Electoral Reform
« EU Constitution | Back to most recent briefing | Council Tax »
Asked if the Cabinet was backing a Proportional Representation system for elections in the light of Peter Hain’s comments, the PMOS said not as far as he knew. From memory he thought there was a commitment to have a look at some of the issues, but only after the forthcoming elections this year. Cabinet had not discussed it recently though.
Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news
« EU Constitution | Back to most recent briefing | Council Tax »
Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is
reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's
Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is
reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most
up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original
source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions.
Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright
Downing Street Says.
|
Hain is advocating the "alternative vote" system:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/3517900.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/3517900.stm</a>
This is a system which takes account of voter preferences in individual constituencies; it isn’t based on a list. Details here:
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 17 Mar 2004 on 12:38 pm | Link<a href="http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd03.htm">http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd03.htm</a>
Didn’t Labour commit to PR before it came to power?
Some of the advantages of AV look quite interesting, particularly the possibility of increased influence of smaller parties as the larger ones "bid" for second preferences.
Is it possible to trust a ruling government to make changes to the electoral system in an honest way?
Comment by Lodjer — 17 Mar 2004 on 12:58 pm | LinkLabour did not commit to PR before 1997. There was a commitment to look into the subject which produced the Jenkins report, but as this was a pile of rubbish it went no further. The 2001 manifesto did not commit to any further action.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 17 Mar 2004 on 1:23 pm | LinkFor information, the Jenkins Commission recommended AV-plus, which is summarised here:
<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1998-99/99rn14.htm">http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1998-99/99rn14.htm</a>
I’d be interested to know what makes it "a pile of rubbish" — I haven’t read the Commission’s full report, but the bits I have read seem sensible enough.
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 17 Mar 2004 on 2:09 pm | LinkFunny how Labour starts nervously toying with the idea of electoral reform once a rumour of the Conservatives considering dropping Scottish Westminster MPs starts doing the rounds.
Comment by Tim — 17 Mar 2004 on 4:28 pm | LinkI’d also be interested to know what bearing events in Spain over the past week or so have had on government thinking. I wouldn’t mind betting there is a huge amount of research going on in government departments right now, looking at ways of maximizing votes in a reformed voting system in case a repeat of the Spanish general election happens over here. I also wouldn’t mind betting that this sudden talk of electoral reform has come about because the government has suddenly had a huge shock and realise that they need to do something to win back voters. I think it is far too little and far far too late; I only hope the electorate of this country show the same courage and conviction as the Spanish.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Mar 2004 on 4:39 pm | LinkAV is not a proportional system, in fact in some cases it can be less proportional than FPTP.
You have to have multi-member constituencies to have a PR System. The best system, as proposed by the Electoral Reform Society is STV, on 4 member constituencies.
Comment by Andrew — 18 Mar 2004 on 3:32 pm | LinkThe problem with P.R.in Britain at the moment is that Britain is a very divided society and P.R. may divided it even more!.I wonder how long the Tories would put up with being the single biggest partie and have to play second fiddle to a Labour/Lib Dem goverment or a Lib Dem/Labour goverment.I can`t see them making pact`s with far left partie`s.
Comment by george dutton — 5 Aug 2004 on 12:50 am | LinkI no all politicians lie but what this goverment
Comment by Alan Sutton — 22 May 2006 on 11:13 pm | Linkwell its time to call time there performents over the last few weeks on eduction failed
prisons free in this country failed
NHS trust a joke failed yes failed on the very basics of goverment when are they going to take note of what we yes we the people of this country are saying I say to the labour goverment
enough is a enough Q; If there is any one out there needs the solution to most of the problms
then i have them .
I have to agree with Andrew that STV (also called Choice Voting) is the best voting system. Choice Voting provides fair representation for all points of view while preserving majority rule. Choice Voting also gives voters genuine choice and virtually eliminates probems such as tactical voting and wasted votes.
Choice Voting will be used for the Local Elections in Scotland next month. Choice Voting is used for Local, European and Assembly Elections in Northen Ireland.
Comment by John Cross — 1 Apr 2007 on 12:47 pm | LinkI have to agree with Andrew that STV (also called Choice Voting) is the best voting system. Choice Voting provides fair representation for all points of view while preserving majority rule. Choice Voting also gives voters genuine choice and virtually eliminates probems such as tactical voting and wasted votes.
Choice Voting will be used for the Local Elections in Scotland next month. Choice Voting is used for Local, European and Assembly Elections in Northen Ireland.
Comment by John Cross — 1 Apr 2007 on 12:48 pm | Link