Meaningful participation could reduce electors' apathy
Wallace-Macpherson
Turnout of voters for the recent Welsh Assembly election was very low,
causing some commentators to question the legitimacy of the elected
body. Turnout was especially bad among young voters, a worrying aspect
for the future. All this on a background of falling participation in
local and national elections in Great Britain.
Even some politicians, having realised that people will not take part
in an activity which seems irrelevant to their lives, begin to realise
that *meaningful* participation in public governance can provide at
least a partial remedy to political apathy and abstinence.
Citizens' initiative, binding referendum and recall are well tried
methods which allow real involvement in public affairs. Being able to
propose laws and to decide upon public issues, not only voting for
candidates, are central features here.
In Switzerland and about half of the states of the USA these forms of
participation have been in use for many years. They are very popular
with the citizenry.
See the case for more, real democracy at http://www.iniref.org/case.html
Try an internet search with "direct democracy" or referendum +
signatures.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
e-mail: in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Peter
<m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote:
>Citizens' initiative, binding referendum and recall are well tried
>methods which allow real involvement in public affairs. Being able to
>propose laws and to decide upon public issues, not only voting for
>candidates, are central features here.
>
>In Switzerland and about half of the states of the USA these forms of
>participation have been in use for many years. They are very popular
>with the citizenry.
The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
popular with the politicians.
--
Cheers
Peter
Remove the INVALID to reply
Wotan
"Peter" <usenet...@nidum.plus.com> wrote in message
news:9jv5ivcrm5k5ve2mq...@4ax.com...
Democracy is not very popular with UK politicians.
It never is with out of control crooks, traitors and dictators.
But once they understand the growing public disire to snap their
necks with the hangman's rope, they may remember their duty
their manners.
Lyn David Thomas
> It never is with out of control crooks, traitors and dictators.
>
> But once they understand the growing public disire to snap their
> necks with the hangman's rope, they may remember their duty
> their manners.
Ah the authentic voice of fascist britain.... plese can you restrict your
cross posting, you are breaking the charters of the various
uk.politics.* groups you are posting to. What is the point in having
specialist politics groups if you cross post between them all?
Blewyn
And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
difficult decisions that require skill, research and a long-term strategy as
well as an intellectual understanding of human nature, economics the media
and any number of other disciplines to run the UK for us, because your
average Joe simply hasn't got a scooby, either because of lack of time
required to read and understand the issues (ie most of us have jobs) or
because of inability to comprehend the concepts under discussion. So when
you have a referendum, you do indeed get the voice of the people, but it's
ill-informed, reactionary, and subject to a high degree of manipulation by
self-interested parties via the media. Effectively, you're handing control
to newspaper owners rather than parliament.
Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
of Tory rule !
Blewyn
jackkincaid
> popular with the politicians.
We elect politicians to run the country, so that we don't have to be
bothered with it. The last thing we want is endless referenda, because
they will only bring out the cranks, the single-issue nutjobs, the
religious maniacs, racists, death wishers, anti-abortion freaks, and
other assorted wankers, who will promptly ruin the country while the
rest of us watch.
We have a perfectly imperfect political system already. Tinker around
th edges, by all means, but any attempt to allow the likes of this
newsgroup to exercise undue influence should be resisted.
Mark
> So when
> you have a referendum, you do indeed get the voice of the people, but it's
> ill-informed, reactionary, and subject to a high degree of manipulation by
> self-interested parties via the media.
And presumably next you're going to explain just how that's different
to a general election?
Mark
Wallace-Macpherson
Briefly, there are two ways to get these forms of democracy introduced
into Britain's system of government, (a.) organise a large campaign,
which makes politicians realise that they have no choice and/or (b.) make
this an election issues and vote ONLY for politicians who have promised
(Ha, Ha, I hear) to introduce regulations for citizens' initiative and
binding referendum (I and R).
Now, yer average political candidate might try to fob you off by saying,
what, initiative and referendum, never heard of it and it's bad for us.
Don't listen to this. Two well established political parties (I won't say
which, in order to avoid being accused of bias) have ALREADY included a
promise to introduce citizens' I and R if elected to power, so candidates
can read it up there.
If you want to speed up the introduction of I and R in Britain, start
your own campaign, or join and support ours at http://www.iniref.org
Michael R Henson
Hash: SHA1
Yes - let's hope these regional assemblies take off - without clerks
supporting them as friends unlike the ICTY and other novel forms of
institution. Election systems seem rather unusual in the UK - for I
have not heard of even a Parish council where only one party is
represented, which seems to be something of a statistical anomaly.
Of course, with new technology, you could probably elect the
roadsweeper, but you can't elect the man who has to sack him, so
that's no use (profession is ultimately the restricting bound of
democracy). We have a monarch who may be obliged to sack judges, and
Parliament does not sack them directly (which is why they are not
elected) but the Queen is bound by Parliament for the only way it can
sack a judge is by an address of both houses. I personally believe
this nicety of a bygone age was just to counter the situation where
the judge died unfortunately and potentially at hostile hand in
between the address and the removal. Is that much of a justification?
Even Town Clerks and the Parliament Clerk, Black Rod, Sergeant-at
Arms etc. should probably be elected by popular suffrage now. You
could extend this to almost any Commissioner, outside of the Church.
The immunity which would apply is perfectly proportionate and
consistent with the present age, and the security which may need to
be afforded with appropriate checks and balances to cope with it.
Anomalous is the Police, of course, but these must not be a back door
entry for Europe. If Senior Police Officers are sacked by a Home
Secretary who is unelected as such, that does not mean that he
shouldn't be elected into eligibility in precisely the same way,
professionally or otherwise. I'm afraid if anyone thinks in this day
and age that Civilian Police could do a military job in critical
situation, they are probably expressing a deep internal yearning for
profound anarchy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBPyRLPOLJqwBKJErXEQKkdACfdIH6J4Yr0VMIWSo9rglBUcUmJFgAnjBX
3QoEGj3MBrpG6V1jef9F4+PX
=f6yw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
=== Warning: Former elected Representative customary immunities and privileges
=== may apply. UNESCO and WEU treaty commitments may activate due to former
=== World-Best Classical Scholar status of sender (13.45bn pound Strat. Value)
blewyn
A vote that happens only once every few years is sufficiently
infrequent that it gets the level-headed 'middle ground' voters off
their backsides and into the voting booth, thereby offsetting the
lunatic fringe who would probably exert an unrepresentative level of
influence on regular referenda.
