Thanks. Having looked at http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.html from Google, it seems a sensible possibility, although I dislike the fact that you can still get safe MP's (There is no way of voting for the Tories, whilst not voting for the Tory MP in the seat I am in) - or am I missing something?
Thanks. Having looked at http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.html from Google, it seems a sensible possibility, although I dislike the fact that you can still get safe MP's (There is no way of voting for the Tories, whilst not voting for the Tory MP in the seat I am in) - or am I missing something?
Forget Wiseman's version. He has the cuckoo idea of retaining single-member constituencies which in many cases would be represented by the candidate who came second or third. And he squares the votes UK-wide, annihilating the Nats and Northern Irish. It would have to be done separately in each nation.
My revision of his basic idea has 2 or 3 seaters (can't say it's un-British as we had them for 600 years until 1885/1950), so it's a bit like STV in that respect, giving the voter a choice of candidates.
What is the workaround for independent candidates, Rod? Is it to class all independents as a party?
The workaround is to guarantee election in a constituency by achieving the Droop quota on first preferences, irrespective of the indy's (or party's) national vote total. This would be in the region of 25-33% of the vote in a constituency. So not too easy, but not too hard either.
Thanks. Having looked at http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.html from Google, it seems a sensible possibility, although I dislike the fact that you can still get safe MP's (There is no way of voting for the Tories, whilst not voting for the Tory MP in the seat I am in) - or am I missing something?
Forget Wiseman's version. He has the cuckoo idea of retaining single-member constituencies which in many cases would be represented by the candidate who came second or third. And he squares the votes UK-wide, annihilating the Nats and Northern Irish. It would have to be done separately in each nation.
My revision of his basic idea has 2 or 3 seaters (can't say it's un-British as we had them for 600 years until 1885/1950), so it's a bit like STV in that respect, giving the voter a choice of candidates.
Is the choice to square an arbitrary one? I realise it increases the chance of majority government, but the power of 2 seems arbitrary. Any value over one would reduce the chance of a hung parliament, so [apart from being a round number, and easy for man-in-the-street to grasp] why is 2 the optimal choice? Why not 3, or 1.5, or pi?
Thanks. Having looked at http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/pr2.html from Google, it seems a sensible possibility, although I dislike the fact that you can still get safe MP's (There is no way of voting for the Tories, whilst not voting for the Tory MP in the seat I am in) - or am I missing something?
Forget Wiseman's version. He has the cuckoo idea of retaining single-member constituencies which in many cases would be represented by the candidate who came second or third. And he squares the votes UK-wide, annihilating the Nats and Northern Irish. It would have to be done separately in each nation.
My revision of his basic idea has 2 or 3 seaters (can't say it's un-British as we had them for 600 years until 1885/1950), so it's a bit like STV in that respect, giving the voter a choice of candidates.
Presumably each voter retains just a single vote in each multi-member constituency, and your workaround for independent is they win with 50%+ of the squared vote in the constituency in which they stand (A pretty high hurdle, but probably about right)?
@DecrepitJohn No market is entirely free, but I'm not seeing the argument for a market failure here, let alone the role of BTL landlords in it.
What I reckon we're seeing is a cultural predjudice against renting, which results in people being outraged by the normal operation of the market. (People can't afford homes, it must be someone's fault!)
People can't afford to rent, either, which is why IDS has to pay. And if IDS were not paying, rents would likely fall. So the government, by subsidising tenants, is subsidising landlords.
By subsidising landlords, HMG increases demand for, and thus sale prices of, houses, driving them out of the reach of "ordinary" people who must therefore rent, and round we go again.
Hmm, maybe we should build more houses or summink.
New houses only make up about 8% of total sales. This figure may well be slightly higher at the moment but it won't be by a substantial amount.
So increasing the rate of house building will not have a major impact on house prices in the short term. You would need a sustained rate of new building over a long period before there is a material impact.
The reason house prices are currently rising at more than double the rate of inflation is that there are far more people wishing to buy than owners willing to sell. This should change when nominal house prices start to exceed pre-recession levels across the country.
Presumably each voter retains just a single vote in each multi-member constituency, and your workaround for independent is they win with 50%+ of the squared vote in the constituency in which they stand (A pretty high hurdle, but probably about right)?
Each voter retains one vote, although it could be a preference vote. The difference between it and STV is that only first preferences determine the national outcome. Subsequent preferences could be used in the constituency to discriminate between the electable candidates, as well as giving a steer to national coalition building (if required), akin to the Aussie 2PP...
I think the Droop quota is a simpler and more elegant hurdle for Indies to surmount in a constituency, but I suppose there are alternative thresholds...
Good post, and this is exactly why I believe Labour voters will NOT be tactically voting Lib Dem in Tory/LibDem marginals this time. The Labour leadership/activists will be trying to ensure all supporters know how vitally important getting the biggest share of the vote as possible, even in hopeless seats.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
If they're letting the house it'll help keep down the prices in the rental market. Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Because most people who are renting actually want to buy, but just can't afford it?
I want to live in a house overlooking the Imperial Gardens instead of the garden of a Korean loan shark, but I just can't afford it. But it's not obvious that the government should be interfering with the market to help people getting the former instead of the latter.
