Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Nine ways to fix our electoral system - thoughts Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Just read this* not entirely sure about one or two (I'm hesitant about 16 year olds getting the vote- although I like the idea of having a mandatory first vote) but most of these seem decent.

    Thoughts?

    *http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...t-out-and-vote
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well, number 7 I bang up disagree with
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Well, number 7 I bang up disagree with

    I'm against hereditary and bishops sitting there, although I do think there are good reason to have a number of unelected experts in various fields Providing checks and balances.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    1. Start with the practicalities. Make it easy to vote, with electronic voting. If it’s safe for banking, it’s safe for voting.
    agree - it'll be much safer than manualling counted ballots; a computer isn't going to discount your vote or put it in the wrong place. any danger of hacking is not as worrying to me as the obvious dangers of having people counting ballots with corrupt motives

    2. Let voters register on election day, as the young and the poor keep moving on short-term tenancies.
    sure

    3. Make voting compulsory.
    nope. no reason for this. turnout =/= governmental legitimacy. if you don't want to vote, then that might be based on lack of knowledge, not lack of belief in the system. people who don't know about politics should never ****ing vote.

    4. Give votes to 16-year-olds, compulsory for first timers, so schools and colleges register them and take them down to polling stations: those who vote once keep the habit.
    nah - I think it would be inconsistent to give the vote to 16 year olds when apparently theyre not intelligent enough to leave school yet.

    5. Bring back the citizenship classes Michael Gove abandoned, as a compulsory GCSE – more useful than hanging gerunds. Candidates would spend as much time bribing school students as Saga cruisers.The stories you need to read, in one handy email Read more
    ...how is this to do with the electoral system?

    6. Next comes restoring the credibility and reputation of politics. Clean up corruption with state party funding, apportioned by voters choosing on election ballot papers where their share of funds should go. No more plutocrats buying favours, nor union funding.
    ...again, how is this to do with the electoral system?

    7. Seats in a new elected Lords would not be for sale, nor would 26 bishops make law in this unbelieving nation.
    what about ****ing elections for *every* member of the house of lords...?! either have the lords as a legitimate purposie (e.g. federal) chamber or abandon it altogether! there is no expertise needed when there are already legislative committee stages

    8. Make every vote count equally, with a single transferable vote: in a group of seats, most voters would end up represented by an MP they had chosen, with many more women than the current 29% and more minorities. Everyone could vote for the party of their choice, with a backstop vote for their least worst. How utterly inept Farage has been in failing to rouse up outrage among his 3.8 million voters who only secured one seat, as did the Green’s 1 million voters.
    the problem with STV is that usually it only ives the voters a couple of MPs per constituency. the less MPs there are representing an area, the less proportional the results will be, and the less parties will be able to compete. I support a system which balances perhaps 10 seat constituencies with a national top-up for parties that fail to win seats yet still have a clear basis of national support. denmark and iceland have this kind of system.

    9. There should a national convention to draw up a new great reform act – with people adding their suggestions.But for today, not only vote, but seek out someone, anyone, at risk of not voting, and persuade them too. Phone a friend, remind a neighbour, go door-knocking with your party. Never, ever let pass unchallenged anyone who says “They’re all the same“ or “It makes no difference”. Voting isn’t shopping, but a collective endeavour. You may need a nose peg to choose the least worst – but there always is one. Distorted and dishevelled as our system is, voting matters – and the choice has never been wider. No party that perfectly represents your view? There never will be.
    nah. the last time there was a similar convention, they ended up supporting AV+. if you are to have expertise, you must have it from the political science community, NOT a political community.

    this list of supposed remedies for our electoral system are amazingly shallow! especially that one about the house of lords. this is a politician's list, not an idealist's list. either you have a pure and uncompromising list of goals, or you don't. the latter will be a list of maximisations of democracy, the other will be a politician's will to be re-elected
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    1) Absolutely.
    2) Good idea.
    3) No. Just no. This just means you get more people who don't care picking at random, which obscures actual preferences.
    4) Yes to giving them the vote, no to making it compulsory: if you're old enough to get a job and pay income taxes, you're old enough to vote for the people who are spending those taxes.
    5) Yeah, more citizenship education is probably needed.
    6) Not sure about the mechanisms, but the aim is a good one.
    7) Yeah, the Lords could do with some reform. I'm not sure this is the right way to do it, but some kind of reform.
    8) STV is OK, but not ideal. There are better systems available.
    9) There is a reason we don't write laws like this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    agree - it'll be much safer than manualling counted ballots; a computer isn't going to discount your vote or put it in the wrong place. any danger of hacking is not as worrying to me as the obvious dangers of having people counting ballots with corrupt motives
    Interesting. But as a computer developer, everything you have said there isn't true. There is never one person in control of a ballot box. They are all marked and sealed when being transported. When they are being counted, there are many people from all parties checking for foul play, and of course they can call for a recount. And when all is said and done, you still have the physical ballots.

    But in a computing sense, it is just a number in the memory of a computer somewhere. Just as the mileage of a digital odometer in a car is, and could be changed without the knowledge of anyone, there is no record anywhere other than the computer to show who has voted so if the computer goes wrong, the whole thing falls apart. I like the idea of voting online, but this is too important. And it isn't like banking. If your money goes missing, you call the bank and it gets sorted. But how would you know if your vote had been tampered with? And anyway, voting is a doddle. It took less than 5 minutes to go to my polling station, vote and return home last night. Hardly onerous.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Electronic voting is a stupid idea

    16 YO shouldn't be able to vote

    Registering on the day is fraught with issues

    Bring back the hereditary peerages

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    agree - it'll be much safer than manualling counted ballots; a computer isn't going to discount your vote or put it in the wrong place. any danger of hacking is not as worrying to me as the obvious dangers of having people counting ballots with corrupt motives


    Electronic voting is terrible, computerphile did an excellent video on why last year. The current system has been developed over years to be nearly fraud proof, there is no reliable way to maintain anonymity and security in e voting simultaneously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm against hereditary and bishops sitting there, although I do think there are good reason to have a number of unelected experts in various fields Providing checks and balances.
    That makes sense. I'd be fine with the House being entirely made of life peers, but electing it is a bad idea.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just read this* not entirely sure about one or two (I'm hesitant about 16 year olds getting the vote- although I like the idea of having a mandatory first vote) but most of these seem decent.