Blewyn
Wallace-Macpherson
Already in some countries, and with the reforms of democracy which we at I&R propose for Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, there is no way for an extremist minority, whether lunatic or not, to impose its
will on everybody else.
We endorse a "three-step" system of citizen-initiated democracy, to be integrated with the current
system of parties and parliament.
There being at least some freedom of speech, any person of group may make a proposal for a law, change
to an existing law, or veto of a bill recently passed by parliament. BUT, this proposal, before going
to the next stage of the procedure (see below), must gather the support of a very substantial number of
fellow citizens. For proposals at country level, the Swiss require a threshold of about one and a half
percent of eligible voters.
Only if this number of endorsements (which must be formally verifiable) has been collected within an
agreed time limit may the proposal go to "Step 2", consideration by the elected parliament. Parliament
has ample time to debate and consider the proposal and may propose an alternative. Only if parliament
rejects the proposal, and the proposing group rejects an offered alternative, does the matter go to
referendum. As a further safeguard against extreme or unimportant matters going to referendum, a
further stage, Step 3, the citizens' referendum mandate, may be built in here. A greater number of
endorsements must be collected within an agreed time period and only if this succeeds will a (legally
binding) referendum be held.
During all of these stages there is ample time for public information, debate and deliberation of the
issue in question. Internet with WWW etc. can help here.
We are not proposing "push-button-electronic democracy" or the like !
Given well known public attitudes to politicians and prevailing politics, and voters' turnout for
elections, your thesis "A vote that happens only once every few years is sufficiently infrequent that
it gets the level-headed 'middle ground' voters off their backsides and into the voting booth", makes
me wonder in which galaxy your constituency revolves ?
Sincerely,
Paul Hyett
>>
>> The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
>> popular with the politicians.
>
>And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
>and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
>difficult decisions
Since when? We usually end up with public school flops on the make!
>
>Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
>of Tory rule !
How, exactly?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
blewyn
> In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 27 Jul 2003 at 10:50:35, Blewyn wrote :
> >>
> >> The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
> >> popular with the politicians.
> >
> >And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
> >and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
> >difficult decisions
>
> Since when? We usually end up with public school flops on the make!
Well we should stop voting for them then, shouldn't we ?
> >Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
> >of Tory rule !
>
> How, exactly?
By handing the vote to the best and brightest minds in the land...
Blewyn
Wallace-Macpherson
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MzAZ61CKgLJ$Ew...@activist.demon.co.uk>...
> *snip*
> > >> The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
> > >> popular with the politicians.
> > >
> > >And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
> > >and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
> > >difficult decisions
> >
> > Since when? We usually end up with public school flops on the make!
>
> Well we should stop voting for them then, shouldn't we ?
>
> > >Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
> > >of Tory rule !
> >
> > How, exactly?
>
> By handing the vote to the best and brightest minds in the land...
>
> Blewyn
Title of the thread is "Meaningful participation could reduce electors' apathy".
Even if you managed to perfect the representative system of governance by persuading a large proportion of
the electorate to vote for the most brilliant and honest politicians, then you would be left with a defective
system of governance.
We do *not* propose to abolish the system of parties and parliament.
Some ways to improve things are:
Enable the electorate to select some issues and place these on the public agenda.
Oblige parliament to debate issues which have been endorsed by a large number of citizens.
If parliament rejects a citizens' proposal then a citizens' mandate can cause a binding referendum to be
held.
Consider introducing "recall" of publicly elected persons by the electorate.
Sincerely,
blewyn
> blewyn wrote:
>
> > Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MzAZ61CKgLJ$Ew...@activist.demon.co.uk>...
> > *snip*
> > > >> The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
> > > >> popular with the politicians.
> > > >
> > > >And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
> > > >and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
> > > >difficult decisions
> > >
> > > Since when? We usually end up with public school flops on the make!
> >
> > Well we should stop voting for them then, shouldn't we ?
> >
> > > >Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
> > > >of Tory rule !
> > >
> > > How, exactly?
> >
> > By handing the vote to the best and brightest minds in the land...
> >
> > Blewyn
>
> Title of the thread is "Meaningful participation could reduce electors' apathy".
>
> Even if you managed to perfect the representative system of governance by persuading a large proportion of
> the electorate to vote for the most brilliant and honest politicians, then you would be left with a defective
> system of governance.
>
> We do *not* propose to abolish the system of parties and parliament.
>
> Some ways to improve things are:
>
> Enable the electorate to select some issues and place these on the public agenda.
How would the electorate select these issues, and what's wrong with
the current process by which the electorate selects issues to be
debated by government ?
> Oblige parliament to debate issues which have been endorsed by a large number of citizens.
Who selects the issues to be endorsed, publicises it and gathers the
endorsements ?
> If parliament rejects a citizens' proposal then a citizens' mandate can cause a binding referendum to be
> held.
So the government doesn't really have a say ?
> Consider introducing "recall" of publicly elected persons by the electorate.
On what grounds (other than those already in force) ? How would an
MP's recall come about ? Who would lodge 'recalls' ?
Blewyn
Paul Hyett
>Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MzAZ61CKgLJ$Ew+
>K...@activist.demon.co.uk>...
>> In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 27 Jul 2003 at 10:50:35, Blewyn wrote :
>> >>
>> >> The big problem with referenda in the UK is that they aren't terribly
>> >> popular with the politicians.
>> >
>> >And there are good reasons for that. The whole point of having a government
>> >and debating chamber is that we elect our best and brightest to make
>> >difficult decisions
>>
>> Since when? We usually end up with public school flops on the make!
>
>Well we should stop voting for them then, shouldn't we ?
I'm reminded of this from "So Long, and Thanks for All The Fish", by
Douglas Adams:
On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people
hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.
Odd, said Arthur, I thought you said it was a democracy.
I did, said Ford. It is.
So, said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, Why
don't the people get rid of the lizards?
It honestly doesn't occur to them, said Ford. They've all got the vote,
so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more
or less approximates to the government they want.
You mean they actually *vote* for the lizards?
Oh yes, said Ford with a shrug, of course.
But, said Arthur, going for the big one again, why?
Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, said Ford, the wrong lizard
might get in. Got any gin?
>> >Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
>> >of Tory rule !
>>
>> How, exactly?
>
>By handing the vote to the best and brightest minds in the land...
