[EM] More comments on Lord Jenkin's proposals
djmarsay at dera.gov.uk
Fri Sep 25 07:38:08 PDT 1998
An interesting question. Which is worse, a large party being
under-represented by 100 seats, or a party with 1% of the votes
having no seat at all?
There are some groups that might command 0.2% support that I would
not like to see represented, but I would still prefer that to the
present system. One would not want to set the threshold too high,
lest the groups continue to feel unduly discriminated against.
I have thought of one problem: What about independents? Maybe there
is some small print already. My suggestion would be to treat all
independents as a single party, but to give seats to those who get
the most votes but were not elected instead of having a 'party list'.
This would encourage 'independents' to declare allegiance to a party
so that their votes are more accurately apportioned. Maybe one could
have a pseudo-party, such as 'left-ish independents' that simply
exists for the purpose of vote redistribution.
I hope the system would be reviewed periodically to make any small
adjustments that might become necessary.
> Dear David Marsay,
> One thing that is missing is news of a possible artificial threshold.
> This proposal will give representation to more small parties and their
> voters, but the size of any artificial threshold will limit that
> I hope no threshold is imposed.
> In any event this proposal will still be an improvement.
> Donald Davison
Sorry folks, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.
More information about the Election-Methods