economic situation is dire

[Awol]

Haven't the overwhelming majority of voters at the recent referendum just flicked the collectve V's at that suggestion?

No - only the ignorant would make that assumption linking the AV Plus vote with that of an endorsement or rejection or PR.

Oooh, Matron.

[VILLAFC2000]

Yep, the boundary changes make sense. No reason that some constituencies should be bigger than others. Not sure why anyone would disagree with that?

Make sense for who thats the question...! Couple of questions:-

Who would bennifit and who would not?

How would it be fair when

10 million people voted Torie and they had 306 seats

7 million people voted Lib Dem and got 57 seats.

We need a voting system that is proportionality fairer.

The Tories know the only way they can win an election to to draw up new boundaries that benefit them. Its nothing to do with it being fair, better ect ect.

Yes a more proportional representation is a whole different discussion. I think it is the only system that makes real democratic sense but that is just my opinion.

In that post I was talking about the boundary changes under the current system. They are being corrected so each MP has roughly the same number of people under them.

That seems profoundly logical to me and I can't really understand why people would object to that.

Do you think that the Tories are doing this for fairness or do you think they are doing this in order to shift the goal posts as they cant win a general election atm....?

[snowychap]

Why would you say that?

It would appear that the new proposals have constituencies that cross county or unitary authority boundaries (electoral review), for example.

I'm not sure whether that has happened much before or whether it is quite normal for constituency boundaries but it doesn't appear sensible.

What is the point of a constituency would be the first question that I would look at asking.

Is it just to represent 76,641 people?

[LondonLax]

I'm guessing the Tories would see the current borders as having a built in bias against them and they probably feel they have justification in evening them up again.

The current borders probably would have started off being even when they were first drawn but population shifts over time have meant that some seats have fewer people voting in an MP than others hence giving them a more important vote and a bigger representation in parliament.

Overall I think PR is the best system. MPs matching up with the proportion of people who voted for that party, less people feeling disenfranchised if they support a smaller party. However for it to work you either have to have lots more MPs or MPs representing much larger geographical areas then the current system.

[snowychap]

I'm guessing the Tories would see the current borders as having a built in bias against them and they probably feel they have justification in evening them up again.

I couldn't give a shit what any political party feels about bias & so on and neither should the boundaries commission.

The current borders probably would have started off being even when they were first drawn but population shifts over time have meant that some seats have fewer people voting in an MP than others hence giving them a more important vote and a bigger representation in parliament.

I'm not sure that's the case. This is the country of rubber buttons, after all. :winkold:

Overall I think PR is the best system. MPs matching up with the proportion of people who voted for that party, less people feeling disenfranchised if they support a smaller party. However for it to work you either have to have lots more MPs or MPs representing much larger geographical areas then the current system.

Indeed. But if governments are going to blurt on about some nonsense like having a 5% deviation from the average constituency size and as a result have towns split down the centre and hived off to other constituencies on the basis of 'evening things out' then why not go the whole hog?

[peterms]

Of course, there is the argument that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

I agree.

I'm compiling a list.

[LondonLax]

I'm guessing the Tories would see the current borders as having a built in bias against them and they probably feel they have justification in evening them up again.

I couldn't give a shit what any political party feels about bias & so on and neither should the boundaries commission.

Yeah, that first paragraph was more directed at VILLAFC2000 who was questioning the Tory parties motivation for the change.

[peterms]

The Cabinet Office white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."

Spot ... on.

Where's the problem, Peter?

Seriously?

The act of voting is a matter of personal choice.

When a political party, temporarily in charge of the state, introduces measures designed to drive people off the register and thereby secure themselves a majority, that's a level of political corruption that calls for civil disobedience at least.

On a more theoretical plane, if we wish to revive politics from the death grip our venal and corrupt legislators seem to have it in, then we must rejuvenate the idea that we must all have a say in what happens. Leaving it to these spotty wonks, banking interns and Selfridges sweater-folders isn't good enough. Driving people off the register is the tactic of a particularly corrupt 1950s Deep South state, not an act to be defended by anyone who gives a thought about democracy.

