Saturday, 26 February 2011
The inevitable AV post...
... was making my brain bleed, but fortunately via a comment over at Devil's Kitchen I've found something that covers everything I was thinking of and a couple of other points beside. Pop over and have a read when you've a spare ten minutes.
Comments (2)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Loading comments...
Post a new comment
Comment as a Guest, or login:
Go backConnected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Posting anonymously.
Add insightful or amusing remarks for me to think on and respond to. Or add annoying comment spam for me to waste time deleting, in which case may your genitals turn square and fester at the corners.
Unnecessary ranting and gratuitous profanity is strictly encouraged.
NB - due to some annoying pricks comment spamming lately all comments with three or more any links go into a moderation queue. If it's not spam I will publish all comments even tenuously related to whatever I was rambling about in the post. Otherwise please refer to the comments policy.
Unnecessary ranting and gratuitous profanity is strictly encouraged.
NB - due to some annoying pricks comment spamming lately all comments with three or more any links go into a moderation queue. If it's not spam I will publish all comments even tenuously related to whatever I was rambling about in the post. Otherwise please refer to the comments policy.
Comments by IntenseDebate
The inevitable AV post...
2011-02-26T23:06:00+11:00
Angry Exile
Bloggers|Hmmm|Lost In Admiration|Talking sense|
sedgwicknc 20p · 734 weeks ago
However, the biggest problem is that it lacks any synthesis: what should be done now. Though, admittedly, it does identify that the proposed referendum lacks adequacy of question on constitutional reform.
Personally, I think we should go for AV for our political elections, though also including the RON-option (effectively none of the remaining candidates). Of course, the RON option is specifically excluded from the Australian version of AV (in both its weak and strong options - and I'll leave explaining those to another mainline blog post).
There are three particular dangers in the upcoming referendum.
(i) It is a waste of a referendum. These events are very important and should only be used for asking very important questions. The 2-way choice is, itself, a hankering after disenfranchisement of the electorate. See, for example, my previous posting on AE and the link to The Beacon: http://angryexile.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-t... See also, more specifically, my recent comment (the first one) on Direct Democracy: http://www.directdemocracyuk.com/blog/2011/02/cam...
(ii) It disadvantages the two main political parties, IMHO at least a bit more than they need to be damaged (though I would like their power to be distinctly curtailed from its current excessive level). This is by not mixing in all those other options (directly elected head of government, but not head of state) and democratisation of the House of Lords (as distinctly different from a clone of the House of Commons - by having a different electorate: each citizen-taxpayer's pound, not just that citizen's existence). Thus, with just this change, minority interests will be as much out of balance above the mainstream as they are currently out of balance below it.
(iii) The electorate are disadvantaged, at the expense of too much power retained by the existing political oligarchies (largely through ruling cliques in those parties). This is by not giving the electorate the right to seek more frequent elections of national government: my proposed annual election by rotation between the 3 parts of national government: executive, HoC and HoL/HoT).
So, analysis is helpful, but needs the support of synthesis: what we should use in place of the current (faulty and outdated) system.
Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick