tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.comments2023-08-23T06:09:56.304-07:00Election 2010The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-57157192510529078812010-06-01T05:28:16.364-07:002010-06-01T05:28:16.364-07:00I think that it obviously was the economy election...I think that it obviously was the economy election. Whatever we can say about other issues like expenses scandal, biggoted woman, airbrushing or something similar or different, we should accept that what it was all about was the economy.Авторhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06381969325002111932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-26255174095164456552010-05-29T04:55:58.986-07:002010-05-29T04:55:58.986-07:00I always wondered why we never saw Lembit Opik and...I always wondered why we never saw Lembit Opik and Harriet Harman in the same room...Frugal Dougalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459572116047155640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-87734970145331792912010-05-26T17:09:27.618-07:002010-05-26T17:09:27.618-07:00Hear hear.Hear hear.Charles Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03019253586123281436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-75114266237861437462010-05-24T14:06:09.633-07:002010-05-24T14:06:09.633-07:00I'm not so sure this incident makes the case f...I'm not so sure this incident makes the case for a stronger Electoral Commission, bearing in mind that it sets performance standards for returning officers which include carrying out proper risk analysis. <br /><br />So the failure of returning officers to have systems that could cope with an historically modest increase in turnout shows that those risk analyses failed - and yet those same analyses look to have been sufficient to pass the Electoral Commission's performance standards.<br /><br />It's not just locally that there was a failure; the Electoral Commission's systems look to me to have failed too.Mark Packhttp://www.markpack.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-9880904054728532392010-05-20T05:16:47.267-07:002010-05-20T05:16:47.267-07:00Actually, Sky News has already answered this quest...Actually, Sky News has already answered this question, repeatedly. Our gandchildren will apparently refer to May 2010 as "The first HD election".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-22407869513853132912010-05-19T08:43:04.137-07:002010-05-19T08:43:04.137-07:00Quite a bit of commentary has called it the TV ele...Quite a bit of commentary has called it the TV election, but that's just because it wasn't the internet election they pretended they were expecting.<br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-84729371041128148092010-05-19T00:40:01.946-07:002010-05-19T00:40:01.946-07:00I can't see that "voting through the wind...I can't see that "voting through the window" is any worse than the corrupt system of postal voting we have here. And what about the scandal of continued Tippexed ballot papers. In one very marginal seat I know about there were at least 400 Tippexed ballot papers - and in every case that we are aware of the vote was changed from candidate X to candidate Y. Never the other way round. No one but candidate Y benefited from the Tippex. And yet, and yet... the Police have refused to investigate until there is evidence of a crime. And of course to GET evidence of the crime you'd have to get a court order and investigate. Hmmm.<br /><br />This Tippex problem, along with stolen ballots, wrongly applied for ballots, threatening behaviour on the doorstep happens everywhere, but nobody is doing anything to stop it.Disappointed of Greater Manchesternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-21957958924547405482010-05-18T03:35:12.113-07:002010-05-18T03:35:12.113-07:00The hung electionThe hung electionSimon Jefferynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-48091639519343784592010-05-17T09:40:04.629-07:002010-05-17T09:40:04.629-07:00The Big(ot) Society Election.The Big(ot) Society Election.Peter Allennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-91272121709235121112010-05-17T05:41:10.943-07:002010-05-17T05:41:10.943-07:00Just a quick point.