But *they* wouldn't want the job! :)
Wallace-Macpherson
blewyn wrote:
Members of the political unit - country, federal state, region, city, district etc. are producing ideas all the
time, in response to changing conditions or to actions of others, e.g. government. Some of these ideas turn into
suggestions and become widely discussed. If there is a procedure for citizen decision-making then a proposal can
be put forward as an "initiative". There is some way to register an initiative which is then publicly announced
(may also be posted on the website of the city, region etc..). The proposers try to raise support and gather
endorsements. It's like a greenhouse for ideas (M. Nordfors' term). Individuals and groups may launch initiatives.
Swiss law demands that an initiators' group be formed, to carry the process forward.
> and what's wrong with
> the current process by which the electorate selects issues to be
> debated by government ?
The instruments are too crude and are ineffective. For instance, voters are expected to choose between parties
relying on their manifestos and promises. We know what happens to election promises. A manifesto is necessarily
superficial. An election campaign does not allow adequate public information and debate on more than a small
fraction of the issues which are at stake, and for the electorate, the citizenry, there is no chance to intervene
again for about 5 years. Political, economic and other conditions often change during the life of a parliament, so
decisions may well be demanded for which the elected parliament and government have no, or only very vague and
indirect mandate. Citizens' initiative and referendum (I and R), while involving the people more in their own
politics, bring instruments of finer control, better representation, and more sensitive law-making (including
'negative' legislation by cancelling or vetoing laws).
A major difference here is that, while at present anyone may make suggestion or indeed petition parliament, with I
and R, parliament is obliged to consider the proposal, and if they reject it a binding referendum, if the proposal
gains enough support from the electorate, will follow.
> > Oblige parliament to debate issues which have been endorsed by a large number of citizens.
>
> Who selects the issues to be endorsed, publicises it and gathers the
> endorsements ?
I discussed selection of issues above. Once a proposal has gathered support it gets into the public domain. It's
discussed in families, in pub and presbytery. It gets into the press, there are TV and internet debates. The gov.
of the day, political parties, trade unions, churches and others may well publish their opinions. Questions about
spending limits for campaigns, and whether or not to allow paid signature collectors for initiatives may arise --
these are solvable.
> > If parliament rejects a citizens' proposal then a citizens' mandate can cause a binding referendum to be
> > held.
>
> So the government doesn't really have a say ?
Most public decisions continue to be made and "running the country" done by parliament, government and civil
(public) service. On an issue of major public interest, the citizenry may "jump the hurdles" of
initiative-proposal, putting the issue (which could be in the form of a draft law) before parliament, and then
putting it before the whole electorate in a referendum. If all of that is achieved, and the proposal gains a
majority, then it becomes "law of the land".
> > Consider introducing "recall" of publicly elected persons by the electorate.
>
> On what grounds (other than those already in force) ? How would an
> MP's recall come about ? Who would lodge 'recalls' ?
Grounds for starting a recall procedure would likely be the failure of an MP to represent her/his constituents. It
might be criminal activity, other misconduct, or incompetence.
The procedure resembles a citizens' initiative. Members of the MP's constituency can start the recall and vote in
it. If an agreed proportion of members endorse the proposal then a recall ballot must be held. Sometime such MPs
resign before the ballot is held. A recall ballot may be combined with the election of a new MP. See
http://www.iniref.org/recall.html
> Blewyn
Phew ! Combined with a few other similar exchanges in uk.politics.constitution, this stuff begins to look a bit
like an FAQ for "citizens' initiative and referendum".
RegarDDs
Alex Staplethorn
<snipped>
> Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
> of Tory rule !
>
What Welsh independence vote?
Lyn David Thomas
>
>> Consider introducing "recall" of publicly elected persons by the electorate.
>
> On what grounds (other than those already in force) ? How would an
> MP's recall come about ? Who would lodge 'recalls' ?
Rather than introduce recall - why not use a decent electoral system like
STV, the evidence is that STV results in substandard politicians from one
party being voted out by the electorate. STV gives the electorate much
better control of who they are represented by.
By the way this is being cross posted to more groups than the charters of
the various UK politics groups permit. What is the point in having
separate groups for various political issues if they are cross posted to
them all. I'd suggest we trim this down to no more than uk.politics.misc,
uk.politics.constitution and wales.politics.general? As per the
constitutions of the groups.
Wallace-Macpherson
Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:08:18 +0000, blewyn wrote:
>
> >
> >> Consider introducing "recall" of publicly elected persons by the electorate.
> >
> > On what grounds (other than those already in force) ? How would an
> > MP's recall come about ? Who would lodge 'recalls' ?
>
> Rather than introduce recall - why not use a decent electoral system like
> STV, the evidence is that STV results in substandard politicians from one
> party being voted out by the electorate. STV gives the electorate much
> better control of who they are represented by.
Why "Rather than" ?
To introduce recall of elected persons by the electorate and to improve the method
used to elect candidates are completely different proposals. We could do both.
The Campaign, Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R, proposes the introduction
of citizens' law-making initiative and legally binding referendum. The question of
whether to introduce recall could then be decided by the electorate.
Further, a constitutional change such as reform of the way in which we choose
candidates to represent us should *clearly* be decided, after extensive public
debate, by referendum should the electorate so wish.
Lyn David Thomas
> Why "Rather than" ?
>
> To introduce recall of elected persons by the electorate and to improve
> the method used to elect candidates are completely different proposals.
> We could do both.
No you can't, it would undermine one of the principles of PR, namely that
you have a spread of opinion represented, permitting minorities and
minority opinion. Recall is a majoritarian method and would only work for
single member first past the post or simular system.
> The Campaign, Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R, proposes the
> introduction of citizens' law-making initiative and legally binding
> referendum. The question of whether to introduce recall could then be
> decided by the electorate.
I think I would be very wary of general refererenda for solving issues,
complex issues are not best suited to single votes. I don't object to
consultative referenda but I think binding ones could cause political
gridlock and contribute further to the distancing of people from the
political process.
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:01:39 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> > Why "Rather than" ?
> >
> > To introduce recall of elected persons by the electorate and to improve
> > the method used to elect candidates are completely different proposals.
> > We could do both.
>
> No you can't, it would undermine one of the principles of PR, namely that
> you have a spread of opinion represented, permitting minorities and
> minority opinion. Recall is a majoritarian method and would only work for
> single member first past the post or simular system.
As I mentioned, we propose first to introduce citizens' initiative and
referendum. Then the electorate could deliberate on reform of electoral
system and whether to practice "recall" during period of office, or not.
Look, MPs and councillors must be recallable. In my opinion, the group which
elected her or him should be able to do that. Even if a polity has chosen to
elect candidates by method a., they are free to choose to remove or sack said
person by method b. or even c..
