Could FPTP and PR be made compatible? By: Machjo (27 replies) February 5, 2009 - 9:54pm
- Interested Observer By: Wilf Day (Feb 8 2009 - 1:05pm)
- Machjo wrote:In response to By: Interested Observer (Feb 8 2009 - 2:51am)
- Wilf Day wrote:Interested By: Interested Observer (Feb 8 2009 - 2:44am)
- In response to Stockholm's By: Machjo (Feb 7 2009 - 10:19pm)
- Stockholm wrote: "Another By: Machjo (Feb 7 2009 - 10:10pm)
- Machjo wrote:But would the By: Wilf Day (Feb 7 2009 - 6:48pm)
- Just maybe if we made the By: Assembly Talker (Feb 7 2009 - 6:11pm)
- "Another thing I've noticed By: Stockholm (Feb 7 2009 - 1:34pm)
- But would the pro-PR crowd By: Assembly Talker (Feb 7 2009 - 1:22pm)
- Machjo, It depends on how By: Interested Observer (Feb 6 2009 - 9:30pm)
- Assembly Talker wrote: By: Machjo (Feb 6 2009 - 5:38pm)
- Machjo,Citizens Assembly By: Assembly Talker (Feb 6 2009 - 4:10pm)
- mimeguy wrote:The senate By: Policywonk (Feb 6 2009 - 3:41pm)
- My personal favorite is the By: Interested Observer (Feb 6 2009 - 3:00pm)
- sorry for the multiple post By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:16pm)
- sorry for the multiple post By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:16pm)
- The senate needs reform. By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:14pm)
- STV isn't so bad I suppose. By: Machjo (Feb 6 2009 - 12:46pm)
- There is no need to invent By: Wilf Day (Feb 6 2009 - 12:14am)
- "One problem with MMP is By: Stockholm (Feb 5 2009 - 11:57pm)
- Thank you stockholm for the By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:16pm)
- Stockholm wrote:The question By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:14pm)
- Unionist wrote:Please do not By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:03pm)
- Re: Could FPTP and PR be made compatible? By: Unionist (Feb 5 2009 - 10:42pm)
- The question is "could PR By: Stockholm (Feb 5 2009 - 10:41pm)
- Interesting. Have you got a By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 10:04pm)
- It's not what I would By: Fidel (Feb 5 2009 - 10:00pm)
There is no need to invent new voting systems. STV has been in use in Ireland since 1922, and even earlier in Tasmania. Various MMP models have been in use in Germany since 1946, including the open-list variant in Bavaria, the list-free ("near-winner") variant in Baden-Wurttemberg, and a variety of mixed models municipally (Hamburg and Berlin have been particularly inventive.) In the past 20 years several other countries have adopted one or other MMP model.
No MMP model allows a party to decide what candidate to give its votes to after the fact.
Scotland's regional MMP model, even though it's a closed list model, allows independents to stand for regional seats as well as for local seats. A couple have been successful regionally, and a couple locally.
In almost all MMP models you vote for the local candidate you prefer, regardless of party, since your local vote will not hurt your party even if it is for another party's local candidate. This "ticket-splitting" was invented in Germany in the 1950s to make local MPs more accountable.
And STV means you can rank candidates of your party first, thereby voting by party, or you could rank all the women ahead of all the men, or all the candidates from a certain locality first, or however you prefer, penalizing no one.