First off, here's a link to the Guardian article explaining the differences between the current and proposed voting systems. I'm now going to explain them all again, in my own words, in the hope that doing so will grant me a firmer understanding and maybe even help me decide which I prefer.
Come May, we're going to have a referendum on how we elect members of parliament in this country. Our current system is known as First Past The Post. In this system every citizen chooses one candidate they prefer in their own constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes becomes their representative and gets that seat in parliament. By convention whichever party wins over half the seats (currently 650) becomes the winning party and their leader becomes Prime Minister. Or, like we have at the moment, no party gains the necessary 326 seats so two parties from opposite sides of the political spectrum form a coalition and nobody is happy with the result.
So if there's four parties running, and the vote is split
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
then A wins the seat and nearly three quarters of the population get a candidate they didn't want.
I know I'd prefer some sort of AV system, I just don't know which one yet.
In its simplest form, Alternative Voting means rather than choosing one candidate you prefer, you rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate is ranked first by at least fifty percent of the people, the candidate with the least first preference votes is eliminated and the ballots for them are split across the survivors according to second preference. Still no fifty percent? Eliminate the least popular candidate and split their votes again amongst the survivors by second (or, if necessary, third) preference. Keep going until we have a winner.
So let's try those numbers from before again.
A: 28%
B: 25%
C: 24%
D: 23%
No winner here, so we eliminate D and split their votes. Let's assume A is very Right wing, B is moderate Right, C is moderate Left and D is very Left. Most of the second place votes from D will go to C. New figures look like this:
A: 31%
B: 32%
C: 37%
Oh how the tables have turned. The far left candidate has been removed but at least they won't be stuck with a far right representative. Still no winner so lets remove the A from the equation, with most of their votes going to B.
B: 57%
C: 43%
Big Winner! The moderate Right Wing candidate from the B Party takes the seat. B's popularity increased by 7% when D got eliminated and by a further 25% when A dropped out, while C's popularity went up by 13% then 6%.
Perhaps all 24% of C's first choice voters really hated that B guy and put him last place on their ballots. Even in this extreme case only 30% of the voters ended up with the candidate they least wanted. I know politics isn't a straight line from right to left, but it's still more likely that moderate left wingers would prefer a moderate right wing candidate to a far right one, perhaps also to the far left wing choice.
So that's Alternative Voting, but what about AV+?
One issue with AV is that it's not proportional. That is to say, if 5% of people across the whole country want to vote for the Green Party then shouldn't 5% of the house of commons be made up of members of the Green Party? Well, yes, I can see why that makes sense but at the same time no. People don't just vote for a candidate because of his or her party's politics, but also because of their own personal politics. It might be that Simon Wright of Norwich South is a member of the Liberal Democrats, but he opposes the party view on the issue of the Student Loans cap. Voters who want Simon Wright in and not just any Liberal Democrat should have the right to elect him, not whomever the party chooses.
This is where AV+ comes in. It works just like AV as described above, but we all get a second vote, for a party, not for any individual. This second vote is added up country wide and each party gets a few extra seats in parliament, based on the percentage of this national vote they won. Prefer Simon Wright to Charles Clarke but Labour to Lib Dem? AV+ has you covered.
Well this seems fairer than First Past The Post. I'm not sure though, will the Bonus MPs be voted for by name, or chosen by the winning party? I'm not too keen on anyone getting into the House of Commons without the general public wanting them - specifically them - there. There's complaints that this will cause two types of MP, though I'm not sure that's such an issue. The vast majority of MP's primary focus will be representing the people of their own constituency, with a small minority devoted to more national concerns.
Another change AV+ could bring is greater power to smaller parties, the ability to win votes even without candidates. Welshmen living in England could still throw their support behind Plaid Cymru, for example. I'm taking all the following figures from Wikipedia: The BNP ran candidates in just over half the consituencies in the last general election. None of them got elected, thankfully, but they did get nearly 2% of the total votes. On the flawed assumption that their popularity is just as strong across the whole country, 4%(ish) could be enough to win them one of the bonus seats.