> > The Campaign, Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R, proposes the
> > introduction of citizens' law-making initiative and legally binding
> > referendum. The question of whether to introduce recall could then be
> > decided by the electorate.
>
> I think I would be very wary of general refererenda for solving issues,
> complex issues are not best suited to single votes. I don't object to
> consultative referenda but I think binding ones could cause political
> gridlock and contribute further to the distancing of people from the
> political process.
Don't forget that, with I and R, parliament, government and civil service
continue to do most of the work of legislating and governing. The process of
I and R only comes into play if the indirect system of governance has *not
worked* adequately in some or other field. That is, gridlock or inertia may
already be present.
For solving problems and proposing innovations the citizens' initiative has a
very good record. It can bring issues to public debate, solutions are
sometimes then found without referendum, sometimes with. It has been well
demonstrated that "ordinary" people can grasp complex public issues. The
procedures which we recommend allow the views of minorities to be respected.
Consultation is just a tool of indirect ("representative") governance.
Usually of little value to the polity, may be harmful. "Meaningful
participation" requires methods with which citizens can responsibly
contribute to deciding upon their own affairs. Rather than distancing people,
these procedures, and the associated culture of politics, involve people more
in public life.
Lyn David Thomas
>
> Look, MPs and councillors must be recallable. In my opinion, the group which
> elected her or him should be able to do that. Even if a polity has chosen to
> elect candidates by method a., they are free to choose to remove or sack said
> person by method b. or even c..
I don't think you grasp what I am saying, if you introduce recall in a PR
election then you give the majority a veto on candidates which are elected
to represent minority views.
The two are mutually incompatable.
Far better to put into place an electoral system that selects candidates
on the basis of genuine democratic support and makes it easier to remove
them at an election than introduce recall - which undermines the
democratic process.
Wallace-Macpherson
Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:16:06 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> >
> > Look, MPs and councillors must be recallable. In my opinion, the group which
> > elected her or him should be able to do that. Even if a polity has chosen to
> > elect candidates by method a., they are free to choose to remove or sack said
> > person by method b. or even c..
>
> I don't think you grasp what I am saying, if you introduce recall in a PR
> election then you give the majority a veto on candidates which are elected
> to represent minority views.
>
> The two are mutually incompatable.
Wrong. In order to recall one MP, the electorate of a constituency using single
transferable vote may decide to repeat the whole election.
We point out that, with citizens' initiative and referendum, which we propose for
Britain and N. Ireland, the need for recall could be reduced because individual
laws may be vetoed.
Probably other ways of dealing with the apparent contradiction can also be found.
E.g. consider the following: QUOTE
Countback: Electing a replacement MP from the whole constituency would mean that
the result would not be proportional (although the Irish do this). But repeating
the election for all the seats in the constituency would be needlessly costly and
inconvenient. The use of countback also means that recall is practicable. UNQUOTE
http://www.green.ca/english/convention2002/Res_D09.shtml?printable
If what you write is correct, which I doubt, then I would choose to have recall
rather than "proportional" representation.
> Far better to put into place an electoral system that selects candidates
> on the basis of genuine democratic support and makes it easier to remove
> them at an election than introduce recall - which undermines the
> democratic process.
Recall does not undermine any democratic process. If MPs do not do their job
properly then the members of the constituency whom they represent should be able
to vote them out in between general elections.
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Lyn David Thomas
>
> Wrong. In order to recall one MP, the electorate of a constituency using single
> transferable vote may decide to repeat the whole election.
So a majority can over turn an election because an individual has been
elected... and keep running the election until they get the result they
like.... how do you put safeguards in place to stop that? How do you
remove one of up to 7 members from that constituency without violating the
proportional principles that underpin the election?
Lyn David Thomas
>
> Recall does not undermine any democratic process. If MPs do not do their job
> properly then the members of the constituency whom they represent should be able
> to vote them out in between general elections.
Why? Presumably you would require a threshold of say 50% of the
electorate to do that. And in regards to PR you have a problem in that
all members are elected by a minority to represent a spread of oppinions.
PR using STV makes the elected very accountable to the electorate. There
is no such thing as a safe seat in STV elections. That removes much of
your basis for complaint.
Peter
I'm not too sure about the validity of your statement:
"we elect our best and brightest to makedifficult decisions that
require skill, research and a long-term strategy as well as an
intellectual understanding of human nature, economics the media
and any number of other disciplines to run the UK " We are talking
about politicians, some of which have apparently so little
intelligence taht they couldn't find their own arses in the dark.
How does your statement above sit with the current labour governments
intention to hold a referendum on the UKs entry into the € (Euro)?
Is the government hoping that nobody will have the discipline or the
time to properly read and understand the arguments or and against and
they will therefore be able to impose the € (Euro) on the UK because
it suits Blairs ambition to be President of Europe?
>
>Look at the Welsh Independence vote in 1979 - we could have avoided 20 years
>of Tory rule !
Which Welsh independance vote would that be?
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:21:16 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> > Recall does not undermine any democratic process. If MPs do not do their job
> > properly then the members of the constituency whom they represent should be able
> > to vote them out in between general elections.
>
> Why?
Any person or body appointed or employed or elected to do a job should be recallable.
This may be through sacking, termination of contract or voting out. Why should
politicians be immune? This immunity is widespread -- it invites abuse such as
disregard for the well-being of the electorate.
> Presumably you would require a threshold of say 50% of the
> electorate to do that. And in regards to PR you have a problem in that
> all members are elected by a minority to represent a spread of oppinions.
> PR using STV makes the elected very accountable to the electorate. There
> is no such thing as a safe seat in STV elections. That removes much of
> your basis for complaint.
One hundred percent of electorate is entitled to vote in a "majority" recall process.
I am not in favour of a threshold here because it invites organised boycotting of the
ballot. A threshold of support is required in order to initiate the recall process.
Some improvement in representation of the people's interests may be expected with
STV. But only "some". STV allows *only indirect* governance. The crucial capacities
of the electorate, provided firstly by I and R (initiative and referendum), to
intervene on particular issues, and secondly to recall MPs if necessary, are absent.
If you have STV or some other PR, and an MP loses the confidence of her/his
constituents, then they should have the right to recall. Being "accountable to the
electorate" clearly has failed in such cases, so a pragmatic approach to recall is
needed, which may mean using a voting system different to the one used in the
election.
Wallace-Macpherson
If you want to convince me and at least a few other people who read here then *you*
will have to show how a recall procedure can be combined with the electoral system
which you recommend.
