Because there are only 2 viable parties in US politics, there is even less voter choice, and thus many voters feel they have to choose between two alternatives that're both bad.
Morning - I agree with you on STV. This is a good analysis.
May I ask - why is D so important to you?
"(D) reduce immigration, particularly illegal immigration, and anyone in Britain illegally should be removed"
What do you call 'immigration'? What do you mean by 'illegally' - Windrush is an appalling scandal where people have been delegitimised and made illegal by deliberate Government malfeasance - do you want these people deported after all they have done for this country?
I think we are about to have a huge influx of Americans shortly.
I'm not sure that PR would lead the the sudden emergence of a party that totally reflected 100% of your own personal opinions. Representative democracy is always about choosing the best option available rather than sulking that a perfect one doesn't exist. PR even explicitly moves the model towards compromise. Which is good! I shouldn't get everything my own way any more than anyone else!
With regard to referendums... eugh. Brexit has put me off referendums for life.
> I'm not sure that PR would lead the the sudden emergence of a party that totally reflected 100% of your own personal opinions.
It almost certainly wouldn't! However, if there are more viable parties, there is more choice, and it's more likely that there will be at least one of them I like.
I think direct popular vote can really only work on a handful of special types of issues. There needs to be a binary question (multiple-choice referenda cause nightmarish problems) about something the public understands, to get a meaningful popular mandate out of it. But then, to have the result actually constrain the state, it also needs to be 100% clear what implementing or not implementing the voted-for policy would look like, and how to do it.
You can have the public vote on whether to decriminalize something, or whether to ratify a treaty, or whether to initiate a new spending program. But (to pick one example), I don't think you can conduct warfare by referendum.
Support for Ukraine seems like a perfectly murky issue. The question is almost certainly not whether the UK will support Ukraine or not support it, but whether it will offer a lot of support or a little. There's also a question of what kind of support would be most helpful and least risky. Perhaps you could have the public vote on how much money to spend (although, who is to decide which numbers should be there as options?), but I don' see how you can have the public deciding between sending missiles and tanks and jet planes, for instance.
There does not seem to be a solution here other than trying to put someone you trust to make the right choices in charge of the government.
Why not apply the same analysis to the USA elections?
I kind-of have. Have you seen this post: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/a-better-electoral-system-for-the
Because there are only 2 viable parties in US politics, there is even less voter choice, and thus many voters feel they have to choose between two alternatives that're both bad.
I feel exactly the same! Its such a diverse country with so many differences in opinion, that it needs much more diversity in political parties too.
Morning - I agree with you on STV. This is a good analysis.
May I ask - why is D so important to you?
"(D) reduce immigration, particularly illegal immigration, and anyone in Britain illegally should be removed"
What do you call 'immigration'? What do you mean by 'illegally' - Windrush is an appalling scandal where people have been delegitimised and made illegal by deliberate Government malfeasance - do you want these people deported after all they have done for this country?
I think we are about to have a huge influx of Americans shortly.
I'm not sure that PR would lead the the sudden emergence of a party that totally reflected 100% of your own personal opinions. Representative democracy is always about choosing the best option available rather than sulking that a perfect one doesn't exist. PR even explicitly moves the model towards compromise. Which is good! I shouldn't get everything my own way any more than anyone else!
With regard to referendums... eugh. Brexit has put me off referendums for life.
> I'm not sure that PR would lead the the sudden emergence of a party that totally reflected 100% of your own personal opinions.
It almost certainly wouldn't! However, if there are more viable parties, there is more choice, and it's more likely that there will be at least one of them I like.
I think direct popular vote can really only work on a handful of special types of issues. There needs to be a binary question (multiple-choice referenda cause nightmarish problems) about something the public understands, to get a meaningful popular mandate out of it. But then, to have the result actually constrain the state, it also needs to be 100% clear what implementing or not implementing the voted-for policy would look like, and how to do it.
You can have the public vote on whether to decriminalize something, or whether to ratify a treaty, or whether to initiate a new spending program. But (to pick one example), I don't think you can conduct warfare by referendum.
Support for Ukraine seems like a perfectly murky issue. The question is almost certainly not whether the UK will support Ukraine or not support it, but whether it will offer a lot of support or a little. There's also a question of what kind of support would be most helpful and least risky. Perhaps you could have the public vote on how much money to spend (although, who is to decide which numbers should be there as options?), but I don' see how you can have the public deciding between sending missiles and tanks and jet planes, for instance.
There does not seem to be a solution here other than trying to put someone you trust to make the right choices in charge of the government.