Comments on: Dumps and deliberations

By: The Sharpener » Blog Archive » Thumbing the World Cup

The Sharpener » Blog Archive » Thumbing the World Cup — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:52:22 +0000

[…] Of course, some of this was constructed with the benefit of hindsight (as heuristics must be). Some won’t apply next time a World Cup comes around (it will be in Africa, for example, though intriguingly in a European time-zone). And maybe I’ve only thought this through in this way because I had cash at stake. In which case, despite all the well-grounded objections, perhaps demand-revealing referendums really are the closest to ideal government we can get. […]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 05 May 2006 22:25:10 +0000

I have a feeling that there is a direct relationship between the rise of the party list – with its professional placemen politicians – and the decline of participation in the democratic process as evidenced through turnout at elections. I remember when I knew who my Euro MP was, for example, but then a few years ago I found out that the parties had the representatives, and we electors only had the tokens of their ambitions. I believe that one of the fundamental principles of a representative democracy is the ability to vote the (specific) bugger out when their personal activities or behaviour alienate them from the people whom they are supposed to represent. Once a politician pays more attention to his/her position on the party list, representative democracy is on the critical list.
Therefore, for a primary chamber of government, I firmly believe that the STV system is the appropriate model; each constituency will elect a person who has the assent of at least 50% of the people who cast a vote and can rightly consider themselves to be the representative of that constituency. I am perfectly clear that there is a difference between being a representative and a delegate; MPs are the former and not the latter and entitled to respond to their own party’s whip and policy imperatives; but they should always look over their shoulders to the people who directly put them there in the first place.
There is a place for PR, but that is in a second, revising, chamber in a bicameral system. And don’t get me started on the Scottish system which combines PR and first-past-the-post in the same chamber of Parliament – the worst of both worlds as far as I am concerned.

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Thu, 04 May 2006 19:18:34 +0000

Mat

How can you expect a parliament to hold the PM to account when he is the leader of their party, holds power over their political advancement, and has the power to stuff all the parliamentary committees with his own placemen? PMQ’s is a farce – a shouting match for morons. Where is the holding to account? Answer – nowhere.

I’ll go for separation of powers any day.

By: Jonn

Jonn — Thu, 04 May 2006 11:23:39 +0000

MatGB:
Really really crap. Executive needs to be held to regular account. Parliamentary systems do that. Directly elected PResidents are only accountable at election time. Think about it. Chirac, Bush, Putin. Not exactly confidence inspiring is it?

Fair enough – but surely the solution to many of the problems that face those countries are further limits to executive power and greater legislative scrutiny. Which is coincidentally exactly what we need in Britain right now.

By: MatGB

MatGB — Wed, 03 May 2006 23:29:44 +0000

Jonn? The reason we don’t do separation of powers in the UK (or most other EU countries) is because, at a basic level, it’s crap.

Really really crap. Executive needs to be held to regular account. Parliamentary systems do that. Directly elected PResidents are only accountable at election time. Think about it. Chirac, Bush, Putin. Not exactly confidence inspiring is it?

We need to fix the supine parliament, make it do its job properly, but separation of powers is, quite simply, a bad idea. There are some academic papers on the subject somewhere in the flat, I think, but meh, I failed at academia…

By: Phil E

Phil E — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:55:39 +0000

we do need more (and different) voter engagement. Desperately. CitizensÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Assemblies

Did anyone else read that as two sentences rather than three, the second beginning

“Desperate Citizens’ Assemblies…”

Just me, then.

By: Jonn

Jonn — Wed, 03 May 2006 13:29:38 +0000

I’ve always personally rather liked the American system of separation of powers, where the legislature and the executive are elected separately – that way, the problems hanging over both proportional representation and first-past-the-post no longer matter so much.

Is there a practical reason why such a system couldn’t work in Britain?

By: Davide Simonetti

Davide Simonetti — Wed, 03 May 2006 08:11:16 +0000

Interesing post. I certainly do not like the ides Demand Revealing Governance you mentioned. Pay to vote? No way! I see proportional representation as a realistic direction for British politics to head in. It would be a start at least allowing people who vote Green, for example, to be better represented. But it is still not a perfect system as we can see in numerous countries in Europe.

I am still attracted to the idea of Direct Democracy. If I am in agreement with a political party on most issues and vote for them, and then that party does something I’m completely against without asking the electorate, like, say, invade another country, how is that democratic? Referenda on the big issues is a fairer system that encourages participation and therefore also nurtures a better informed, more articulate electorate. Not perfect, what is? Open to corruption? What is going on now seems pretty corrupt to me. I think that technology will come to the rescue in the near future with a more secure direct voting system. Switzerland is an interesting case people can propose issues to vote on as well as vote on issues. I don’t think that it has come a plutocracy (but then I don’t have all the details).

People are going to vote tomorrow against a government they are angry with, and in the process, remove from office many good and capable councilors. Why? Because they have no alternative. Its either vote for someone else, spoil the ballot or stay at home. With a fairer system this could have been avoided.