It looks to me as though the best way to recall an MP elected by Single Transferable
Vote is to use a citizens' initiative, which if successful would lead to a recall
referendum being held.
In a previous reply to you I mentioned another way to "recall", which you have so
far ignored. Message-ID: <3F2D0C1F...@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
A recall procedure is not started and run for trivial reasons and must gather much
support. So it cannot be repeated over and over. The safeguards are in the
procedure, e.g. hurdles placed in front of launching a recall process.
A question: How do you propose that an MP elected with STV, who during the term of
office becomes incapable of continuing to do her his job, may be replaced ?
RegarDDs,
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/case.html
e-mail: in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Lyn David Thomas
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:21:16 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>>
>> > Recall does not undermine any democratic process. If MPs do not do
>> > their job properly then the members of the constituency whom they
>> > represent should be able to vote them out in between general
>> > elections.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Any person or body appointed or employed or elected to do a job should
> be recallable. This may be through sacking, termination of contract or
> voting out. Why should politicians be immune? This immunity is
> widespread -- it invites abuse such as disregard for the well-being of
> the electorate.
They are not on perminant contracts and are removable at intervals of 5
years for Parliament, and four for local governemnt and National Assembly.
>> Presumably you would require a threshold of say 50% of the electorate
>> to do that. And in regards to PR you have a problem in that all
>> members are elected by a minority to represent a spread of oppinions.
>> PR using STV makes the elected very accountable to the electorate.
>> There is no such thing as a safe seat in STV elections. That removes
>> much of your basis for complaint.
>
> One hundred percent of electorate is entitled to vote in a "majority"
> recall process. I am not in favour of a threshold here because it
> invites organised boycotting of the ballot. A threshold of support is
> required in order to initiate the recall process.
So you hand control to a minority to remove a member who may have been
elected by a majority of the votes or in the case of a PR election by a
quota of the electorate.
> Some improvement in representation of the people's interests may be
> expected with STV. But only "some". STV allows *only indirect*
> governance. The crucial capacities of the electorate, provided firstly
> by I and R (initiative and referendum), to intervene on particular
> issues, and secondly to recall MPs if necessary, are absent.
The whole point with STV is that there are no safe seats. Thus the member
is far more accountable to the electorate. We have an indirect
representative government, Initiative and referenda are a separate issue.
But I am highly dubious of the use of such measures and doubt that having
muliple referenda yearly will do anything for turnout or real involvement
by the electorate in the process. Plus with the concentration of the
media in the hands of a few I don't think we have the information
structures in place for genuine open debate on most issues.
> If you have STV or some other PR, and an MP loses the confidence of
> her/his constituents, then they should have the right to recall. Being
> "accountable to the electorate" clearly has failed in such cases, so a
> pragmatic approach to recall is needed, which may mean using a voting
> system different to the one used in the election.
Then you clearly don't understand how STV works. STV and recall are
incompatable.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
> A question: How do you propose that an MP elected with STV, who during
> the term of office becomes incapable of continuing to do her his job,
> may be replaced ?
I would have no proposal for recall, because such a mechanism is
diametrically opposed to the principle of STV. There are three methods of
replacing an MP who dies or is removed by incapacity or disqualification
who was elected by PR. The first method is to hold a by-election by ATV,
which doesn't pereserve the proportional nature of the eleciton. The
second is to permit party nomination (which is widely regared as
unsatisfactory) and the third involves a recount of the original election
removing the orginal winning candidate and passing their votes on to the
next preference.
I am under no obligation to show you how recall works with STV as the two
systems are mutually incompatable.
Recall would be undemocratic under STV and is highly dubious under the
present system.
Unless you can produce a fully worked out system of guarentees I don't see
that we have anything more to say.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:58:45 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> > Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> (Wallace-Macpherson wrote)
> > A question: How do you propose that an MP elected with STV, who during
> > the term of office becomes incapable of continuing to do her his job,
> > may be replaced ?
>
> I would have no proposal for recall, because such a mechanism is
> diametrically opposed to the principle of STV. There are three methods of
> replacing an MP who dies or is removed by incapacity or disqualification
> who was elected by PR. The first method is to hold a by-election by ATV,
> which doesn't pereserve the proportional nature of the eleciton. The
> second is to permit party nomination (which is widely regared as
> unsatisfactory) and the third involves a recount of the original election
> removing the orginal winning candidate and passing their votes on to the
> next preference.
>
> I am under no obligation to show you how recall works with STV as the two
> systems are mutually incompatable.
We have seen in this thread that there are several ways in which recall could
be applied in a constituency which has elected candidates by the method of
single transferable vote. Some or all of the methods used to replace an MP
elected by PR could be adapted for a procedure of recall by the electorate.
For instance, a process to disqualify an MP could be started by a proposal of
constituents, rather like a citizens' initiative for a law.
> Recall would be undemocratic under STV and is highly dubious under the
> present system.
No, recall allows "check and balance" in an indirect ("representative")
system of governance. It allows enhancement of democracy, meaning "the people
rule". Having no way to recall elected delegates or representatives, which
you propose, is *weak* democracy.
> Unless you can produce a fully worked out system of guarentees I don't see
> that we have anything more to say.
>
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
Which guarantees do you want to see?
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
Paul Hyett
wrote :
>
>One hundred percent of electorate is entitled to vote in a "majority" recall
>process.
>I am not in favour of a threshold here because it invites organised boycotting
>of the
>ballot. A threshold of support is required in order to initiate the recall
>process.
Of course, such a process couldn't be used here on a national basis to
recall Tony Blair, since he was voted on only by the electors of the
Sedgefield constituency.
Lyn David Thomas
>
> Which guarantees do you want to see?
Well as recall and STV are mutually unreconcilable that rules that one
out. If we are talking about FPTP I would want to see a substantial
proportion of the electorate signing a petition, supervised by electoral
officers, that being no less than 1/3 of the electorate. Then a provision
for preventing constant recall procedures against one individual, say no
less than two years between each case. And if a recall petition gets the
required support then there should be a vote, recall yes/no. If yes then
a second ballot held to fill the vacancy.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Richard Collier
Surely there should be a turnout threshold should of the % turnout
from the original election?
The incumbent should be replaced only if he/she doesn't win the most
votes. The Californian system seems to be designed specifically to
elect the second placed candidates (probably Arnie's and the
Republicans only way of winning).
Wallace-Macpherson
This is one reason why it's good to have citizens' initiative and binding
referendum, so that the electorate can act on some policy issues at the country
level. If, say, T. Blair or the government proposes a bill which is bad or very
unpopular, a "facultative referendum", effectively a veto, can be brought in by
"initiative".