Is the choice to square an arbitrary one? I realise it increases the chance of majority government, but the power of 2 seems arbitrary. Any value over one would reduce the chance of a hung parliament, so [apart from being a round number, and easy for man-in-the-street to grasp] why is 2 the optimal choice? Why not 3, or 1.5, or pi?
In a way yes, although there is a mathematical basis for the choice.
Currently, FPTP is operating close to a square law, at least between the two big parties, although there is a significant pro-Labour bias.
About 13 seats on average change hands for each unit of swing, although that can vary significantly from one election to another.
Under PR^2, the same number of seats, 13, would change hands also, but with much more predictability. And of course electoral bias would be removed.
Also on FPTP, if the Fruitcakes poll 8, 9, 10% without winning a single seat, that would be hilario.... sorry, outrageous, I mean outrageous.
Even more so if UKIP were to poll 10% and the LDs say 11% and get 35 seats.
If the Conservatives are on 35%, and the LDs 11%, then you should be pushed back to pre 1997 numbers, as the graphic at the top of the thread predicts.
The Tories proposal to reduce the number of seats to 600 was a mistake anyway. Why with an increasing population do we want even less MPs?
I'd increase their number to 1000, pay them the UK median wage and relocate them to a disused office block on a business park near Birmingham away from the Westminster circus.
It all comes down to what the point of an MP is... Under the 'pavement politics' model there are elements of being a glorified social worker; Under large majority governments it was to be 'lobby fodder' for passing whatever laws the executive wanted; Under coalition it is to try and provide a stable platform for government with agreed compromises in the open. And that's even before you get to what the point of the Lords is...
Fundamentally - should an MP represent the constituency in Westminster, or represent Westminster in the constituency? If the former, how does that equate with the pavement politics model of being 'a good local MP' which is what voters appear to appreciate?
I'm not really sure the "social worker" aspect should really be carried out by MPs to be honest. Just scrutinising and passing legislation should be a full time job as it is.
Is the choice to square an arbitrary one? I realise it increases the chance of majority government, but the power of 2 seems arbitrary. Any value over one would reduce the chance of a hung parliament, so [apart from being a round number, and easy for man-in-the-street to grasp] why is 2 the optimal choice? Why not 3, or 1.5, or pi?
In a way yes, although there is a mathematical basis for the choice.
Currently, FPTP is operating close to a square law, at least between the two big parties, although there is a significant pro-Labour bias.
About 13 seats on average change hands for each unit of swing, although that can vary significantly from one election to another.
Under PR^2, the same number of seats, 13, would change hands also, but with much more predictability. And of course electoral bias would be removed.
Ah. Thanks. I suppose that, should PR^2 be adopted elsewhere, a different exponent could be used to 'match' the behaviour of their previous system. (I suspect 2 will stick in the real world, however).
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
our most likely purchaser is not going to be a family (as it might have been 20-30 years ago) or a professional couple (as it might have been 10-20 years ago) but a private landlord who will see our location and proximity to the wonders of the District Line (and Hammersmith & City Line to be fair) as useful carrots with which to let our former property.
BTL landlords should be hammered hard. It makes no sense for people who want to be able to buy a house to live in not to be able to because all their money is going in rent to someone who is then able to out bid first time buyers.
If they're letting the house it'll help keep down the prices in the rental market. Why should the government intervene to help people who want to live in a house they own and screw people who want to live in a house they rent?
Because most people who are renting actually want to buy, but just can't afford it?
I want to live in a house overlooking the Imperial Gardens instead of the garden of a Korean loan shark, but I just can't afford it. But it's not obvious that the government should be interfering with the market to help people getting the former instead of the latter.
The reason you would do it in home ownership is that the benefit for the low income person being able to afford their first home is larger than the loss for a rich person unable to afford their third or fourth.
Comments
My revision of his basic idea has 2 or 3 seaters (can't say it's un-British as we had them for 600 years until 1885/1950), so it's a bit like STV in that respect, giving the voter a choice of candidates.
At least OGH was spared the humiliation of being less influential than Danny Blanchflower or Nadine Dorries!
http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2013/11/27/who-is-the-real-alastair-campbell/
So increasing the rate of house building will not have a major impact on house prices in the short term. You would need a sustained rate of new building over a long period before there is a material impact.
The reason house prices are currently rising at more than double the rate of inflation is that there are far more people wishing to buy than owners willing to sell. This should change when nominal house prices start to exceed pre-recession levels across the country.
We are living among giants on PB!
The difference between it and STV is that only first preferences determine the national outcome. Subsequent preferences could be used in the constituency to discriminate between the electable candidates, as well as giving a steer to national coalition building (if required), akin to the Aussie 2PP...
I think the Droop quota is a simpler and more elegant hurdle for Indies to surmount in a constituency, but I suppose there are alternative thresholds...
Currently, FPTP is operating close to a square law, at least between the two big parties, although there is a significant pro-Labour bias.
About 13 seats on average change hands for each unit of swing, although that can vary significantly from one election to another.
Under PR^2, the same number of seats, 13, would change hands also, but with much more predictability. And of course electoral bias would be removed.
White smoke has been seen coming from the a JAL 787 Dreamliner's battery compartment.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101335257
They need to get to the bottom of this.