I have long thought that the least-worst type of electoral system would be a combination FPTP with top-up seats so that the final number of seats in Parliament are proportional to the votes cast (provided a party achieves a threshold of say, 5%).
Instead of top-up seats being allocated by party-list (which people tend to dislike), a party's top-up seats would be allocated to its unsuccessful candidates in order of how many votes they achieved personally.
I batted this back and forth with Neil Harding, and he discovered that they have exactly this system in the state elections in Baden-Württemberg in Germany. So it does exist, and it does work.
Unfinished business
2 hours ago
9 comments:
Do you propose bigger constituencies so that we maintain the same number of MP's? Otherwise costs go up for no real benefit.
Who do these top up MP's represent ie who are they answerable to? At the moment we do have at the a fig leaf of control over MP's trough our constituencies.
GS, of course.
529 constituencies in England would get collapsed into half that, say 265. We get 265 MPs directly elected and every constituency gets a top up MP as well (for sake of argument). Except for the bizarre situation where are party wins all the FPTP seats with less than 50% of the vote, there is no need for total number to go over 530.
So there are two MPs for each constituency, and people can choose which one to go to. Whoever gives the best service will get more votes next time and so on. It's called competition.
Mark,
I like the idea of competition in politics, it might give them a bit of an edge.
How do you deal with death and retirement of the top up MP?
If top-up MP from Party X dies, then he or she is replaced by whatever other unsuccessful PPC from his or her party just missed out on getting a top-up seat.
Its certainly worth a try because our current sustem is getting stale - not because the system is a problem but the way it is used and abused. NL's gerrymandering before the last eection in stopping reorganisatin of seats was disgraceful. (The Tories were no better when they were last in power.)
It finds a neat way round the straigh PR options which I don't like at all.
I do like the idea of top-up MPs being the party's candidates in order of votes received. That removes the party llist element which I so despise. Very good idea.
Also the alternative vote system should be used, allowing votes to transfer in order of preference to negat ethe need for tactical voting. People would feel able to vote according to their beliefs, but have their vote transferred should their preffered candidate not succeed.
V, under this system, you get one vote (it is just counted twice, once for FPTP at constituency level) and then again at national level for top-up seats. I don't see why transferable votes would be necessary ... can you explain? Unless you loved a certain party but hated its local candidate or vice versa.
Mark, we are starting to agree on far too much (PR,CI,LVT). I never thought I would find a PR ally in UKIP.
I think the beauty of this system is that it would be very similar to what we have (people don't like change). People vote the same, it is counted the same, it is just as simple as the present system yet it gives proportional results without any party lists (that people don't like). Also Baden-Wurttemberg has had a continual centre-right government under this system, so all you on the Right can like it as well.
Neil, sure, things like CI are neither left nor right wing, they are just sensible. Where we can disagree is that I think the CI should be a lowish figure like £60 to top up wages of lower earners, you might like a CI of £120 so that people wouldn't need to work at all.
But once you've boiled it down to a CI, at least the battle lines are clear.
UKIP is a small party so of course we're in favour of PR!
Maybe I can now convince you that VAT is the worst tax? And who imposes that on us?
Post a Comment