Hello Vino
Tiberius Gracchus has linked me to a mutual friend’s new blog, so hello to the aptly-named Vino’s Political Blog.
One of his posts is on PR. He does seem to be leaning towards a majoritarian, FPTP system. I understand the argument, but I disagree with it. He critcises PR for not giving a strong government, but ends it with
STV has the same problems and, additionally, since many voters do not preference
more than 3 or 4 candidates, it is very difficult to operate in constituencies
much larger than 3, 4 or 5 seats [hence the Irish parliament, elected by STV,
does not use constituencies larger than 5]. Such small constituency sizes also
damage proportionality since, effectively, there is a very high threshold before
parties than gain representation.
This is no bad thing. I do often say that process is, a priori, important, but I allow a posteriori concerns when it keeps out the BNP. Equally, it means that a party could be effectively as strong as one now, but dependent on a minority partner for its position. The minority partner has an interest (to put it in those terms) in keeping its core vote and, as the Lib Dems tend to caucus on these issues with the Tories, it would likely be, say, the SDLP. This would stop some of the more egregious Labour policies of late, notably the Iraq war and certain foreign policy positions more generally.
Equally, a 5-member constituency allows for proportionality without succumbing to the problems of the Weimar republic. It would track votes more closely while still representing constituency interests and not breaking, as would be the case in a single-constituency/national party list system, the constituency link or handing excess power to the party. It also has the advantage of encouraging local participation. At the moment, a long-serving or well-regarded local MP has very little risk of de-selection, effectively knocking that seat out of contention for candidates within that party. The system suggested would allow people to stand in their own seat with a decent chance of winning, meaning that there would be less parachuting.
I am aware that it could be a nationalist party. I am not sure of my opinions on nationalism, but Plaid Cymru or potentially Mebyon Kernow would be less objectionable than the SNP.
Anyway - welcome, Vino, to the blogosphere.
xD.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Sorry if this appears twice, as wasn’t sure if it posted first time.
The reason I have ambivalent views about STV is that, although I like the ability to preference candidates in detail, I also would like to avoid too much competition within the same party - perhaps that is the Labour partisan in me coming out! I think a party needs party unity after the election.
Because of the implicit 15-20% threashold in STV, it means there is more likely to be just a 3-party system, which would give the 3rd party more power. In a 4, 5 or 6 party system, there may be more of a choice of coalition partners but, in STV, the larger parties would possibly be more likely to be held to ransom by a smaller one.
On the other hand, because moderate parties tend to do well at attracting transfers, I can see the use of STV in ethnically-divided societies where most parties are based on ethnic or religious cleavages.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
The last point you make is very valid - there is no ‘perfect’ electoral system, and you have to weigh up the advantages for the situation you’re in.
The problem with having excessive unity in a party is that you end up with what Labour and the Tories have now - in Labour’s case, there are three identifiable parties (hard left, soft left and Blairite) while in the Tories there are Cameroons, hang-’em flog-’ems and neoliberals. The result is an incoherent set of policies - if you get one at all - and the pretence of unity leading to people not believing you to an even greater extent.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Yes, there is no perfect electoral system.
I think that the trouble in the Labour Party at the moment is a lack of internal party democracy. Most of the most controversial policies of the Blarites have been pushed through without getting the approval of Conference, the NEC, the PLP etc. I think any party of the Left will have moderate, social-democratic and socialist wings and I think that is natural. The important thing is, though, that the ‘right’ of the party needs to try and take the rest of the party with it when it proposes ideas - and be willing to back down when it loses. This doesn’t seem to be something the Blairites like doing in internal party debates!
If I had to choose a system for Westminster elections, I would probably move to AV rather than sticking with FPTP because AV does allow supporters of 3rd, 4th etc parties to have a say as to which of the big 2 they prefer. It reduces the need for tactical voting, which I feel FPTP encourages to too great a degree.
For an elected second chamber, though, and perhaps for local government elections - I am attracted to STV. In bodies that do not have to select a government, I think the ability STV has to give greater proportionality and inner-party choice does have a role. And, as i mentioned earlier, in Northern Ireland, STV does have a role in ensuring that the parties have to work together more than they would do otherwise.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
The problems may be exarcebated by internal party politics (and not just Labour) but it doesn’t remove the overall need.