While you are technically rig...Just a quick point.<br /><br />While you are technically right that 'the party more than doubled their number of votes' it is worth making clear that this is only because they more than doubled the number of candidates they fielded (and the number deposits they lost!)<br /><br />Meanwhile their percentage of the vote was actually down.<br /><br />I'm not sure if this is down to the innate decency of the GBP or to the good work done by anti-fascist campaigners as diverse as UAF and Eric Pickles, but either way it is very encouraging.<br /><br />BTW, any thoughts on the best way to remove the BNP from the European Parliament in a few years time?<br /><br />Does it make sense to camapign for the party which they just pipped to the post (Green in my region) or what?<br /><br />I would be very grateful to hear your thoughts on the subject!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-77510169770059458632010-05-15T05:42:53.745-07:002010-05-15T05:42:53.745-07:00Given we are talking pretty significant constituti...Given we are talking pretty significant constitutional change should we not have a referendum?<br /><br />We're in danger of getting ourselves into a real constitutional pickle.<br /><br />Is it our 'unwritten constitution' that says a simple majority can trigger an election? Or that Parliaments should be for five years? Or that a PM can call an election anytime? Or is it a 'custom'?<br /><br />Whatever it is: this new proposed arrangement sets a dangerous precedent. It uses Parliament's ultimate power never to bind itself to set up some new rules which suit the two Coalition partners. Ergo any new incoming Government, with a majority, has carte blanche to rewrite the rules. Why not 6 years? Or 8 years? Why not 90%? Or 99%?<br /><br />I state the extreme to highlight the principle at stake.<br /><br />We all knew where we stood for 100's of years under the old 'rules'. Some new rules are being created - on the hoof - by the people who happen to be in power today. Which starts to feel a bit like third world politics.<br /><br />A solution would be to go for a fully written Constitution - and enshrine this as the 'rules' for the future. Not drawn up by the current winners - but by all - and voted on by all in a Referendum.<br /><br />By jettisoning our old principles - two unrepresentative parties have cobbled together a neat stitch-up in a matter of days - and set in train a dangerous precedent.<br /><br />It feels to me like our Constitution is becoming neither fish nor fowl. And the role of the Queen indeed is very much in question.<br /><br />I'm surprised there is not more concern about this jiggering around on such a fundamental issue as how we can appoint and dismiss our representatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-17121680691966137232010-05-15T05:09:24.717-07:002010-05-15T05:09:24.717-07:00Thanks for the comments. Cees is (of course) right...Thanks for the comments. Cees is (of course) right (my fault from writing the piece too quickly) -- but the point about Scotland/Wales/London is right, and another reason why four years would be better. I loved the comment about things that a Brunel alumnus should (and did!) know, but just because parliaments can be 5 years is no reason why they should be... <br /><br />And you do, of course, need some safety valve (as in Scotland). My main point is that this is an idea worth considering and debating - even if some of the details might need amendment. No problem with those who don't like it, but I struggle to understand the violent objections from those who favoured fixed-term parliaments (as the Labour manifesto did) and yet who see this as a democratic outrage...Phil Cowleyhttp://electionblog2010.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-54702726870961854502010-05-15T00:28:03.661-07:002010-05-15T00:28:03.661-07:00Minor correction: the European Parliament election...Minor correction: the European Parliament elections are not on a 4-year but on a 5-year cycle, the most recent were in June 2009, the next will be in June 2014.Cees van der Eijknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-31402008933591772142010-05-14T20:39:45.475-07:002010-05-14T20:39:45.475-07:00Hello there, just dropping by. Anyway you have a v...Hello there, just dropping by. Anyway you have a very informative posts.<br /><br />Would you like to exchange links?<br /><br />Please comment on any post on my link to notify me if you agree. thanks!Rockyhttp://bloghob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-52582482987097284112010-05-14T10:47:59.925-07:002010-05-14T10:47:59.925-07:00The 55% dissolution suggestion is fine as long as ...The 55% dissolution suggestion is fine as long as their is a deadlock clause that allows parliament a fixed amount of time - 28 days in the case of the Scottish Parliament - to agree a government that commands the confidence of the house. If that is not forthcoming then parliament should be dissolved automatically. <br /><br />In fact some may argue for more than 55% because on current arithmetic the coalition could conceivably call an early poll should conditions prove favourable. AV and an electoral pact on second preferences? Now what would that do to the make up of parliament? Of course I cannot foresee the circumstances under which that could of course occur.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-26108439534866871942010-05-14T07:43:31.158-07:002010-05-14T07:43:31.158-07:00Personally, I'd have gone for 4-year fixed ter...Personally, I'd have gone for 4-year fixed terms and a 66% threshold for early dissolution, but I don't these are sticking points.<br /><br />A for party disclipline, it is healthy for democracy for the government to lose votes from time to time, so long as they are not 'confidence and supply' issues.Nigel Ashtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-73322101672884584672010-05-14T05:29:44.879-07:002010-05-14T05:29:44.879-07:00Pretty much what I've been saying and I agree ...Pretty much what I've been saying and I agree with the questions you've raised, apart from the consulting the Queen bit of course. With no legitimacy she has no right to be consulted, despite what our constitution doesn't say.GBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-74157914294144555672010-05-14T04:58:59.420-07:002010-05-14T04:58:59.420-07:001. Agreed, it should be 4 years.
