After a quiet period since the issue was last raised in the mid-90s, recently more pressure has been placed on Britain to reform the Westminster model of 'first-past-the-post' (FPTP) or simple majority voting. Even the Jenkins Report concluded that some form of reform was preferable, even if his recommendation was 85% Alternative Vote with additional top-up from a closed list, possibly one of the weakest reforms which could be made. Despite this, the Labour Party, contrary to its manifesto commitments, has chosen not to implement any electoral reform of this sort. So, with a general election looming and the possibility of a hung parliament being raised once again, this begs the question: what is it about Proportional Representation (PR) that those with the power to reform the system dislike?
The advantages of PR are well known: a system whereby the size of an interest group has a proportional amount of political weight in parliament, the avoidance of 'wasted' votes, both from candidates with too few votes and members with surplus votes and the tendency to provide a legislature which is more reflective of ethnic and gender diversity.
An issue which is seen as an advantage or a disadvantage based on individual viewpoint is the nature of candidates under PR: they are often 'consensus' candidates, proposed by the party in order to have the broadest possible appeal to the electorate. This tends to result in more moderate or centrist candidates being selected over radicals or ideologically driven candidates. This is also true of governments: under PR, usually no single party wins enough of the vote to form a government and a coalition is thus sought. However, despite the negative connotations which British and American commentators usually display at the mention of coalition government, we should not automatically reject the ideas of consensus and compromise as abhorrent.
As far as I can surmise, there are three usual complaints against PR: that the lack of constituencies creates only a weak link between voters and representatives, that this system both requires parties and rewards larger parties and finally, that it confers too much power on the high-ranking members of the party. A final '4th complaint' is the 'turkies voting for Christmas' argument: a party which has won an election by FPTP and formed government, without the need for coalition, has no reason to change the system.
Now, for the first argument, as Jenkins suggests, the solution seems to lie in having a seperate 'Additional Top-up' list. However, this should be an 'open list' where individual candidates can be selected. Each voter would then be able to select a local candidate by either Single Transferable Vote (STV) or perhaps range voting. Then the voter would select a party and choose a candidate from the party list.
This system definitely requires and promotes parties, but in terms of realpolitik, it seems fair to suggest that people will always organise and gather into groups based on beliefs. This system may presuppose this, but this can be viewed as an advantage in that a voter then gets to select two candidates who agree broadly with their views, thanks to the open list. One candidate to represent the voter directly and another to argue the voters beliefs firmly in parliament, without the encumberment of constituency work.
If thinking of constituency work as an encumberment seems reprehensible, then this leads to the third point: the power of party HQ. Under this system, there would need to be state-imposed restraints and limits on the power of party whips to impose upon constituency MPs. And instead of the top-up list being selected by party HQ, it could be created by petition, where any member who can raise 100 party signatures or 0.05% of the party, will be included on the list.
I feel that all of the theoretical problems with PR can be solved with the use of this Additional Member System and some lateral thinking. And if it all seems so much more complicated than crossing a box, then I don't think we should underestimate the intelligence of the average British voter, after all, the Irish and Germans have systems which are almost as complicated and have been shown to work remarkably well. There are many points i haven't the space to cover here, but i will try to answer them in the comments if raised.
Perfekt.
Friday 11 December 2009
Tuesday 4 August 2009
GM, why not?
The BBC recently released an article based upon a study commissioned by the Food Standards Agency that says that 'organic food has no health benefits' and has 'no extra nutritional value'. It is not unfair to suggest that these findings should be more than welcomed. Aside from a lack of transport and distribution networks standing in the way of resolving world hunger, the problem of food production also does. It is completely unthinkable to prevent the production of, or to condone the boycotting of the purchasing of, GM foods when such foods can help solve one of the biggest problems the world faces. As the world climate changes we can expect tougher times ahead as crop yields drop. Surely it is unthinkable to stop the production of, for example, a tomato just because it is bigger due to GM intervention when it can help contribute in the maintaining of humanity. Furthermore, the people that are normally most concerned with world hunger are normally the people who are anti-GM - perhaps the most unforgivably hypocritical position in the world.
Basically, GM produces higher crop yields and can solve perhaps the biggest problems the world will ever face. Now studies concluding there are no differences between GM and non-GM in terms of nutrition: lets hope the world gets over itself and realises that GM is a necessity. We can't stop climate change, sure we can reduce it but we can't stop it; so lets get ready for it. Do you want people to be able to grow their own food in whatever country? GM provides food that can actually be grown in such harsh conditions!
Note: BBC article can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
Blogger1
Basically, GM produces higher crop yields and can solve perhaps the biggest problems the world will ever face. Now studies concluding there are no differences between GM and non-GM in terms of nutrition: lets hope the world gets over itself and realises that GM is a necessity. We can't stop climate change, sure we can reduce it but we can't stop it; so lets get ready for it. Do you want people to be able to grow their own food in whatever country? GM provides food that can actually be grown in such harsh conditions!
