matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
Mat Bowles ([personal profile] matgb) wrote 2009-05-26 07:11 pm (UTC)

Next week, we use D'hondt closed list PR. A system that gives total control to party hierarchies and increases the need for tactical decisions at a lower level (as the video shows).

I'm very strongly in favour of STV (the MM is superflous), I consider it to be the best electoral system I've seen. I consider closed list PR to be the worst that's seriously in use anywhere (and Israel and Italy, both the perpetually summoned anti-PR-argument countries, use variants of closed list PR).

In FPTP, the tactical decision for who to vote for is fairly easy—you've got a pretty good idea of who the top two candidates are, and most voters will vote for one of those two.

In list PR, the tactical decision is much harder—are the Lib Dems likely to get a 2nd seat (or lose the one they've got)? Except in London, the polling seems to indicate no. Are the BNP likely to? In the NW, maybe. Could the Greens? Perhaps.

If I vote Lib Dem, my vote may be completely wasted (this is very likely in Yorkshire). But the Greens might just scrape an MEP. Or the BNP might just beat them into 5th.

Insanely complex tactical decision for a lot of people, because it's not preferential and votes can be wasted.

I like preferential systems because (unless they're Hennessy's Bloody Stupid System) you can't waste your vote. I dislike any system that makes a wasted vote more likely. D'hondt makes a vote more likely to be wasted than FPTP, and gives more power to hierarchies (the top of the list for Labour and Conservative has a seat, beginning and end of debate, I dislike that).

Post a comment in response:

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org