(But what if the Sedgefielders turned against their hero and started a recall
procedure ? ;-)
Wallace-Macpherson
Richard Collier wrote:
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <m...@WITHOUT.iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3F366B74...@WITHOUT.iniref.org...
> *snip*
> > One hundred percent of electorate is entitled to vote in a
> "majority" recall process.
> > I am not in favour of a threshold here because it invites organised
> boycotting of the
> > ballot. A threshold of support is required in order to initiate the
> recall process.
>
> Surely there should be a turnout threshold should of the % turnout
> from the original election?
Concerning the recall procedure, turnout "thresholds" are debatable. For
initiating a recall process, here are some figures about USA, source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0715/p01s01-uspo.html
States and signatures required for recall, as a percentage of votes in
preceding election:
Alaska, 25
Arizona, 25
California, 12
Colorado, 25
Georgia, 15
Idaho, 20
Kansas, 40
Louisiana, 33
Michigan, 25
Minnesota, 25
Montana, 10
Nevada, 25
New Jersey, 25
North Dakota, 25
Oregon, 15
Washington, 25
Wisconsin, 25
--------------------------------------
> The incumbent should be replaced only if he/she doesn't win the most
> votes. The Californian system seems to be designed specifically to
> elect the second placed candidates (probably Arnie's and the
> Republicans only way of winning).
It seems that you are describing a by-election called by the electorate.
In a recall procedure the incumbent (e.g. MP, public official) is first
disqualified. Have I understood you correctly?
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:37:43 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> > Which guarantees do you want to see?
>
> Well as recall and STV are mutually unreconcilable that rules that one
> out.
We were discussing recall and the single transferable vote system. You are
against recall here, I showed that it can be done.
> If we are talking about FPTP I would want to see a substantial
> proportion of the electorate signing a petition, supervised by electoral
> officers, that being no less than 1/3 of the electorate. Then a provision
> for preventing constant recall procedures against one individual, say no
> less than two years between each case. And if a recall petition gets the
> required support then there should be a vote, recall yes/no. If yes then
> a second ballot held to fill the vacancy.
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
I see this as a basis for public discussion about which recall procedure to
adopt in GB&NI. Like other constitutional reforms, questions of how we elect
and remove MPs should IMO, after extensive information and debate, be decided
by the people in referendum(s), resulting preferably from citizens'
initiative.
Sincerely,
Lyn David Thomas
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:37:43 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>>
>> > Which guarantees do you want to see?
>>
>> Well as recall and STV are mutually unreconcilable that rules that one
>> out.
>
> We were discussing recall and the single transferable vote system. You are
> against recall here, I showed that it can be done.
It can be done, but it subverts the whole principle of STV, thus really
isn't democratic.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
Lyn David Thomas wrote:
*snip*
> >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:21:16 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> >> > Recall does not undermine any democratic process. If MPs do not do
> >> > their job properly then the members of the constituency whom they
> >> > represent should be able to vote them out in between general
> >> > elections.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Any person or body appointed or employed or elected to do a job should
> > be recallable. This may be through sacking, termination of contract or
> > voting out. Why should politicians be immune? This immunity is
> > widespread -- it invites abuse such as disregard for the well-being of
> > the electorate.
>
> They are not on perminant contracts and are removable at intervals of 5
> years for Parliament, and four for local governemnt and National Assembly.
Within that sort of time span a great deal of damage can be done by an
incompetent or rogue MP. If there is a good reason to do it, why should the
electorate *not* be able to terminate an MPs tenure?
> >> Presumably you would require a threshold of say 50% of the electorate
> >> to do that. And in regards to PR you have a problem in that all
> >> members are elected by a minority to represent a spread of oppinions.
> >> PR using STV makes the elected very accountable to the electorate.
> >> There is no such thing as a safe seat in STV elections. That removes
> >> much of your basis for complaint.
> >
> > One hundred percent of electorate is entitled to vote in a "majority"
> > recall process. I am not in favour of a threshold here because it
> > invites organised boycotting of the ballot. A threshold of support is
> > required in order to initiate the recall process.
>
> So you hand control to a minority to remove a member who may have been
> elected by a majority of the votes or in the case of a PR election by a
> quota of the electorate.
No, I do not propose to "hand control" to any minority. The electorate,
majority, is free to decide and has the responsibility to do so.
> > Some improvement in representation of the people's interests may be
> > expected with STV. But only "some". STV allows *only indirect*
> > governance. The crucial capacities of the electorate, provided firstly
> > by I and R (initiative and referendum), to intervene on particular
> > issues, and secondly to recall MPs if necessary, are absent.
>
> The whole point with STV is that there are no safe seats.
Are you sure about this? Would not the "major" parties continue to
expect to
get their first-choice candidates elected in their "strongholds" ?
> Thus the member is far more accountable to the electorate. We have an
> indirect
> representative government,
I see all members elected from a constituency as being responsible to the
electorate of that constituency. From what you have written it seems
that you
think that in some cases an elected MP is there to represent *only* the
minority with which s/he is associated. Maybe I have identified one reason
why you oppose (STV+) recall and I favour it.
> Initiative and referenda are a separate issue.
>
> But I am highly dubious of the use of such measures and doubt that having
> muliple referenda yearly will do anything for turnout or real involvement
> by the electorate in the process.
But there is much evidence against your doubt. Initiative and referendum (I
and R) gives people the right to express themselves politically, and the
instruments to direct and over-rule their politicians on *selected* issues,
if they so wish. It's "meaningful participation". They can see and feel their
stake and role in society. In those places where I and R is used it holds
approval by a good majority. It clearly does bring more people into the
political life of their country etc.. By introducing I and in Britain, we
would gradually increase support and involvement in parliamentary politics
too.
> Plus with the concentration of the
> media in the hands of a few I don't think we have the information
> structures in place for genuine open debate on most issues.
I've replied to this one several time in this forum. If you have I and R you
develop new forms of political communication and new attitudes. People want
to get -- reliably -- informed about issues which concern them, moreso here
because they have a means to influence public affairs. A citizens'
initiative-proposal which has proved its worth gets debated in private and
public -- the views of media barons are seen sceptically. The internet allows
improved information about initiatives and referendums. See Switzerland !
> > If you have STV or some other PR, and an MP loses the confidence of
> > her/his constituents, then they should have the right to recall. Being
> > "accountable to the electorate" clearly has failed in such cases, so a
> > pragmatic approach to recall is needed, which may mean using a voting
> > system different to the one used in the election.
