Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: My View... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:17:20 12/01/04 Wed In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "New Zealand has a mixed system with electorates and party lists" on 20:01:08 12/01/04 Wed I would like to preserve the unelected and independent aspect of the current House of Lords. However, I would reform the political dimension. I propose that 40% of members would represent the current "establishment" with Landed Dukes, Life Peer Business Tycoons, Religious figures, Keepers of the Golden Slipper etc. As the House is a scrutinising chamber, we need diversity of background and opinion in order to serve its purpose. The House of Lords do not initiate legislation, so I see no need for it to be majority elected. Wiping away centuries of tradition, New Labour style, by abolishing ancient titles would not, in my view, add anything to our democracy. Neither would the creation of a carbon copy of the Commons, with whatever voting mechanism. However, I would reform the current political dimension of the House of Lords. The remaining 60% of members would be elected by proportional representation, using the popular vote of the General Election. Therefore, the proportions would reflect the general opinion at the time the Government was formed. I believe this presents a greater democratic mandate than staggered elections, and would not require an additional poll. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:41:30 12/01/04 Wed Chap recently suggested to me that we abolish the Commons and have a 100% hereditary Lords... but he was an earl so perhaps he was biased! Seriously, though, I fail to see the point of a second chamber if it were to be elected on party lines. Might as well have one chamber. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:48:54 12/01/04 Wed The House of Lords is already composed of political members, Government, oppposition and others. I am merely suggesting that we reform the method of selection for this political component. The PR device would restrict the numbers that each party can have in the chamber, thus eliminating the current practice of Governments loading up the Lords with members of their own persuasion. It would also give a voice to other parties that would never be represented by FPTP. Diversity is what we are trying to achieve. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:23:20 12/01/04 Wed I always thought that the second greatest thing about FPTP is that it totally prevents the loony minority parties from getting anywhere. BNP and the Communists stand no chance in FPTP, but under PR they'd be in Parliament! Like in France, where there are actually Communist and National Front representatives. Diversity is one thing, but PR allowed NASDAP to get a foot in the door in Germany, and we all know what that led to. Okay, so you could have a minimum cut-off point, say, 10%, but that's arbitrary and not really a lasting solution: mainly because a party which gets 9.9% of the vote has no seats but a party which gets 10% of the vote gets 10% of the seats - as soon as that happens, the system seems ridiculous and you have to start the whole reform process of again. I'm a great believer in our system. It worked fine until a certain party started to horse around with it, which opened a whole can of worms, largely because if you partially reform something it makes no sense, and so there are immediate calls reform it completely. Mr Blair, having read Machiavelli, knows this well, and cunningly came up with this solution so that it would appear as though public opinion was driving the changes. On the contrary, until he deliberately imposed a crap partial-reform compromise almost everyone was happy with the system apart from a few intellectuals who don't like anything which is 100% rational. The British constitution was a triumph over logic of the organic. I believe that Aristotle called it catalaxy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes but... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:31:24 12/01/04 Wed You cannot claim to be a mature true democracy, if you design a political system to prevent views being aired that you find distasteful. Mature democracies can stomach these parties, just as mature democracies don't tend to have them in the first place. It is this Government and its ppolicies that have created the surge of the BNP [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair point. I stand corrected. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:33:43 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I prefer preferential voting | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:45:09 12/02/04 Thu FPTP means a candidate can be elected with just thirty-odd percent of the vote. With preferential voting, a candidate must get over 50%. You don't get the situation of, say, two similar candidates getting 30% each and a very different candidate getting 32% and beating the two of them. The preferences of the voters are better accomodated. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |