Do you have a big idea that you think could improve democracy in the UK?
This opportunity to shine is open to any Liberal Democrat party member attending the party’s autumn conference. Give your proposal a title of not more than eight words, and summarise it in fewer than 30. (You can provide more detail if you wish, but we won’t be able to fit it on the ballot paper to select the ideas that get pitched to the panel).
Then submit your idea either here in the comments field, or by email to [email protected]. And then come to the Electoral Reform Society stand at conference over Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th September, and vote* to select the top five ideas submitted.
The top five win the opportunity to pitch their idea, Dragons’ Den-style, to the Electoral Reform Society’s expert panel at our fringe event on Monday lunchtime, 1pm. The panellists will be:
• Julia Goldsworthy MP
• Richard Reeves, Chair of Demos
• Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society
• Stephen Tall, Commissioning Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice
Plus, we’ll give the top five a signed copy of Richard Reeves’ new biography of John Stuart Mill!
Think the unthinkable, be bold, be positive, and give us your one big idea!
See you in Bournemouth!
* Amy Rodger is the Electoral Reform Society’s Scotland Director as well as the Liberal Democrat PPC for East Lothian.
*Single Transferable Vote, ERS rules! 😉
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
Chloe
Sam Bateman
25 Comments
Abolish the Monarchy and replace it with a directly elected Presidency.
A SECOND CHAMBER ELECTED ON GENERAL ELECTION VOTES
A second chamber could be elected at the general election by allocating seats in accordance with the total number of votes cast for each party. This idea is cheap, simple to implement, easy to understand and 100% proportional.
That’s a terrible idea. People vote tactically and the Lib Dems encourage this. You can’t then say that the total number of votes cast has a strong significance.
Why not? Isn’t that, er, democracy? And where’s the problem with more LD parliamentarians?
Anyway, we were asked for a big idea, this is mine. I assume I can’t count on your vote…?
It’s a very weird form of democracy when one vote elects people in two distinct chambers.
Proportional Representation (which does not include the Alternative Vote favoured by some in Labour) should be the deal breaker if the Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power after the next general election.
I disagree. We should settle for AV which as you say is supported by people like Peter Hain. We can’t make STV a deal breaker. It’s too complex and too much of a constitutional upheaval. That will have to wait until we are in outright power. Ho ho . . .
A V-day bank holiday. That’s V-for-Votes.
With the opinion polls as they currently are, AV would be even more disproportional than first past the post.
In my opinion, that is not acceptable.
Compulsory voting?
Eh? I don’t understand that. Surely AV can only ever be an improvement on FPTP.
I wrote something (http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/09/proposal-on-direct-democracy.html) which may be of interest.
Sunday voting.
I forgot to mention weighted votes.
It was said during the 1997 general election which Labour won with a landslide that if we had at the time AV, Lib Dem supporters would have given their second preference votes between Labour and Tory to the same proportions as the rest of the population gave as their first preference. So if say Labour got 40% and the Tories 30%, Labour would have won many of the seats where second preferences made a difference, thus exaggerating further their majority.
The same is likely to apply in reverse if the Tories have such a lead.
Ah, I can see the problem. Basically we need a system that only ever boosts the Lib Dem outcome in every conceivable scenario.
Laurence, I do not know if your reply is anything to do with what I wrote, but if it is you clearly do not understand the point I was making. I did not say anything about the Lib Dem vote. What I said was that is one party has a big lead over the second place party, then AV will exaggerate that lead even more than the current First Past the Post.
So what? If AV is a fairer system than FPTP (which it manifestly is), then whatever outcome it produces should be accepted.
Laurence, the relative fairness of different voting systems depends in the greatest part on the state of party political electioneering infrastructure – none is inherently fairer or more accurate because they all tend to reflect different things.
Each form of ballot has strengths and weaknesses, so our choice of which is best is a question of which method fits in closest alignment with the overall system.
Your preference indicates your bias in favour of what it actually is you want to measure, not what is objectively fairer.
As far as I’m concerned the way to solve the problems with elections is to hold more of them.
This also opens up the possibility of introducing different voting systems to differentiate each different level of democratic representation and creates a point of identification which can be used to educate members of the public about the different processes involved.
I disagree. I think we can say that AV is objectively fairer than FPTP because it is a straight extension of FPTP. That’s why I think Lib Dems should jump at the chance of AV with Labour support if indeed that is on the cards. We should support a fairer system even if it is not our favourite system.
Laurence, the point about AV is that it’s not a fairer system. With AV you can just as easily get the “least worst” option as the most favoured – hence opposition to a multi-option referendum in Scotland. And as for complexity, it really makes no difference if it’s AV or STV – it’s still 1,2,3.
STV also has the added advantage that it is in use in UK elections already – in NI for all but General Elections, and in Scotland for Council elections. OK, so the counting up here didn’t go too well, but that was more to do with the machines than the electorate! One thing which STV does do, though, is potentially reduce the numbers of candidates. For example, where a seat might have four councillors, you might only put up two candidates if that’s all you thought you’d get elected. Be over-optimistic, and you can miss out on any – be under-optimistic, and you could have had more elected.
“And as for complexity, it really makes no difference if it’s AV or STV – it’s still 1,2,3.”
No it’s not. In a large multi member set up, it’s 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, . . .
Goodness me – the Electoral Reform Society ought to be gratified that it still all comes down to PR!
Please, if you want your idea on the ballot, could you email [email protected] or text me on 07960 869018 to confirm that you’re a Lib Dem member and that you’ll be in Bournemouth on Monday. Also please give me some way of contacting you to tell me whether you win or not, or come to the Electoral Reform Society stand on Saturday or Sunday.
Conference delegates will be able to vote for which ideas they want to see pitched up to 10am on Monday, when we will conduct a count and notify the winners, so they have a few hours to prepare their pitches.
The Den’s on Monday lunchtime, and should be pretty quickfire. I think we’ve got some lunch and booze there to lubricate the debate. Hope to see you there.
Amy
Summary: Introduce STV to TV voting
Get Big Brother or The X Factor on side. Each week an STV telephone vote is taken to fill the remaining available places. Overnight audiences understand and appreciate its fairness.
Hey, can Oranjepan and Laurence give me a call? 07960 869018.
Thanks,
Amy