[snowychap]

Of course, there is the argument that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

I agree.

I'm compiling a list.

Shame the dispossessed won't be able to read it.

[snowychap]

Seriously?

The act of voting is a matter of personal choice.

When a political party, temporarily in charge of the state, introduces measures designed to drive people off the register and thereby secure themselves a majority, that's a level of political corruption that calls for civil disobedience at least.

Yes, seriously.

What are the measures 'designed to drive people off the register'?

Making it not compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers?

Who are these electoral registration officers with whom we are apparently compelled to comply at the moment? Are they off duty census compliance enforcers?

I'm sorry but it is not my 'individual duty' to register to vote at the moment and long may that continue.

The state ought to have no power to compel me (or anyone else) to just sign up for anything on the basis of being.

[peterms]

Seriously?

The act of voting is a matter of personal choice.

When a political party, temporarily in charge of the state, introduces measures designed to drive people off the register and thereby secure themselves a majority, that's a level of political corruption that calls for civil disobedience at least.

Yes, seriously.

What are the measures 'designed to drive people off the register'?

Making it not compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers?

Who are these electoral registration officers with whom we are apparently compelled to comply at the moment? Are they off duty census compliance enforcers?

I'm sorry but it is not my 'individual duty' to register to vote at the moment and long may that continue.

The state ought to have no power to compel me (or anyone else) to just sign up for anything on the basis of being.

The measures are changing to make people do more than just fill in a form to be able to vote. Changing from requiring them to do so, to making it possible for them to do so, if they don't mind being nabbed for jury duty and subject to credit card checks along the way.

It's placing impediments in the way of registration, which will benefit the Tories. They have clearly learnt from the Poll Tax adventure.

The main problem with politics at the moment is non-engagement. This proposal makes that worse. More than that, it cynically plays on it for party political advantage.

[snowychap]

The measures are changing to make people do more than just fill in a form to be able to vote. Changing from requiring them to do so, to making it possible for them to do so, if they don't mind being nabbed for jury duty and subject to credit card checks along the way.

What the hell are you on about?

Are you suggesting that it should be compulsory to be on the electoral register?

Are you suggesting that it is already?

It's placing impediments in the way of registration, which will benefit the Tories. They have clearly learnt from the Poll Tax adventure.

What impediments?

The main problem with politics at the moment is non-engagement. This proposal makes that worse. More than that, it cynically plays on it for party political advantage.

Perhaps and wow, shit, of course.

Going back to the start of the post, what's your problem, Peter?

[VILLAFC2000]

I'm guessing the Tories would see the current borders as having a built in bias against them and they probably feel they have justification in evening them up again.

I couldn't give a shit what any political party feels about bias & so on and neither should the boundaries commission.

Yeah, that first paragraph was more directed at VILLAFC2000 who was questioning the Tory parties motivation for the change.

Relax - no need to swear...!

As I said before

10 million votes = 307 seats for Tories

7 Million votes = 57 seat for Libe dems

Hardly a proportional representational system is it. Do you here Cameron moaning about this saying its unfair for the Lib Dems, I dont think so. How can you complain about one system that is not fair and then completely overlook one of the biggest injustice systems when it comes to voting.

ANSWER = Because this has nothing to do with fairness, making things better or change its to do with what benefits the Tories and how they get back into a majority, thats the true agenda.

[LondonLax]

I didn't swear, I think you mixed me up with Snowychap there.

Anyway, yes I agree it benefits the Tories most of all but I think unfortunately they are justified with it. IF you are going to keep the current voting system then each MP should represent a similar number of people, you shouldn’t have a privileged smaller group with their own MP and then other larger groups who still only have one MP representing them.

What you are arguing for in your posts is a change to PR and I'd agree with you on that.

[peterms]

Going back to the start of the post, what's your problem, Peter?

