tinyjo | Thoughts.

I have learned how to run a really hot bath in my house. This is a very good thing. It doesn't count as a proper bath unless it steams slightly in my book.

Also, thinks.

Does anyone know any good stuff on modes of government because I'm starting to become cynical about democracy as an idea - watching Blunkett fight with the judiciary and with the Lords over the Terrorism bill has definitely shaken my faith in the whole idea. This is not to say that I think that the House of Lords should remain hereditary - far from - but there must be some other way to choose people to govern than popularity contests and short termist mob rule. What we need are people who are experts in their fields (economists, philosophers, medical ethicists, diplomats, lawyers/judges) not people who want to go into politics - it does seem these days to be a bit of a case of those who can do and those who can't become politicians. I am also suspicious of the (particularly American) almost religious attitude that the West is taking to democracy - we WILL make all other countries democratic or know the reason why!

Basically I feel like democracy is running out of steam or possibly collapsing under it's own weight. The politicians have become so good at telling us what we want to hear that no-one believes what they say any more. Maybe there will have to be a new way of doing things soon - after all, what will they do when less than 50% of people vote?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

They won't change anything. The people in power will, by definition, be the ones who have benefited from the system as it is at the time, so they will not wish to change it. Labour and proportional representation spring to mind.

As to books, dunno about any modern stuff, but Moore's 'Utopia' and Plato's 'Republic' seem obvious old-school choices, and Machievelli's 'The Prince' is nice and short, and quite interesting.

Here's my half-baked opinion.

The House of Commons makes legislation, so should be an 'average' of the opinions of voters. Thus a party-list voting system
(more or less pure proportional) with a 5% cut-off (parties with
less than 5% of the vote get no seats). MPs no longer have consituencies; since no-one cares which constitency people like Blair come from anyway, presumably no-one will miss this.

The House of Lords is for raising objections to bills from particular social groups or areas. It follows that the being associated with constituencies makes more sense for the Lords than for the Commons. So we vote in our local MHL,
but using Approval Vote rather than First Past the Post. Approval Vote is when you tick all the people who you think would be acceptable (you can leave none, some, or all candidates ticked). The candidate with the most ticks wins. Someone might be elected with, say, 60% of the vote, with his rivals having 55% and 40% approval. The results are approximately like STV, but it is easier to explain and easier to implement.
The constitency Lords work alongside Law Lords and Bishops and suchlike.

Would this make people want to vote more?
It depends on whether voters' cycnicism is because they see
their votes wasted ("there's no point voting Tory here,
it's a labour stronghold"), or because they think that all
politicians are equally bad and so choosing between them
is a waste of time.

More on Approval Voting (http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html), Mandatory voting (http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc07a/default.htm)

—Damian

I agree with what you're saying as far as democracy goes - it's actually quite similar to a scheme I had once - but what I meant was more "is voting for people to make the laws the best way of choosing them?" I felt that debates like that over the anti-terrorism bill showed that there were distinct benefits to the Lords not being beholded to either the court of public opinion or the parties for their re-election. Trouble is I can't think of any other fair/reasonable ways of selecting them

Another thing I would want to do is follow Australia in making
voting a DUTY of citizenship, and not merely a right of subjects.
In other words, failing to vote should be a crime.
There is nothing stopping one from spoiling one's paper
if one wants to make some anti-democratic political statement.
The practical downside to this is "donkey" votes made by people who do not
want to vote; you need to randomize the ballot papers so that
the donkey votes cancel each other out. I realize that mandatory
voting seems strange and illiberal at first, but it could be argued it is a lighter burden on the citizen than taxation is... :-)

-- Damian

Thoughts.

Answer:

Re: How to vote better

Re: How to vote better

Re: How to vote better

More on voting reform