I might be wrong, you might only be able to vote for a party who ran a candidate in your constituency. Even in that case, the UK Independance Party got 3% of the votes without any candidates elected. The Green party won their first seat but got 1% of the vote, so in an entirely proportional system with 650 seats they're owed five more MPs. The Liberal Democrats actually got 23% of the votes winning only 9% of the seats, while the Conservative Party got 36% of the votes but just shy of half the seats. The proportional element of AV+ would grant voices to these smaller parties and as much as I dislike the BNP and as much as I disagree with the Greens on some points, I do think this is a fairer version of democracy.
Which brings us at last to the Single Transferable Vote.
Under this system each constituency can now support more than one MP, the number depending upon the population of the constituency. You rank your MPs by order of preference, just like in AV. To win one of the seats available, a candidate must gain a certain number of votes (one more than the number of votes cast divided by (seats available + 1), so with 50,000 votes cast and three seats available, a candidate would need (50,000 / 4) + 1 = 12,501 votes to get a seat. Once a candidate has that magic number, any excessive first choice votes would go to that voter's second choice. All the while the least popular candidate is having their votes divided between the more successful ones, AV style.
What I'm not sure about is how you determine which votes count towards the candidate, and which are considered Excessive. Let's say the first 12,501 voters for candidate A put candidate B as their second choice, but every A voter from then on had candidate C as their second preference, does C get all the excess votes? Maybe we just take a random selection from the A pile until it's down to just 12,501. Ireland and Malta, apparently, use variants on the Random system. There's a 'Gregory method' where the excess is transfered over as fractions of votes, but these systems need computers to count and cannot feasibly be done by hand.
Single Transferable can be even more proportional than AV+ while allowing voters to still choose individual candidates, rather than parties, but will mean either fewer, larger constituencies or a much greater number of MPs and a radical overhaul of how votes are physically made and counted.
So I can see the advantages and disadvantages of AV+ and of STV. I still can't decide between them but I'm swaying in favour of STV. I'm not sure that matters for a while though, as the May referendum seems to be simply FPTP vs AV, with none of this Plus or Single Transferable stuff getting in the way, and I know where I stand on FPTP vs AV.
Vote Yes to the Alternative Vote.
--
In a twitter conversation I've been having while writing this, @justinpickard mentioned the possibility of abolishing the House of Lords (not outright. He's a clever chap and put more thought into it than that). I do have some issues with the House of Lords. The Hereditary peerages and the Lords Spiritual are two things I dislike. Actually, I wasn't keen on any of them avoiding popular election, but as @newsmary pointed out, some of them are there on the merit of knowing or doing useful things, rather than because they smile nicely on camera and know which promises to break without upsetting too many people. It's become pretty clear to me that I really don't know enough about the House of Lords to make any sort of informed comment, so I think I'm going to read up on that next and then tell you all about how the Lords works. Maye that's a better use for this blog: an excuse to learn about politics rather than these occasional polemics against religion's influence on society. Don't pretend you hadn't noticed that trend forming.
We're going to need a new title.
Saturday 19 February 2011
Tuesday 15 February 2011
Lessons in Hate and Violence
"We should be just as concerned about the treatment of Muslim children as we are about white children." - Ann Cryer, Keighley MP 1997-2010.
The mixing of religion and ethnicity there is one of the things winding me up about this programme I'm watching. In a documentary about faith schools, that statement carries an implication that White Children are synonymous with Christian children. That's the side of the mix up that irritates me. I'm white and I'm quite definitely not Christian. It's the other side that actually scares me, that Arabic and Middle-Eastern children are essentially Muslim. With support growing for xenophobic institutions like the EDL and the BNP, with our own prime minister announcing multiculturalism has failed, this is the worst time to be judging people based on appearance.
Oh Dispatches, you are raising such an important point, why must you tackle it so badly? I'm watching "Lessons in Hate and Violence", detailing their undercover investigations into Islamic faith schools in the UK and I am infuriated by the leading questions asked by the presenter. Questions like "Some of the teachings we've shown you, do you think they could be described as 'Hate Teachings'" asked to a teacher at the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford. I really feel like it weakens Dispatches' argument, rather than strengthening it. The evidence of malpractice, intolerance and abuse is all there on the secretly filmed tapes, plain as day. Why even bother interviewing people if you're going to put words in their mouths like that? It suggests a lack of faith in the strength of the material where it really shouldn't.
I'm being a little harsh, I know. It's actually quite a good documentary about an important subject with some horrible footage that needed to be shown but it's these little things here and there that distract me from the main point, that these unregulated or poorly regulated schools and madrassa are teaching messages of hate, are abusing the children while they do it and are getting away with it.