Snowy, the problem is that people are becoming ever more disengaged from the political process. It's been happening for a long time, and things like the expenses scandal just make it worse, and feeds the general disillusionment.

I would rather see a properly functioning political system, and that means something which involves and engages with as many people as possible. Part of that means making it easier, not harder, to take part.

We saw with the Poll Tax that some people would slide off the register if they saw disadvantages in being on it. These proposals will also end up with less people on the register, according to the Electoral Commission.

Of course there's a party angle to it as well, with the strong likelihood that tories will benefit, but the general point about disengagement with the political system is a big problem as well.

[Awol]

On the surface the PR argument makes sense in terms of 'fairness'. Where I'm still to see a convincing argument is how this would be managed without breaking the constituency link between voters - MP's - Westminster?

If most are agreed that politicos are further apart than ever from the people they represent, how does removing an MP from even notionally accountability to a constituency electorate improve that situation?

[Genie]

I think this thread has strayed way off where it should be. As much fun as the current cock showing competition is I think its a shame an interesting topic has decended into the usual political party bun fight.

[snowychap]

Snowy, the problem is that people are becoming ever more disengaged from the political process. It's been happening for a long time, and things like the expenses scandal just make it worse, and feeds the general disillusionment.

I would rather see a properly functioning political system, and that means something which involves and engages with as many people as possible. Part of that means making it easier, not harder, to take part.

...

There's a good deal of difference between making it easier not to take part and making it harder to take part.

Again, are you suggesting that it should be compulsory for individuals to register themselves on the electoral roll (with the threat, firstly, of fines for not doing so, no doubt)?

[peterms]

On the surface the PR argument makes sense in terms of 'fairness'. Where I'm still to see a convincing argument is how this would be managed without breaking the constituency link between voters - MP's - Westminster?

If most are agreed that politicos are further apart than ever from the people they represent, how does removing an MP from even notionally accountability to a constituency electorate improve that situation?

In Scotland, there's an odd combination of systems. Westminster elections are FPTP, obviously. For MSPs, there's a combination of constituencies, and a list system, so that some MSPs have a constituency and some instead are representing a region - people have a vote for each. That means that eg the Greens get some seats, which they wouldn't under FPTP.

Local elections are PR, so that in a typical three-seat ward each party will only stand one candidate so as not to split the vote - so you end up with three different parties having a councillor in each ward. Last time, that ended up with almost every council with no single party control.

It's a bit confusing for people having different voting systems, especially when there's more than one type of election on the same day. It feels like a step towards something which is more representative, but still a bit of a muddle.

[peterms]

Again, are you suggesting that it should be compulsory for individuals to register themselves on the electoral roll (with the threat, firstly, of fines for not doing so, no doubt)?

I'm undecided, as between making it as simple as possible with no link to perceived disadvantages like jury service, and making it compulsory.

Might also be interesting to hear more about the Scandinavian system of population registration, mentioned below the line in the Guardian article:

Speaking as a Scandinavian living in the UK, I think the UK's whole approach to many things is backward, clumsy and open to fraud. This includes your electoral registration system. In Sweden and FInland, the process that you have to conduct censuses, actively go out and make people register to vote, take 2 electricity bills to prove your address when you want to open a bank account etc would be considered an anathema. The UK needs to introduce a well-managed, sensible population registration system. In the Nordic countries, this means censuses are unnecessary as the population register is kept up to date. Voter lists are generated using it, it provides a source of checking people's identity for bank accounts, contracts etc. Yet, in the UK such an idea is bizarrely considered a violation of people's privacy. (Although weirdly it's fine to have CCTV cameras on every corner, unthinkable in Sweden). Why is this? Surely your tax authorities, NHS etc already maintain registers of people with NI numbers or NHS numbers, which is essentially the entire population. So, what would be the difference made in having a proper civil registration system.

NB Note, this is not the same as calling for ID cards for everyone. Neither Sweden nor Finland have compulsory ID cards despite having population registration systems.