>
> Then you clearly don't understand how STV works. STV and recall are
> incompatable.
>
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
It seems that we have different attitudes to the role of an MP or councillor,
including one elected from a constituency with multiple seats.
RegarDDs
Wallace-Macpherson
*snip*
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:37:43 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Which guarantees do you want to see?
> >>
> >> Well as recall and STV are mutually unreconcilable that rules that one
> >> out.
> >
> > We were discussing recall and the single transferable vote system. You are
> > against recall here, I showed that it can be done.
>
> It can be done, but it subverts the whole principle of STV, thus really
> isn't democratic.
>
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
My belated reply, dated 13th Aug. 2003,
Message ID <3F2D0C1F...@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
to an earlier message of yours is relevant here.
Lyn David Thomas
>
> Are you sure about this? Would not the "major" parties continue to
> expect to
> get their first-choice candidates elected in their "strongholds" ?
Not necessarily, the evidence points to the electorate not voting for the
prefered candidates of the party, but voting for the candidates with the
best track record. Remember with STV you don't vote for a party, you put
your candidates in order of preference. Thus the hold of the party
machine is weakened.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
> The internet allows
> improved information about initiatives and referendums. See Switzerland
!
Where turn out has fallen through the flaw.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
>
> It seems that we have different attitudes to the role of an MP or councillor,
> including one elected from a constituency with multiple seats.
IT seems we do, but you also miss the point of PR
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
Clearly I meant: take a look at the Swiss democratic system
http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/pore/index.html
in order to see how citizens' initiative and referendum work in practice,
also see their applications of information and communication technology to
facilitate participative democracy.
Voting turnout for elections has fallen over the last few decades in many
western-style states, including Switzerland. If you count political votes,
including referendums and elections, then there have probably been more per
head in Switzerland than anywhere else.
Wallace-Macpherson
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY !
You have failed to show that the single transferable vote system can produce
adequately accountable representation so if STV arrives I would like to have
recall as an emergency brake, with citizens' initiative and referendum as creative
and moderating tools.
Lyn David Thomas
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:26 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It seems that we have different attitudes to the role of an MP or councillor,
>> > including one elected from a constituency with multiple seats.
>>
>> IT seems we do, but you also miss the point of PR
>> --
>> Lyn David Thomas
>
> NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY !
>
> You have failed to show that the single transferable vote system can produce
> adequately accountable representation so if STV arrives I would like to have
> recall as an emergency brake, with citizens' initiative and referendum as creative
> and moderating tools.
>
Lets face it - unless you get recall you won't count any system as
adequate.
STV gives the greatest control over who is elected to the electorate.
Thus it most accurately reflects the electoral wishes of the electorate of
that constituency.
To then introduce a system that gives the electorate the right to remove
an individual from that group of elected members subverts the system, it
renders it a nonsense. If you want recall then you would need to rerun
the entire election with all (and not one candidate) removed until the end
of the rerun election.
So the only valid recall system under stv would be a system by which a
super majority of the electorate called for a re-run of the election -
why, because under STV no one has a majority, they reach an electoral
quota.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
> >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:26 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It seems that we have different attitudes to the role of an MP or councillor,
> >> > including one elected from a constituency with multiple seats.
> >>
> >> IT seems we do, but you also miss the point of PR
> >> --
> >> Lyn David Thomas
> >
> > NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY !
> >
> > You have failed to show that the single transferable vote system can produce
> > adequately accountable representation so if STV arrives I would like to have
> > recall as an emergency brake, with citizens' initiative and referendum as creative
> > and moderating tools.
> >
>
> Lets face it - unless you get recall you won't count any system as
> adequate.
>
> STV gives the greatest control over who is elected to the electorate.
> Thus it most accurately reflects the electoral wishes of the electorate of
> that constituency.
But, like other indirect forms of governance, it does not allow the electorate much, if
any, influence on policy or performance in the long period between elections. Not
seldom MPs go off the beaten track, fail to represent, break election promises, become
corrupt or simply do not work. "Recall" is a useful "system check" here.
> To then introduce a system that gives the electorate the right to remove
> an individual from that group of elected members subverts the system, it
> renders it a nonsense. If you want recall then you would need to rerun
> the entire election with all (and not one candidate) removed until the end
> of the rerun election.
>
> So the only valid recall system under stv would be a system by which a
> super majority of the electorate called for a re-run of the election -
> why, because under STV no one has a majority, they reach an electoral
> quota.
>
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
STV is not a substitute for god-given right to rule, it is only a way of allocating
votes in a multiple seat constituency.
One method is used to elect MPs, other methods may be used, indeed may be needed, in
order to recall them in some cases. We have discussed several in this thread.
An MP elected by STV may be removed or "recalled" by several procedures, for instance
if there is criminal behaviour or incapacitating illness. In the former case the law
courts act, in the latter perhaps the parliament or medical authorities. The only
public "organ" whose "right of recall" you deny is the body of people who elected her
or him, namely the citizens of the constituency. Remarkable!
Lyn David Thomas
>
> An MP elected by STV may be removed or "recalled" by several procedures, for instance
> if there is criminal behaviour or incapacitating illness. In the former case the law
> courts act, in the latter perhaps the parliament or medical authorities. The only
> public "organ" whose "right of recall" you deny is the body of people who elected her
> or him, namely the citizens of the constituency. Remarkable!
So how do you get round the problem of removing a single memeber when they
haven't been elected by a majoritarian method.... can you answer my
suggestion that the only legitimate method of recall is to vote to re run
the entire election in that constituency. Otherwise you completly remove
the point of PR. From your answers I don't think you understand STV at
all.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
Lyn David Thomas wrote:
This is all very hypothetical because we in Britain and N. Ireland have neither recall nor
(AFAIK) single transferable vote. Rather than pontificating I prefer to await a public
debate in preparation for referendums about which voting system to use and about the
introduction of some direct democracy with citizens' initiative, legally binding
referendum and recall. Thus let the people decide how they wish to govern themselves.
Different constituencies might choose different systems if they got the chance.
Out there on the WWW are several methods proposed or used by serious-looking bodies for
using recall with STV, which we may consider.
If an electorate judges that a candidate has failed and should be recalled then this is a
serious matter which may justify the application of a different electoral system. It
could be acceptable and legitimate to apply one of several methods, e.g. recount, with
election of reserve candidate; an STV by-election excluding the censured MP; a majority
election; a first-past-the-post election. Most of this may not fulfil your purist
requirement to strictly maintain proportional representation. But the need to replace a
bad or incompetent MP over-rides this consideration.