Note: BBC article can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
Blogger1
Thursday 16 April 2009
Lisbon Treaty Floundering
The Irish No vote has left the proposed Lisbon Treaty floundering and would suggest that the Irish have gifted Lisbon more than Guinness and Alexandre O'Neill: A chance to get democracy right.
As a European Citizen, I am appreciative of the human rights this confers upon me, in addition to the historical benefits of helping to end the conveyor belt of perpeptual war in Europe. I consider myself an EU fan and this 'ever closer union' has already been the cause for much good, however, unlike the USA, Europe is far from the culturally homogenous region that the United States were in the 18th century. Thus perhaps a European Confederacy would be a better model to follow for the time being. Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty, as with the EU Constitution before it, is clearly problematic. This is Europe's chance to 'get it right', to take all the lessons learned, good and bad, from Italian PR, American Federalism, the British Westminster model, Scandinavian social-democracy, German/French/Dutch post-war multi-party systems and all the others, and to amalgamate the good parts of those while minimising the negatives. Perhaps Europe can have a practical, pragmatic and useful government while still posessing a truly representative political system.
But it only takes a quick examination of the Lisbon Treaty to see the problems:
Centralised Banking: The formal adoption of a European Central Bank which in the current fiscal crisis has proved not only ineffectual, but entirely absent. The ECB would presumably not be immune from the scandals which are a regular feature in the news of the World Bank and the IMF. However, that is not to say that centralised banking is an inherently bad thing: With the correct financial accumen, and when directed by truly representative government, in the best interests of not only EU citizens, but humanity as a whole, there is a place for this institution. Let us not see a carbon copy of the Federal Reserve.
Executive Branch: There will in effect be several individuals, all with conflicting powers and while im all for separation of powers among the greatest number of people, has this really been thought through, especially considering the emphasis upon the 'removal of pillars'? Would the President of Parliament report to the President of the European Council? Does the President of the Council of the European Union have similar powers? By contrast to these lofty titles, the President of the European Commision is the effective head of the European executive. "The Commission President is proposed by the European Council, who take account of the previous European Elections, before being elected by the European Parliament for a five year mandate." So should we take it as acceptable that a body consisting of the Head of State of each member state should carry equal voting rights in deciding 'based on election results' who to propose as president?
Unfair Weighting of Countries: On some occasions large countries can just force through certain Acts and on others, arguably weakly democratically elected individuals from EU Nations with tiny populations can wield enormous power due to rotation policy. Surely a system of representation should be based on the EU constituancies (which already exist!), rather than this proposed system which benefits no state? And we cannot rely simply upon the Ioannina Compromise: That smaller states with no leverage would be given a fair hearing. The proposal is that "The Council would have an 18-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of Member States, with the purpose of providing more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly created post of Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." To further confound matters, this new post holds multiple offices: "The Minister would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration." That covers just about every pie.
As a European Citizen, I am appreciative of the human rights this confers upon me, in addition to the historical benefits of helping to end the conveyor belt of perpeptual war in Europe. I consider myself an EU fan and this 'ever closer union' has already been the cause for much good, however, unlike the USA, Europe is far from the culturally homogenous region that the United States were in the 18th century. Thus perhaps a European Confederacy would be a better model to follow for the time being. Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty, as with the EU Constitution before it, is clearly problematic. This is Europe's chance to 'get it right', to take all the lessons learned, good and bad, from Italian PR, American Federalism, the British Westminster model, Scandinavian social-democracy, German/French/Dutch post-war multi-party systems and all the others, and to amalgamate the good parts of those while minimising the negatives. Perhaps Europe can have a practical, pragmatic and useful government while still posessing a truly representative political system.
But it only takes a quick examination of the Lisbon Treaty to see the problems:
Centralised Banking: The formal adoption of a European Central Bank which in the current fiscal crisis has proved not only ineffectual, but entirely absent. The ECB would presumably not be immune from the scandals which are a regular feature in the news of the World Bank and the IMF. However, that is not to say that centralised banking is an inherently bad thing: With the correct financial accumen, and when directed by truly representative government, in the best interests of not only EU citizens, but humanity as a whole, there is a place for this institution. Let us not see a carbon copy of the Federal Reserve.
Executive Branch: There will in effect be several individuals, all with conflicting powers and while im all for separation of powers among the greatest number of people, has this really been thought through, especially considering the emphasis upon the 'removal of pillars'? Would the President of Parliament report to the President of the European Council? Does the President of the Council of the European Union have similar powers? By contrast to these lofty titles, the President of the European Commision is the effective head of the European executive. "The Commission President is proposed by the European Council, who take account of the previous European Elections, before being elected by the European Parliament for a five year mandate." So should we take it as acceptable that a body consisting of the Head of State of each member state should carry equal voting rights in deciding 'based on election results' who to propose as president?
Unfair Weighting of Countries: On some occasions large countries can just force through certain Acts and on others, arguably weakly democratically elected individuals from EU Nations with tiny populations can wield enormous power due to rotation policy. Surely a system of representation should be based on the EU constituancies (which already exist!), rather than this proposed system which benefits no state? And we cannot rely simply upon the Ioannina Compromise: That smaller states with no leverage would be given a fair hearing. The proposal is that "The Council would have an 18-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of Member States, with the purpose of providing more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly created post of Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." To further confound matters, this new post holds multiple offices: "The Minister would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration." That covers just about every pie.