2. Agreed, shoul...1. Agreed, it should be 4 years.<br /><br />2. Agreed, should be a larger hurdle. My thought is it could be relative, perhaps the seats of the governing party(s) + 5% ???<br /><br />3. I think this will rely on the differences between 'motions' and 'bills'. Motions are much more instantaneous, compared to bills that need 3 readings in both Houses. Repealing the relevant act would require a bill rather than a motion, so would be much more difficult and time-consuming. Would the Lords let this happen, for instance? Wouldn't the government be subjected to no confidence motions?<br /><br />4. I guess the Queen could block Royal Assent if she wanted to keep this power in the Monarch's hands... now that would be something!<br /><br />5. Sounds like a reasonable assessment... and a positive thing if it reduces the power of the whip IMO.Duncan Stotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-51322445079174779952010-05-14T04:39:09.845-07:002010-05-14T04:39:09.845-07:00The 5 years is very simple to explain, its the pre...The 5 years is very simple to explain, its the present maximum length of a Parliament. You would have thought a G-P-MH boy fom Brunel would know that.....Michael Greenhttp://www.clarkeonenil.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-86592709473584218422010-05-14T04:39:09.846-07:002010-05-14T04:39:09.846-07:00Another point is that the existing system puts som...Another point is that the existing system puts some measure of responsibility on to the opposition - defeating the government in a vote of confidence will likely force an election for which they themselves may not be prepared. But this way they could discredit the government without themselves being prepared either to take over or to face the elctoral consequences. You say that "If no alternative could be found, then parties would come together to trigger the 55% dissolution requirement and an election would be held." But this is predicated on the idea that they would necessarily behave reasonably - what if the parties refuse to come together? <br /><br />Richard ToyeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-66549746199988023642010-05-14T04:29:45.715-07:002010-05-14T04:29:45.715-07:00Hello Phil,
Thanks for the post. It does raise ma...Hello Phil,<br /><br />Thanks for the post. It does raise many interesting questions and there are all sorts of potential issues that will only be worked out when we see the detail. <br /><br />I'm in favour of fixed term parliaments (of four years), but as I posted on Twitter yesterday, the biggest political problem with the proposal, and the reason why there is so much disquiet, is its jettisoning of the established convention that there is a link between a 51% vote of no confidence and the dissolution of Parliament. <br /><br />Of course, as with all things in the British constitution, conventions are there to be broken, as they were in 1924 when Labour placed a no confidence amendment to the King's Speech, leading Baldwin to stand down and MacDonald to take over with a minority government without the holding of a general election. That was slightly different from the normal no confidence scenario, though, because it was essentially about resolving the outcome of the December 1923 general election, held a few weeks earlier. But the overall point is that many, many generations of politicians have had it in their bloodstream that a lost vote of confidence = dissolution = an election.<br /><br />Though it's open to abuse by the executive, there's a certain democratic purity to the opposition being able to trigger an election on a simple majority basis in a no confidence vote, even in a fixed-term parliament system. These are all old arguments, I know, but they bear being restated.<br /><br />Deciding who benefits most, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems, from this constitutional "lock-in" much depends on who you read. But it seems certain that there's one group that will not benefit from the new rule at least in the medium term: the opposition. In this current context, the 55% proposal therefore has a whiff of naked self-interest about it.<br /><br />Finally, as you say, this will be introduced by statute. In the absence of a written constitution with proper mechanisms for legitimising important constitutional changes like this, it sets the precedent that future hung parliaments will be able to legislate different thresholds depending on the specific balance of power between coalition partners at the time. <br /><br />Better to establish constitutional rules as openly and as legitimately as possible, then let parties interact in the new environment, as has occurred in Scotland and Wales, where there were huge new constitutional settlements ratified by referendums. The 55% proposal gets it the wrong way round: it takes the current parties' balance of power and establishes a new constitutional rule based upon this.<br /><br />There's an interesting post comparing the proposal with the Scottish context here: <br /><br />http://www.headoflegal.com/2010/05/13/more-on-55/Andrew Chadwickhttp://www.andrewchadwick.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-42677282889644625572010-05-13T01:56:42.198-07:002010-05-13T01:56:42.198-07:00Reply to some of the comments