    Thoughts?

    *http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...t-out-and-vote

    Fixed term parliment should be FOUR years like in the US instead of FIVE years. So general elections should be every 4 years maximum!

    5 years is too long to have an unpopular government. We've still got another 4 years of the Tories to go
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Fixed term parliment should be FOUR years like in the US instead of FIVE years. So general elections should be every 4 years maximum!

    5 years is too long to have an unpopular government. We've still got another 4 years of the Tories to go
    The length is somewhat arbitrary, why is 4 better? In British Politics there is an amount of precedent on 5 and in America they also have 2 and 6 year cycles, 2 on the house, 4 for president, and 6 for senate

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Electronic voting is terrible, computerphile did an excellent video on why last year. The current system has been developed over years to be nearly fraud proof, there is no reliable way to maintain anonymity and security in e voting simultaneously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    no, I'm not talking about the kind of voting he's talking about (I've just watched a bit of his video) which is emailed voting from a personal computer - I'm talking about physically showing up to an electronic voting machine and voting there. you wouldn't need to spend millions of pounds paying people to count ballots that way - a computer would do it as fast as a calculator~ (and yes, the machines cost money, but only short term)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    no, I'm not talking about the kind of voting he's talking about (I've just watched a bit of his video) which is emailed voting from a personal computer - I'm talking about physically showing up to an electronic voting machine and voting there. you wouldn't need to spend millions of pounds paying people to count ballots that way - a computer would do it as fast as a calculator~ (and yes, the machines cost money, but only short term)
    Which is just as bad, if you watched the video I refer to you would know that you are talking about the exact same thing the person in the video is talking about, and here it is:

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is just as bad, if you watched the video I refer to you would know that you are talking about the exact same thing the person in the video is talking about, and here it is:

    sorry - I din't watch much of it, but I still have no clue then why he was talking about emailed ballots at the beginning - what even is that meant to be about? that's not the same concept at all

    and what is his argument other than "you can't verify that the software isn't corrupt"? because it would be pretty stupid to assume that there truly aren't independent ways of checking this sort of thing. might as well not even have democracy in the first place on this basis when there is a possibility that the ballots will be counted unfairly
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    sorry - I din't watch much of it, but I still have no clue then why he was talking about emailed ballots at the beginning - what even is that meant to be about? that's not the same concept at all

    and what is his argument other than "you can't verify that the software isn't corrupt"? because it would be pretty stupid to assume that there truly aren't independent ways of checking this sort of thing. might as well not even have democracy in the first place on this basis when there is a possibility that the ballots will be counted unfairly
    email is used for some thing

    The whole point is that the system has been developed in such a way that it is very difficult to commit fraud because the size of the conspiracy to commit fraud in just one constituency would be pretty big, to do it across dozens to actually meaningfully change the results would be impossibly large to keep hidden. On the other hand there are ways to rig an electronic system with very very few people, in theory just one, and as he says, theoretically nearly impossible to trace and from half way across the world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    email is used for some thing

    The whole point is that the system has been developed in such a way that it is very difficult to commit fraud because the size of the conspiracy to commit fraud in just one constituency would be pretty big, to do it across dozens to actually meaningfully change the results would be impossibly large to keep hidden. On the other hand there are ways to rig an electronic system with very very few people, in theory just one, and as he says, theoretically nearly impossible to trace and from half way across the world.
    ...surely then each constituency would require their voting machines vetted in separation from all the other constituencies? why is that so cumbersome? how many countries in the west which use voting machine do you really expect to be flawed? are we ever going to be able to adapt to new technologies? I mean, I personally think that the way that MPs *still*, today, vote (the divisions at the lobbies) is ****ing ludicrously ancient and a total waste of the chamber's time with the potential for time-saving technologies that most other countries probably use to some extent - even kenya uses electronic voting in its parliament, for instance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    ...surely then each constituency would require their voting machines vetted in separation from all the other constituencies? why is that so cumbersome? how many countries in the west which use voting machine do you really expect to be flawed? are we ever going to be able to adapt to new technologies? I mean, I personally think that the way that MPs *still*, today, vote (the divisions at the lobbies) is ****ing ludicrously ancient and a total waste of the chamber's time with the potential for time-saving technologies that most other countries probably use to some extent - even kenya uses electronic voting in its parliament, for instance.
    It depends how exactly it is done, but it varies between one person for the whole, or one person per constituency, either way any conspiracy is a hell of a lot smaller, actually the reasoning given in the article is poor, they say if it's good enough for banking it's good enough for voting, whilst overlooking that when banking there are security checks to verify you are who you say you are, something that is an abomination in an election. As for the other half of your post, a massive number of items pass without division, very little time would be saved there, but beyond that legislating is actually one of the worst things that a government can do for a country.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Waaaahhhhhhh Labour won the Mayor Elections Waaaahhhhhhhhhhhh bring in a fairer voting system!

    Cry your eyes mate

    Points at the Tories.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.