There are many more problems that will need sorting before Sinn Fein will stop their mass campaigning and vote conclusively in favour of this binding treaty. The European Constitution went for a much too Federal approach for a Europe still coming to terms with its disparate cultures: The continued Balkan crises, the disputed territories between states (Gibraltar, Rockall, Cyprus, to name but a few) and the problems of micro-state tax havens and non-contiguous land (and the Kaliningrad question). The resounding No vote in the Netherlands and France came as no surprise but while the Lisbon treaty has watered down these proposals, it is still too binding a leap from the Maastricht and Rome Treaties for some people's tastes. While the Irish may have voted No for the wrong reasons, they may have done us all a favour.
If voter turnout for EU elections is only around 50% now, then how better to reduce political apathy than by giving the European people a chance at directly electing a President? And while at the European level, a cabinet system seem necessary, Europe need look no further than its largest member state for a good example of how a President should act. Better to confer legitimacy upon a figure without massive unfettered power than to have 'smoky back-room' politicians from minority countries pushing their own agendas without checks and balances. Referenda work, especially in conjunction with Ombudsmen, simply look at how successful small nations (in terms of population) like Sweden or Finland are economically, which encourage entrepanuerialism and embrace neo-liberalism, while retaining their social policy and belief in equality of opportunity.
by Perfekt.
Monday 13 April 2009
A Psephological Discussion
Recent times have seen a notable amount of political protest (be it direct or indirect) around the world and as part of various political systems. However, there is an undeniable trend that has been building for the past few decades amongst many of the worlds “proudest” democracies: Falling turnout in elections. Is it not the case that voting against a government is the ultimate form of protest? There are plenty of parties out there for voters who are not happy. For example: There are anarchic parties (OK admittedly hypocritical of them) for those who hate the current system, leftist parties for those who hate the right, rightist parties for those who hate the left and ‘middlist’ parties for those who like to sit on the fence. Basically, there is always someone to vote for no matter what your opinion! So, having ‘disproved’ the whole “there is no option for me” argument consider this:
U.K. election turnout in 2005 : 61.4%
Canadian election turnout in 2008 : 59.1%
American election turnout in 2008: 61%
Can it really be argued, for whatever reason and from whatever stand point, that 40% of the electorate in 3 of the worlds most established democracies doesn’t vote based upon a dissatisfaction with the options presented to them, or through some sort of protest? OR, does it seem more likely that hordes of disinterested and depoliticised ‘voters’ are out there who simply cant be bothered to vote? Admittedly, some people do not vote because they are making some kind of protest, but could you really argue its almost half the electorate that’s doing that? OR, is it more likely that our earlier mentioned hordes make up the bulk of these ’voters’?
Now consider this. If voter turnout is so low in the above countries because people are making some sort of protest, why is voter turnout higher in countries where voting is compulsory much higher? OK, obviously because its compulsory. However if these ‘voters’ that don’t vote feel so strongly, would they not boycott regardless? Take a look at these figures of countries where voting is compulsory:
Australia: Average of 95% since 1960
Belgium: Average of 91% since 1960
Greece: Average of 86% since 1960
Brazil: Average of 83% since 1960
I guess the point trying to be made here is that when people are forced to vote by law: THEY WILL. Lets get off the stupid argument that people don’t vote because they are protesting when its simply because they cant be bothered voting. What is so difficult about admitting it?
by Blogger1
U.K. election turnout in 2005 : 61.4%
Canadian election turnout in 2008 : 59.1%
American election turnout in 2008: 61%
Can it really be argued, for whatever reason and from whatever stand point, that 40% of the electorate in 3 of the worlds most established democracies doesn’t vote based upon a dissatisfaction with the options presented to them, or through some sort of protest? OR, does it seem more likely that hordes of disinterested and depoliticised ‘voters’ are out there who simply cant be bothered to vote? Admittedly, some people do not vote because they are making some kind of protest, but could you really argue its almost half the electorate that’s doing that? OR, is it more likely that our earlier mentioned hordes make up the bulk of these ’voters’?
Now consider this. If voter turnout is so low in the above countries because people are making some sort of protest, why is voter turnout higher in countries where voting is compulsory much higher? OK, obviously because its compulsory. However if these ‘voters’ that don’t vote feel so strongly, would they not boycott regardless? Take a look at these figures of countries where voting is compulsory:
Australia: Average of 95% since 1960
Belgium: Average of 91% since 1960
Greece: Average of 86% since 1960
Brazil: Average of 83% since 1960
I guess the point trying to be made here is that when people are forced to vote by law: THEY WILL. Lets get off the stupid argument that people don’t vote because they are protesting when its simply because they cant be bothered voting. What is so difficult about admitting it?
by Blogger1
Sorry readers let me clarify my post. My intention was not to support compulsory voting but to question motives for not voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
