Comments on: Electoral reform: a different answer

By: Where is the finish line in first past the post? « doctorvee

Where is the finish line in first past the post? « doctorvee — Sun, 15 May 2011 14:23:42 +0000

[...] vote may not be perfect (although the perfect voting system doesn’t exist anyway). But it is a whole lot more desirable than the current rotten [...]

By: Professor Eric Maskin lecture in St Andrews « doctorvee

Professor Eric Maskin lecture in St Andrews « doctorvee — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:57:54 +0000

[...] I was a student at the University of Edinburgh a few years ago, I saw him give a lecture on the same subject. I would highly recommend going along if you have an interest in economics, public choice theory or [...]

By: Why a Conservative—Lib Dem coalition may not be a bad thing « doctorvee

Why a Conservative—Lib Dem coalition may not be a bad thing « doctorvee — Sat, 08 May 2010 19:05:44 +0000

[...] This is why electoral reform is essential. It is not just about the fact that the parties’ share of the seats bears little relation to the share of the votes. It is that it fundamentally alters the behaviour of voters, forcing them to vote for what they don’t want more than what they do want. Voters must at least be given the opportunity to express more than one preference. [...]

By: Martin Spamer

Martin Spamer — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:32:17 +0000

Currently the House of Lords draws its membership from a limited strata of society, politicians, judiciary, clergymen, and Heredity Peers. The House of Lords must be made more representative and effective by broadening it membership.

One purpose of the House of Lords is to improve legislation by amendment. Legislation impacts many areas where professional experts could make a valuable contribution to this task. The professional knowledge & experience of represents from chartered Institutes could provide expert insight into the consequences of legislation governing their fields.

Each Chartered Institute would have one seat filled by election from amongst its members and elected by its members.

By: doctorvee

doctorvee — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:04:17 +0000

I think you’re right. That is definitely the main reason why we hear little about this method. I found myself having to concentrate quite hard to completely get my head round it because it is not very intuitive at first. The fact that when totting up the votes you only ever concentrate on two candidates at a time is completely alien, but once I got over it I found the system quite interesting.

By: MatGB

MatGB — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:57:58 +0000

I'm 100% certain that STV isn't similar to the system used in France, I even wrote a long post on it called "Why preferential systems beat run-off ballots", I loath the French system, because it causes splinters and ffalse choices, I love STV.. I'll look into his idea more, but the big problem from the way you've explained it is simplicity, people like to know how their vote will be counted. I'll need to look into it more. Still, interesting idea, thanks for posting about it.