I'm a secularist. I believe religion is personal and religious institutions should not have an influence on today's society. I don't think we need a God to teach us ethics or to bring us together. One of the many things I dislike about Cameron's proposed Big Society is the increased emphasis on community run schools because a lot of them will be faith schools allowed to choose their own curriculum and discriminate against non-religious or differently-religious staff when hiring. It's not that I think the schools featured in "Lessons in Hate and Violence" are representative of all muslim faith schools or of faith schools in general. I don't like the idea that children are being taught not to think for themselves and that there exists authority that should not be questioned.
Honestly, I think education is one aspect of government that cannot be delegated to local councils and communities and certainly not to agenda driven religious or political groups. Education is far too important not to be regulated nationally. Though thinking about it, I'd like most aspects of government to be regulated nationally. I like big government. But education most of all.
There's a quote from The West Wing I'm going to end on. I was hoping to find it on YouTube but you'll have to read it instead.
"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet. "
The mixing of religion and ethnicity there is one of the things winding me up about this programme I'm watching. In a documentary about faith schools, that statement carries an implication that White Children are synonymous with Christian children. That's the side of the mix up that irritates me. I'm white and I'm quite definitely not Christian. It's the other side that actually scares me, that Arabic and Middle-Eastern children are essentially Muslim. With support growing for xenophobic institutions like the EDL and the BNP, with our own prime minister announcing multiculturalism has failed, this is the worst time to be judging people based on appearance.
Oh Dispatches, you are raising such an important point, why must you tackle it so badly? I'm watching "Lessons in Hate and Violence", detailing their undercover investigations into Islamic faith schools in the UK and I am infuriated by the leading questions asked by the presenter. Questions like "Some of the teachings we've shown you, do you think they could be described as 'Hate Teachings'" asked to a teacher at the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford. I really feel like it weakens Dispatches' argument, rather than strengthening it. The evidence of malpractice, intolerance and abuse is all there on the secretly filmed tapes, plain as day. Why even bother interviewing people if you're going to put words in their mouths like that? It suggests a lack of faith in the strength of the material where it really shouldn't.
I'm being a little harsh, I know. It's actually quite a good documentary about an important subject with some horrible footage that needed to be shown but it's these little things here and there that distract me from the main point, that these unregulated or poorly regulated schools and madrassa are teaching messages of hate, are abusing the children while they do it and are getting away with it.
I'm a secularist. I believe religion is personal and religious institutions should not have an influence on today's society. I don't think we need a God to teach us ethics or to bring us together. One of the many things I dislike about Cameron's proposed Big Society is the increased emphasis on community run schools because a lot of them will be faith schools allowed to choose their own curriculum and discriminate against non-religious or differently-religious staff when hiring. It's not that I think the schools featured in "Lessons in Hate and Violence" are representative of all muslim faith schools or of faith schools in general. I don't like the idea that children are being taught not to think for themselves and that there exists authority that should not be questioned.
Honestly, I think education is one aspect of government that cannot be delegated to local councils and communities and certainly not to agenda driven religious or political groups. Education is far too important not to be regulated nationally. Though thinking about it, I'd like most aspects of government to be regulated nationally. I like big government. But education most of all.
There's a quote from The West Wing I'm going to end on. I was hoping to find it on YouTube but you'll have to read it instead.
"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet. "
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Equal Love
This morning the European Court of Human Rights heard an application to end the bans on Gay Marriage and Heterosexual Civil Partnerships in the UK. I have never quite understood the argument against Gay Marriage. I think it's got something to do with gay love not being as pure as heterolove, right? Those gays would get it all wrong and corrupt our precious institution. Except that doesn't sound true at all. In fact it sounds kind of insulting. I guess it's to do with parenthood and child raising then. Maybe there needs to be a separation between Marriage and Partnerships since it's illegal in Europe to have children outside of wedloc- No, wait, wrong again. Maybe it's because the bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, though I highly doubt that in a secular society like Great Britain's the law would choose religion over human rights.
I just don't see it. Personally I find the term marriage to be full of religious connotations and I'd rather have Civil Partnership or Civil Union be the only legal term for these two identical situations. Christians and others could still hold big church weddings and declare themselves married, but that would all be flavour, not law. I suspect most people would still favour the term Marriage.
