Alan Johnson's referendum on AV+

[caramel_betty]

As a known, self-confessed Liberal Democrat, it should come as little surprise that I'm in favour of proportional representation. However, I'm not in favour of just any form of proportional representation, and therefore I'm slightly sceptical of Alan Johnson's referendum

Comments

[funnynamehere]

STV is also used in Northern Ireland now, isn't it?

[caramel_betty]

Yes, although STV was already in use in Norn Iron at the time of the Jenkins Report - for local government.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm Proposals for reform of the system by the Northern Ireland government were overtaken by the social and political unrest at the end of the 1960s. This led to a wide ranging report by Sir Patrick Macrory in 1970 that advocated a major overhaul with 26 district councils replacing the existing structures. The first election to these new bodies took place in May 1973 with the franchise widened to embrace universal adult suffrage. The occasion also marked the re-introduction of PR-STV, which had been abolished for local government elections by the Northern Ireland government in 1922.

I think Jenkins was just ignoring Northern Ireland due to it being so different from the rest of the UK.

[caramel_betty]

On the last point first, it's not the actual physical counting of votes that I think is hard. And, like you, I'd be happy to have the election on a Thursday, counting all day Friday and an announcement on Saturday. Or whatever else. What's difficult is communicating to people how it works. I remember in the London Mayoral race having people actively refuse to understand that, for example, voting 1) Livingstone, 2) Paddick didn't help Boris win any more than 1) Livingstone, 2) Livingstone.

On the middle point, I don't expect every region to have a perfect selection of all possible candidate views because, obviously, that's impossible. However, my understanding from others in STV areas is that it's easier to get minority views onto the ballot paper this way - either because they get STV-ish elections (ETA: at the local party level, for choosing the candidates), or because politicking / alliances over a slate of candidates allows some maneuvering. For one thing, you lose a lot of the pull of the FPTP cry from the whip of "Oh,

[giro_playgirl]

Do you think that Johnson really means it when he talks about instigating a referendum for PR, or *puts cynical hat on* do you think that he's just saying nice things that the educated public want to hear to help him manoeuvre into the party leader's position which is going to up for grabs when Brown is (inevitably) chucked out of power?

I do like Johnson, despite him being a terrible old Blairite. However, I'm always cynical when someone starts talking about PR in this country-mainly because I remember Blair making promises about it in 1997 which inevitably came to naught when he gained a massive majority. (After all, in you come in on a landslide, you're not likely to want to relinquish any of it by introducing a fairer form of representation that could end up kicking your party in the nuts).

Oh yes, Hello by the way. I'm Christina. I was introduced to your journal by the lovely Burkesworks. I also take an interest in this kind of thing because I have an amateur Psephologist for a boyfriend, who has (no word of a lie) spent his Bank

[caramel_betty]

Well, I'm sure that Johnson has - despite his protestations - raised the point now with some political motive. Maybe he wants to lay himself out as the Labour leader in waiting, maybe he sees this as a potential way of trying to (slowly, baby steps) move the press on from ever more detail on expenses, maybe he's using this to try to destabilize Gordon and steal a march on him, maybe he sees this as a way of trying to "steal" Lib Dem votes. (I know a small number of people, for example, who vote Lib Dem basically because they want PR at Westminster, and balls to the rest of it

[caramel_betty]

This is why I disagree with burkesworks when he writes - off-LJ: Frank Field [should be Speaker of the House of Commons] for me. Honest, somehow "respected" - and by putting him in the Chair it precludes either him defecting to the Tories or putting forward any more of his horrible proposed welfare reforms.
I think Frank would make a good Speaker, but I disagree with the motivation to stop him talking about welfare reforms. The way to win the argument on welfare reform should be to argue the point more effectively and winning people round, not shutting Frank up by bundling him off to a job where he can't talk.

Also, hi. I've not yet got to the position of running my own numbers on things, though I keep vaguely meaning to - I'm just lazy. I've helped out a few friendly amateur psephologists in my time, like the time a friend submitted a detailed plan of Birmingham's wards to the boundary commission. (I got to help, briefly, with slicing up the area I lived at the time, which he didn't know at all.)

[sleetersoulfire]

Your posts are thoughtful and always so full of win.

[caramel_betty]

I am not full of win. :-(

[vashti]

Yes you are.

[amuchmoreexotic]

I don't think we should make the political system more representative until we find a way to make the public more rational.