Except that this isn't a constitutional change. PR will not incur any transfer of sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also I never heard any calls for a referendum when there were actual constitutional changes wrt the House of Lords.
Printable View
Except that this isn't a constitutional change. PR will not incur any transfer of sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also I never heard any calls for a referendum when there were actual constitutional changes wrt the House of Lords.
Changing the way we vote is a constitutional change. Since when were constitutional changes about transfers of sovereignty? How very euro-centric of you to even think of that.
House of Lords has never been democratic.
"Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results[under AV] could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post."
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/v...s/systems2.htm
And in 1983 apparently. AV aggravates swing and punishes unpopular parties.
Changing the way 'we' vote is not a constitutional change. The way 'we' vote is not a subject of constitutional law in pretty much any country in the western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A lot of Tories (not representing the party leadership) seem to be advising a "put up or shut up" moment. Get Clegg to either accept or reject the today's deal with the Conservatives or walk away and see what happens with a LibLab coalition. If/when it falls, decline opportunity to form a government and fight a new election this year seeking to get an outright majority.
I think this is unlikely, but an important stance for all parties now is to ensure they don't get the blame for this and seek to look good in a possible future election.
I wonder how edifying this spectacle all looks. If the parties fail to come up with a satisfactory agreement between them, then its going to look very bad for PR and guaranteed future Hung Parliaments.
lol, wutQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It is in both the US and Canada.
Source ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
US constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Section 3 - The SenateQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
As you could see, we needed a constitutional amendment to have direct elections for senators.
Interesting side points from Northern Ireland. What the parties are saying on the 2 possible alliances
DUP (8 seats, said to lean Conservative): Want whatever is best for Northern Ireland
Alliance (1 seat, said to lean Lib-Dem): All 13* NI MPs seeking to take their seats should seek common ground on the best interests of Northern Ireland
SDLP (3 seats, take Labour whip): Want a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance.
This is not about how you vote this is who is eligible to vote. Transfer of powers also. The US Constitution doesn't proscribe the present voting system. In the US you could introduce PR without changing a single dot or comma in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Right, because the whole "electoral college" thing isn't in the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
And how does the vote of the American voter get translated into votes in the Electoral College? Onthe basis of state law. And again, that's a stipulation again on the 'who' question, not the 'how'. Besides which, the election for the executive is not really what we are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Canadian elections are ruled by the Canada Elections Law.
And back on topic; the UK already has PR for EU elections. On the basis of their own laws, because the EU doesn't proscribe any method of voting.
A far cry from your claim that "in the US you could introduce PR without changing a single dot or comma in the Constitution." :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Seems like, perhaps, it's not so cut and dry, and plenty of Western Nations have stipulations in their constitutions about how we vote.
Such as the relevant sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I will repeat my claim that the US could introduce PR without changing its Constitution. The fact that PR doesn't work for a unique function does not disprove that claim. Especially not now that in a number of US states there actually is PR in place even in that election (IIRC in Maine and one other state).Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
The Canadian Charter says nothing about elections other than that Canadians have the right to vote in them.
Feel free, I don't think anyone objects to you repeatedly being wrong. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Steely: Is this behind-closed-doors horsetrading something you still want after each election to decide who forms our governments?
Your process is confusing to a yank. I've got some tv pundit guy in the background talking about how Thatcher, Blair and Brown were sleeping illegitimately with the electorate, and how to consummate the marriage.
Not especially. I simply think it's the lesser of two evils when compared with a system which produces results like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Labour: 8.6 million votes, 258 seats
Liberal Democrat: 6.8 million votes, 57 seats
All this whining about the need for a stable government soon. As if the government is going to fix the economy (now that's really a scary thought) or as if Zimbabwe isn't enough of a reason to have doubts about the added value of a government being stable.
Over here, I think the parties let their members vote on the coalition treaty before it is accepted, and only then the new cabinet is formed (but I could be wrong), and the coalition treaty (basically the outline of how they are planning to govern) is public (but not binding). Is that the same over there?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
By the way, the advantage of behind-closed-doors negotiating is that they can at least discuss everything with an open mind, without worrying how it looks to the voters before they have a result. More about content and less about image in that way.
Interesting how people who are against PR anyway use the fact that you have to negotiate a government against it by constantly referring to the process in negative terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
How about blaming the Lib Dems for failing to adapt to the political system instead of blaming the political system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
:|Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What, like focusing their efforts on only a few areas to win those?
Yes, that's what every other party does. :bored: They had a freaking century to adapt to the rise of the Labour Party, and yet they continue to run campaigns as if it was still 1900. Whose fault is it that they still fail to allocate their resources efficiently instead of spreading themselves thin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Sure, it's their fault for not getting enough seats, but the stats Steely posted show clearly that this system makes sure that the results are not a proper representation of the voters in the country. And that is the system's fault.
Again, everyone knew this for centuries. Instead of whining for the better part of the century, surely the Lib Dems (and Liberals before that) should have made some attempts to adjust to the system? You have to play with the cards you're dealt, not complain for a century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Loki's argument for continuous dictatorship of minority governments; we've always done it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Many other countries are doing fine with it. Any other reason against coalition talks than that 'you are not used to it'?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade