both voted against (the blue voting against his party line) the tax the island constituency would have 20k votes against the tax.
:
Furthermore if the metro blue MP decided to work hard to broaden his appeal and maybe poach a few red voters, he might go from 50/10 split to a 30/20. This will still be worth doing as it would increase his power. Under STV or FPTP, why would he bother, even converting 10k voters and doubling his vote wouldn't help.
:
similarly , if one or both of the island MPs decided to try to increase the turnout that would be good, even if the ratio remained the same as, if the voted together (40k potentially), they could outweigh a split metro constituency.
:
The way I see it, DRPV encourages candidates to broaden their appeal, increase turnout and work together.