I wanted to look up non-religious arguments against gay marriage so I turned to wikipedia, where facts are laid out straight and bias is non-existant but the page for LGBT Rights Opposition has very little to say about the non-religious kind. A statement that some undefined people don't think children should be exposed to LGBT issues and some data suggesting that LGBT persons on average suffer from poorer mental health than their hetero neighbours, likely because those neighbours bullied and harrassed them. Okay, that first bit is crap possibly with religious motivation and that second bit is believable but the bullying only occurs because the LGBT community are treated in the eyes of the law as well as public opinion as different, as proved by having a seperate Civil Union law for them. Lets change those laws, gradually public opinion will follow and eventually everything will get better for everyone forever.
I am ignoring the religious arguments because religion should not influence the law, not on a rights issue like this, but lets say the law is changed, does that mean Churches should have to officiate gay weddings? This is where I start having to question my beliefs. I don't think governments have the right to tell people what to think. How to act maybe, but our thoughts, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and faiths are the core of who we are and should not be changed by force even when they make us hateful Fred Phelps style homophobes, twisting a message of goodwill for our own disgusting agendas.
I have to look at the recent court decision against the christian B&B owners Hazelmary and Peter Bull, who turned a couple away after discovering they were gay. They were found guilty of discrimination and I agree with the court's decision. The Bull's beliefs shouldn't be weighed too heavily in this case, it's their actions that are important here but is refusing to officiate a wedding the same as refusing to provide accommodation?
Marriage with all it's rituals, rights and rites has long been considered a large part of religion's role in society. I've not read it cover to cover but I don't think the bible has much to say on owning a Bed and Breakfast. Christian Innkeepers, yes - they should all keep a small stable out back just in case - but nothing on B&Bs. Asking to rent a room for the night does not and should not compromise anyone's religious values but asking to be married in the laws of their faith does.
For the record, Majority Of The World's Religions, I think you're wrong but if the LGBT community agree not to force you to perform the ceremony until you're ready, can't you just let them call it marriage?
I just don't see it. Personally I find the term marriage to be full of religious connotations and I'd rather have Civil Partnership or Civil Union be the only legal term for these two identical situations. Christians and others could still hold big church weddings and declare themselves married, but that would all be flavour, not law. I suspect most people would still favour the term Marriage.
I wanted to look up non-religious arguments against gay marriage so I turned to wikipedia, where facts are laid out straight and bias is non-existant but the page for LGBT Rights Opposition has very little to say about the non-religious kind. A statement that some undefined people don't think children should be exposed to LGBT issues and some data suggesting that LGBT persons on average suffer from poorer mental health than their hetero neighbours, likely because those neighbours bullied and harrassed them. Okay, that first bit is crap possibly with religious motivation and that second bit is believable but the bullying only occurs because the LGBT community are treated in the eyes of the law as well as public opinion as different, as proved by having a seperate Civil Union law for them. Lets change those laws, gradually public opinion will follow and eventually everything will get better for everyone forever.
I am ignoring the religious arguments because religion should not influence the law, not on a rights issue like this, but lets say the law is changed, does that mean Churches should have to officiate gay weddings? This is where I start having to question my beliefs. I don't think governments have the right to tell people what to think. How to act maybe, but our thoughts, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and faiths are the core of who we are and should not be changed by force even when they make us hateful Fred Phelps style homophobes, twisting a message of goodwill for our own disgusting agendas.
I have to look at the recent court decision against the christian B&B owners Hazelmary and Peter Bull, who turned a couple away after discovering they were gay. They were found guilty of discrimination and I agree with the court's decision. The Bull's beliefs shouldn't be weighed too heavily in this case, it's their actions that are important here but is refusing to officiate a wedding the same as refusing to provide accommodation?
Marriage with all it's rituals, rights and rites has long been considered a large part of religion's role in society. I've not read it cover to cover but I don't think the bible has much to say on owning a Bed and Breakfast. Christian Innkeepers, yes - they should all keep a small stable out back just in case - but nothing on B&Bs. Asking to rent a room for the night does not and should not compromise anyone's religious values but asking to be married in the laws of their faith does.
For the record, Majority Of The World's Religions, I think you're wrong but if the LGBT community agree not to force you to perform the ceremony until you're ready, can't you just let them call it marriage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)