<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, James Gilmour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk">jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
David L Wetzell > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:31 PM<br>
> > James Gilmour: But why would you want all these differences<br>
<div class="im">> > and complications?<br>
><br>
> dlw: Because context matters.<br>
<br>
</div>I have great difficulty in believing that there are such context specific differences. I could believe that there are differences<br>
in the hostility of the political parties to proposals for reform of the voting system at different levels of government and that<br>
reforms that the parties might accept at one level would not be acceptable at another - especially their own election!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: well there are diffs in voter awareness and interest in different elections. If voters are less into "more local" elections then "more options" via STV or what-not wouldn't be as helpful for most voters. They might appreciate the reduced number of candidates, since this reduces the cost of becoming an informed voter in a given election. They also might like the less competitive elections with 2 safe seats. The candidates wouldn't be taking each other to the cleaners but they would be doing their best to promote their parties. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> dlw: 1. There are benefits to party-list PR, relative to STV.<br>
<br>
</div>I do not agree that there are any benefits of any party-PR voting system that outweigh the benefits to the voters of STV-PR.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Like I said, it may depend on the context.... the benefits of STV-PR vary with the interest level of the voters in the election.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
"Elections are for electors" - or at least, they should be - and to change that balance in favour of the voters should be one of<br>
the key objectives of any reform of a voting system.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If voters can help elect a 3rd party more easily then it doesn't matter if there's a stronger role for party hierarchy in the determination of their party's candidate. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> > JG: We had to accept local government wards electing only 3 or<br>
> > 4 councillors as part of our STV-PR package - that's<br>
> > practical politics. But that reform has transformed our<br>
> > local government - no more "one-party states".<br>
><br>
><br>
> dlw: Undoubtedly, and this is what made the AV referendum<br>
> possible, no doubt.<br>
<br>
</div>The reform of the voting system for local government in Scotland in 2007 had absolutely nothing to do with the 2011 UK referendum on<br>
AV (= IRV, not "approval voting"). THE problem with the AV referendum was that no serious reformer wanted AV. Some party<br>
politicians wanted AV, but far more party politicians (especially Conservatives) were opposed to any reform at all. The Liberal<br>
Democrats (whose party policy is for STV-PR) decided that a referendum on AV was the best they could extract from the Conservatives<br>
in the negotiations to form the coalition government. The negotiating teams were under a great deal of pressure and wanted to<br>
achieve an agreement before the UK financial markets opened on the Monday morning after the Thursday election.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: All that is true, but it does not change my point that election reform got on the ballot in large part because the use of quasi-PR in "more local" elections helped the LibDems to continue to rival the two biggest parties. When third parties can gain foot-holds, there's inevitably going to be pressure away from FPTP. </div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
James Gilmour<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>