One Man, More Than One Vote

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Premise No.1 : Democratic voting systems have at their heart an appeal to fairness and the equality of every individual taking part in the voting process with the ideal of representative government.

Premise No 2: All democratic voting systems tried in the world up to this point have been flawed in as much as they appear to produce elected bodies which seem less representative than the democratic ideal would demand.

Premise No.3: The representative democratic ideal is the ideal that all democratic stystems of voting aim to produce.

Conclusion: If the current systems are flawed in reaching the aim, and the aim is more important than the method - then why insist on the illusory equality argument. Ie why have one person, one vote.

What would be the upshot of one man, more than one vote?

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Chaos

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

any other method of vote distribution wouldn't work, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't correct how votes are totalled in parliament. Why should an MP who had 50,000 people back him have the same power as one who only had 20,000 back him. I belive that contistuencies should be enlarged and that each constituentcy sends more than one MP to parliament. Each mp would have a vote in parliament propotional to the number of constituents that supported them (possibly adjusted to include those who did not vote possibly not). Its another flawed system but it would see a wider variety of views (including some very objectional ones) represented in parliament.

Asa an aside I do believe that the whips offices should be abolished, of course mps will always be leant on by there parties to support the party line but abolishing the whips might go some way to making MPs represent their constituents more effectively.

Sorry, I didn't really answer your question.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I think parliment is too big as it is. As is the Lords. How much constituency work does an MP do in a safe seat? As a member of the cabinet?

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

perhaps the excutive needs separating from the legislature. As the joke goes, 'I wouldn't start from here'

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Each mp would have a vote in parliament propotional to the number of constituents that supported them (possibly adjusted to include those who did not vote possibly not).

why not just bring in proportional representation? That system of yours sounds like a complete pain to implement.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Ptee - the question contains a false premise, as electoral systems have twin purposes which are in practice opposed, and the balance betwixt the two is where different states choose different permutations.

There's a straight democratic ideal - one person, one vote, one value; ie, all votes are of equal weight and crucially, equal significance to the vote - this is the one list straight PR system as used in Israel say - the edges are frayed by the qualification hurdle to get into the Knesset.

The other value, prized it seems more in democracies in the Anglo-saxon tradition, is effective government - the balance between delivery of a clear mandate for a party to govern. Whilst under more 'true' PR systems, this can be delivered, in practice, governments rarely get 50%+1 of the popular national vote, hence the result requries coalition building.

So what do you prize? Persoanlly, I don't have a huge problem with coalition building, and so that's not an argument against a PR variant - but I do prize the fact that as a citizen, there is a named individual who I can say is MY representative and demand from them time, attention and assistance. Whilst much of the UK system is a pile of steaming dog's cock, I think this is perhaps the only genuinely positive advantage of our system.

So I like the German system, which a variant of is used in Scotland. But what the debate focusses on is the reform of the system for the popular vote house, not the entire system; Billy Bragg's idea effectively sidesteps much of the debate about two constitutional problems and provides one potential solution, and it's a solution I very much like the idea of.

What Ed said too.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I had a feeling my premises might be flawed.

But what's wrong with me, being more interested in politics than my neighbour, wanting to vote more than once. I'm allowed to do it in Big Brother and it isn't paraded as such a massively flawed system that the winners to not really win.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

At a slight tangent - voting should be compulsory. When I meet Tories and white-van-men, I also want intelligence qualifications. Maybe we could combine the two - you do a test, and the more answers you get right, the more votes you have. I like that plan. Pub quiz + voting = perfect democracy.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

You could tie it in to Test The Nation too. And maybe distriubte a random number of extra votes per constituency to people who can answer Wincey Willis-esque tricky Treasure Hunt clues.

I've always though tax relief for voting would be a decent incentive.
Of course need to have a Spoil vote.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

haha pub quiz question one: "Dave B do you like Blair?"

Ans = yes => BLING!! 10 voting points move to next question
Ans = no => BZZZZT!! No voting points game over

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

The reason I don't like proportional representation is you always get a group of MPs who only represent a party. I am very much in favour of systems where MP's primary duty is to represent the interests of the poeple who voted for them rather than systems where you choose a party and its manifesto which it may or may not stick to.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Which happens nicely in Bragg's upper house system.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll read that article tommorrow after my exam.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Vote early, vote often.

― rosemary (rosemary), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think votes should carry attributes.. like dexterity, stamina, and magic.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:42 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.