h a l f b a k e r y
A hive of inactivity
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
The first-past-the-post system currently reigns in the UK
people like the local representation element, while
representation systems are complicated for many voters and
often requires actually liking more than one party.
By keeping local elections exactly the same, while
politicians' own votes in Parliament different weights
to the size of your majority would mean the best of both
and no vote is thrown away. MPs with 60% vote share locally
might have a vote worth 60 points, while less popular MPs
score lower when it comes to making legislation, with the
never having to change their voting behavior.
Reminded me of this : Real-time forest voting
A 'rip-and-replace' rather than a patch of the current system [Loris, May 27 2019]
Proposed ~100 years ago by William U'Ren (direct democracy advocate) in Oregon [determinism89, Nov 04 2020]
1066 And All That
English history brought to you "by means of fire and the sword". [DrBob, Nov 24 2020]
||Would this not mean that the least politically diverse
constituencies have a disproportionately large say in
parliament, by dint only of that lack of diversity?
||some wards have more constituents - this gets complicated.
||I think the only fair system is to weight all MPs equally,
otherwise some of them might be able to swim back to the
||Well, that's more proportional representation! Giving more equal rights to
the original voters... However, that then skews the individual
representative's voice, so that the individuals that represent have non-
uniform weight of speech.
||The obvious solution to weighting is just to
weigh them, Cyril Smith would have been 7
constituencies all by himself, a net saving on
||You might need to "elect" (for want of a better word) the top
four or five scoring candidates in each ward then & weight
each of their votes accordingly to get proper representation
for each ward?
||//least politically diverse [etc]//
||That's actually quite fair; if the residents of some region voted
about equally for three or four different parties, then whoever
they sent to Westminster would not represent most of them
||Also, this system would solve the problem of marginal
constituencies getting disproportionate attention.
||"Dear Citizens of [wherever]; when you've made up your mind, as
a community, what you want, then we'll listen to what your
representative has to say" is not an unreasonable message to
send. And if the citizens of [wherever] are not, in practice, a
community, this might galvanize them to get together and talk
more amongst themselves, until they become a community.
||Alternatively, they might polarize into self-defining exclusive groups and set about exterminating all those identified as "other", then set out to impose their narrow, vicious, intolerant world view on their neighbouring constituencies by means of fire and the sword.
||[MB] is partly right, the best way of weighting elected representatives is to pull on their legs once you've kicked the chair away. Best to be sure.
||Given the vast numbers of idiots in our electorate, I'd want
to throw in a weighting of civics comprehension as well
||//by means of fire and the sword.//
That's just traditional English politics, as introduced by Julius Caesar (see link).
Which also puts me in mind of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead...
"...we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see."