Thanks to all who ...Reply to some of the comments <br /><br />Thanks to all who have commented.<br /><br />Delbert Wilkins comment is spot on: one of the key questions is how we want to be represented. The basic choice here is between on the one hand representation of localities and, on the other of party preferences as they exist in the country as a whole. Local representation in its extreme form requires single member constituencies. Representation of party preferences in the country leads to PR with the entire country acting as a single constituency (as exists in, e.g., the Netherlands and Israel). But there are many options in between these two extremes, which either involve mult-member constituencies, or some form of mixed representation. I will discuss these in a separate blog post. The question which of these options is actually preferred by most people can only be answered by surveys (or referendums). <br /><br />Peter Conlon suggests some criteria that should be realised by an electoral system. These are sensible, but there are many more that one can think of (see for more extensive discussion of all such kinds of criteria Colomer, Josep M. (2004). Handbook of Electoral System Choice. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan; and <br />Farrell, David M. (2001). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.) Maybe a topic for another blog post, later (just as Anonymous' request for a simple explanation of Arrow's paradox).<br /><br />Russell Heiling's suggestion to eliminate candidates in AV not on numbers of smallest number of 1st preferences but on highest mean ranking is excellent and would solve some of the problems of the more common form of AV. Of course, it does make a strong assumption, namely that the ranks of preferences are the same as the strengths of those preferences, as it would not make sense otherwise to calculate a mean. As an example: if strength of preference (referred to by economists as 'utility') could be measured on a scale of, say, 0 to 10, then 3 voters could have the following preferences :<br />Chris: 100, Harriet: 69, William: 68<br />Chris: 100, Harriet: 0, William: 70<br />Chris: 100, Harriet: 3, William: 0.<br />Who is least preferred? Russell would suggest William, as he ranks 3, 2, 3, while Harriet ranks 2, 3 and 2. Yet, in terms of strengths of preferences William (average 46) is clearly preferred over Harriet (averages 23). <br />This example is not meant to belittle Russell's creative suggestion, but to highlight its implicit assumptions.<br /><br />Anonymous' comment on tactical voting is another insightful one. Yet, AV is not immune aginst tactical voting (albeit under different circumstances than sketched in this comment).<br /><br />Thanks to all! Without doubt we'll see more posts on electoral reform inthe future.Cees van der Eijknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-39599115228102915852010-05-12T17:38:32.802-07:002010-05-12T17:38:32.802-07:00There is also French (cough! cough!) ballotage sys...There is also French (cough! cough!) ballotage system. If any candidate get more than 50%, the first two candidates face each other again. With just two candidates, the winner will always have more than 50%.<br /><br />In order to avoid two elections, the AV option could work as a "ballotage", instead of eliminating the last, eliminate all but the first two.<br /><br />P.S.: Don't forget that what matters in the first count is the main vote. What really matter in your example is that 75% didn't want Chris as their first option.Sanchonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-84325081177459330022010-05-11T16:24:15.988-07:002010-05-11T16:24:15.988-07:00As Lloyd George said: There is nothing more danger...As Lloyd George said: There is nothing more dangerous than to leap a chasm in two jumpscorporealnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-51359914002585027722010-05-11T15:12:39.487-07:002010-05-11T15:12:39.487-07:00You mention the advantage of AV that it ensures th...You mention the advantage of AV that it ensures the elected candidate has some support of over 50% of the electorate, and (I think rightly) state that it's a goal that few are worried about.<br /><br />However the other problem it goes a long way to address is that of the need for tactical voting*. Let's take as an example of real political parties, and assume that we can rank them from left to right as Green, Labour, Lib Dems, Conservative, UKIP, BNP. Assuming a constituency that is viewed to be a Labour/Conservative battleground, then tactical voting would call for Greens to fall in behind Labour and BNP/UKIP supporters to vote Conservatives, with Lib Dems individually deciding whether they'd rather nudge a bit to the left or to the right. Under AV, Greens can vote Greens 1, Labour 2, Lib Dem 3; BNP supporters can vote BNP 1, UKIP 2, Conservative 3... and so on - each voter can honestly express their preference, with a reasonable expectation that their vote will end up helping someone they favour over someone they don't.<br /><br />* I appreciate that AV doesn't completely prevent tactical voting, but it does help a lot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com