Surley the Lib Dems have to side with the Tories for them to make the public see cohollition governments can work?

[NotMoreBountyCrap]

Am I being totally niave in thinking this? Surley if we have a political reford referandum no one will vote for it if a coholition government can not work? If the markets crash because of a hung parliament under this system then what will happen under PR etc?

[snowlady]

I think a successful coalition for a parliament term between the tories/lib dems would be a good thing for the lib dems. They would be able to demonstrate that they have able politicians, they would have more input on policy and if the government is successful more people would vote for them as they would no longer regard voting lib dem as a wasted vote. The press have been a lot kinder to the lib dems with the prospect of a tory/lib dem coalition on the table.

I think the lib dems need to be careful on electoral reform. The system needs to be looked at as it seems wrong that with nearly 25%of the vote the lib dems have no where near as many as 25% of the MPs. Small parties also lose out under the current system. It appears that the tories/labour want to keep the system as they benefit from it rather than for the good of the country.

However people do like to vote for a person as well as a party. If an MP hasn't done well he/she is more accountable to the constituency under first past the post. Likewise if an MP does well they can still be kept even if there is a swing against their party. Eg. If you take the lib dem MPs Lembit Opik lost his fairly safe seat as people appear not to have been happy with him. Whereas Sarah Teather is so popular that she held on in a seat that would have gone to labour if people were just voting for a party.

Whilst voting reform should be high on the agenda I don't think it should be a deal breaker. People want the economy sorted out urgently. If a lib/con deal fails there is no viable alternative government. Tory minority gov wouldn't be able to do anything and quick election would follow which would benefit the tories as they have money left to campaign. A rainbow coalition of the left would be very unappealing to those who voted for change. It would be suicidal for the lib dems to associate themselves with a tired labour govt that a lot of people want to see the back of, not to mention the SNP who want yet more concessions for scotland when they already have free prescriptions and no tuition fees.

[vesela]

But you do vote for a person in multi-member constituencies (STV), and surely they're just as accountable? I'd rather have a referendum on multi-member STV and go all out to win it rather than a deal on AV+, which is barely better than FPTP.

[snowlady]

Vesela - You know more than I do about these options. I don't know what STV, or AV involve? Please could you explain how these systems would work.

Which system are the lib dems proposing?

[vesela]

The Lib Dems want the STV system in multi-member constituencies, which would be bigger than the current ones but would have several MPs in each (as council wards currently do). This link from February describes how the constituency link would work under STV and has a map that illustrates what the constituencies might look like.

Labour's Jenkins Commission from 1997/8 recommended the AV+ system which the Lib Dems aren't keen on because it can be more distorting than the current system. You also end up with two types of MP.

There's more information on both systems here at the Electoral Reform Society.

[snowlady]

Thanks vesela - I think you are winning me over to the merits of STV.

What system was used in the Euro elections?

[vesela]

The Euro elections use the d'Hondt method using closed lists. STV doesn't use party lists - you vote for actual candidates.

(This is funny because I never used to be a PR geek).

[snowlady]

Thanks for explaining that.

[FrakkinTheReturningOfficer]

I approve of the LD position on reform but I want them to show me they can broker a deal.

AV has too many drawbacks for me. MM rep like in NZ removes the constituency link. FPP is inherently unfair. STV in super constituencies is the best of both plus politicians have an incentive to work for their constituents because it reflects positively on their party.

I think before we do anything we need a solid committee, public education and a referendum. I've seen all sorts of people spouting PR the last few days who haven't a clue tbh and that scares me if it goes to a referendum right now.

I am a PR geek and proud!

[scaryteacher]

What happens on STV if you only want to vote for one party / candidate? If you go for super constituencies, how are the needs of the electorate balanced as they will be different in different areas within that super constituency? Cornwall as an example, is now a unitary authority with 5 constituencies. We returned 3 Tories and 2 LibDems; in SE Cornwall there is more concern about Devonport's future as a Naval base as many RN personnel live there, and many jobs are dependent upon the Yard; whilst in Falmouth they will have different concerns.

[FrakkinTheReturningOfficer]

1. You don't need to mark a position for everyone. You can return a ballot paper which only votes for 1 person. If they are eliminated your paper is eliminated.
   
   With STV parties tend to field as many candidates as there are seats available, so the Conservatives field 5, the Lib Dems field 5, Labour field 5. When it comes to the vote the least popular candidates are eliminated. You can rank as many as you like so say you put the Conservative 5 first, then the Lib Dem 5 and Labour last - if the Cons and Lib Dems are eliminated your vote carries to Labour. If you haven't put a cross by any Labour names you haven't voted for Labour. When your preferred candidate is knocked out the running they pass your vote to your second preference (the next Conservative) and then the third...
   
   Does that make sense?
   
   
2. With super-constituencies it would probably either be divided into wards with each MP having a ward link OR constituents could approach and lobby any of their MPs. It's in the MPs interests to take notice of all of their constituents and their priorities or they/their party won't be returned to Parliament next time, however that's one disadvantge of PR....

[vesela]

yes, if you want to vote for just one party there's nothing to stop you. Plus you get to have a say in which of that party's candidates you prefer, because you can list them in order of preference.

So if you want a very local candidate you can put them top, followed by bright young thing from outside, or the other way round if that's what you'd rather have.