I can't find a weblink for it but Lord David Steel was in the Sunday Herald calling for the current electoral system to be scrapped. I for one agree, but not entirely with the model proposed by David.
The Closed Party Lists, surely, has to go. The number of people across the country who are members of political parties is extremely low and such a paltry number of party members determining who makes up the 56 list MSPs cannot continue.
I have a lot of time for the argument that parties merely arrange the lists and the public are free to research the individuals included on it before casting their vote, but this doesn't happen enough in reality for it to be valid. For a start, there are too few parties to have any real 'choice', a luxury that parties were falling over themselves to afford us not so long ago.
And who do List MSPs feel their primary duty is to? The public or their party? There's a clear conflict of interest at play there. A conflict of interest that is somewhat mitigated by a desire in almost all List MSPs to one day win a constituency seat.
The main problem with Closed Party Lists is that the democratic deficit between the public and the power-makers remains too big, not to mention the risk that days before an election the person at a party's top spot is uncovered as an axe-wielding, Nazi-loving paedophile, either forcing supporters of that party to vote for him/her or driving people away from others on that party list who may have been wanted.
So I would personally like to see Open Party Lists whereby we could vote for someone on a party's list regardless of whether they are top, middle or bottom.
The party's votes are still applied in the same way as the current system but the order of the candidates is determined by the order that the public decides democratically.
Another option is Free Party Lists where open season really kicks in. Every voter gets 56 votes for the Regional Vote and we can choose from any individual who has put themselves forward. Carnage I'm sure you agree, but this is already working pretty well in Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Overall though, even if we don't get rid of d'Hondt soon, it's not the worst system in the world with the number of MSPs generally reflecting the share of the vote. On that score at least, it's Westminster that needs to up its game.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Totally agree with the change. Closed party lists are a complete and utter abomination.
Why not go for STV - maximum power to the voter, delivers proportional result? Ticks all the boxes.
Honestly? I've still not got my head around STV yet. Need to read up on it.
Closed and Free lists are a small step from the status quo so was more easy to see the clear benefits.
I'm all for STV, it's what's used in our local election and what should be used for any progressive referendum too.
Open lists better than closed ones
But of all the shortcomings of the devolution settlement, this would be well down my list. Indeed STV I think would see more locally ficused Westminster MPs regain their prominance, bad news all round
Im not saying this is a unionist plot - but it certainly will suit Unionist to be dicussing voting systems rather than extended powers for the Scottish Parliament
And with a few imperfection the current AMS system delivers proportinality and local MSPs
Steel grossly exaggerates the tensions between list and constituency MSP - where they do exist its all down to partisan posturinmg. Does Nicola have any problems with the SNP list MSPs in Glasgow? Do labour MSP in Edinburgh have any probems with Lord Foulkes - other than him being a tube!
STV? - does anyone have a clue now who is their local councillor? Does anyone have a clue about their MEPs?
I totally agree with you there Jeff. And like Caron I agree that the top off lists which were merely a fob off towards proportionality have not gone far enough. Go the whole hog and have full STV. Say Falkirk & West Lothian 6-7 members instead of the current 4(4.5ish proposed) and the share of their lists.
It gives a greater level of proportionality and more accountability to all MSPs to the electorate rather than their party paymasters.
But then again since I moved across here from Northern Ireland I always did find placing these single or multiple Xs on ballot papers so confusing.
Aye We Can. STV! You ignorance is provided in your question it's not who is your local councillors but who are your local councillors. They are still local, there are now either 3 or 4 of them. One of them is bound to get the job doing that you you want doing.
When you find out which one that is no doubt you will reward them with a great big 1 next to their name next time around.
Provided that there are at least 5 MSPs slots per constituency I`m all for STV. Back in Ireland it has worked very wel for years.
The STV elections we have here for council have wards with either 3 or 4 council slots. A fairly deliberate act by the old Labour-led executive to try and squeeze out smaller parties like the greens. If we use STV for Holyrood this sort of gerrymandering has to be avoided.
Replacing d'Hondt with STV would be a good move.
Folks,
This is interesting chat - what do you think it means in the context of the forthcoming European elections?
That's a closed party list. Could that be better done?
Post a Comment