Lyn David Thomas
> This is all very hypothetical because we in Britain and N. Ireland have neither recall nor
> (AFAIK) single transferable vote.
Northern Ireland uses STV for all elections other than for Westminster.
> Rather than pontificating I prefer to await a public
> debate in preparation for referendums about which voting system to use and about the
> introduction of some direct democracy with citizens' initiative, legally binding
> referendum and recall. Thus let the people decide how they wish to govern themselves.
> Different constituencies might choose different systems if they got the chance.
For the same body, that would be a recipe for confusion and not a sensible
way to proceed.
> Out there on the WWW are several methods proposed or used by serious-looking bodies for
> using recall with STV, which we may consider.
>
> If an electorate judges that a candidate has failed and should be recalled then this is a
> serious matter which may justify the application of a different electoral system. It
> could be acceptable and legitimate to apply one of several methods, e.g. recount, with
> election of reserve candidate; an STV by-election excluding the censured MP; a majority
> election; a first-past-the-post election. Most of this may not fulfil your purist
> requirement to strictly maintain proportional representation. But the need to replace a
> bad or incompetent MP over-rides this consideration.
Wrong. You then hand a weapon to the political opponents of that person
to remove them, though they may have done nothing wrong. I don't see how
you can build a mechanism to prevent that. It does overide the principles
of proportionality, it hands a weapon to remove those that a certain
minority or majority don't like. In otherwords you either have a
mechanism for re running the whole election for all the representatives
for that district or for none. You can't pluck one individual out for
removal by electoral methods.... Yes there needs to be a mechanism for
filling vacancies caused by disqualification (a legal process) or
death/resignation but that is not the same as recall.
If you have single member recall in multimember constituencies then you
might as well give up on PR, because you will have ended it.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Wallace-Macpherson
> For the same body, that would be a recipe for confusion and not a sensibleway to proceed.
>
> > Out there on the WWW are several methods proposed or used by serious-looking bodies for
> > using recall with STV, which we may consider.
> >
> > If an electorate judges that a candidate has failed and should be recalled then this is a
> > serious matter which may justify the application of a different electoral system. It
> > could be acceptable and legitimate to apply one of several methods, e.g. recount, with
> > election of reserve candidate; an STV by-election excluding the censured MP; a majority
> > election; a first-past-the-post election. Most of this may not fulfil your purist
> > requirement to strictly maintain proportional representation. But the need to replace a
> > bad or incompetent MP over-rides this consideration.
>
> Wrong. You then hand a weapon to the political opponents of that person
> to remove them, though they may have done nothing wrong. I don't see how
> you can build a mechanism to prevent that. It does overide the principles
> of proportionality, it hands a weapon to remove those that a certain
> minority or majority don't like. In otherwords you either have a
> mechanism for re running the whole election for all the representatives
> for that district or for none. You can't pluck one individual out for
> removal by electoral methods.... Yes there needs to be a mechanism for
> filling vacancies caused by disqualification (a legal process) or
> death/resignation but that is not the same as recall.
>
> If you have single member recall in multimember constituencies then you
> might as well give up on PR, because you will have ended it.
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
(A detail - I assume that your first sentence above refers to my sentence which follows it.)
Regarding the question of combining STV with recall there are at least three factors which you
neglect or undervalue
1) The procedure of recall, which may be adapted for STV. A few political opponents cannot
recall an MP., not even a strong plurality of electors can do this. Firstly, the hurdle --
simply to trigger a recall referendum -- is high in comparison with other citizen-initiative
procedures. I have seen hurdles of up to 33 percent, if I remember correctly (California has a
much lower hurdle). Secondly, a bunch of political enemies cannot boot out an MP - a
referendum, in which the whole electorate is called to vote, must be held to do this.
2) Common sense of the majority in Britain. Given that STV has been used to elect the several
MPs of a constituency, let us consider what might happen to a "minority" candidate. It would be
unreasonable to then recall her or him for following a political agenda announced pre-election.
But MPs are responsible for more than one one issue. So recall may be necessary because of
misrepresentation. Further, MPs may conduct themselves badly or behave corruptly and so invite
recall.
3) The fundamental but widely ignored right of citizens of a polity to recall any official or
representative elected by them.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
http://www.iniref.org/campaign.html
http://www.iniref.org/case.html
http://www.iniref.org/comments.html
http://www.iniref.org/debates.html
http://www.iniref.org/index.html
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
Lyn David Thomas
> Regarding the question of combining STV with recall there are at least
> three factors which you neglect or undervalue
>
> 1) The procedure of recall, which may be adapted for STV. A few
> political opponents cannot recall an MP., not even a strong plurality of
> electors can do this. Firstly, the hurdle -- simply to trigger a recall
> referendum -- is high in comparison with other citizen-initiative
> procedures. I have seen hurdles of up to 33 percent, if I remember
> correctly (California has a much lower hurdle). Secondly, a bunch of
> political enemies cannot boot out an MP - a referendum, in which the
> whole electorate is called to vote, must be held to do this.
Again I don't think you understand how STV works or what the result is.
> 2) Common sense of the majority in Britain. Given that STV has been used
> to elect the several MPs of a constituency, let us consider what might
> happen to a "minority" candidate. It would be unreasonable to then
> recall her or him for following a political agenda announced
> pre-election. But MPs are responsible for more than one one issue. So
> recall may be necessary because of misrepresentation. Further, MPs may
> conduct themselves badly or behave corruptly and so invite recall.
Corruption is an offense and the representative found guilty of corruption
loses their seat, no need for recall to deal with that. I don't see how
you can have a mechanism for recall becasue you would need to identify the
people who had voted for that individual, no others would or should have
the right to remove them if they are no longer following the agenda for
which they were elected.
> 3) The fundamental but widely ignored right of citizens of a polity to
> recall any official or representative elected by them.
Again I don't see how you can combine STV and recall. By its nature
people elected represent a minority of opinion, there for any referendum
to remove them is invalid, as you can get a coalition of their opponents
to remove anyone. I don't think recall is a funderental right. Elections
are, and provided they are regular I don't see a problem.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Steve Cooper
The example you gave of the U.K's (sofar) only example of STV,
is a prime example where recall of a singular representative is
likely to cause problems. It is quite likely that after the
next assembly election you will have constituencies with a DUP
majority, where the minority elect a Sein Fein representative.
It is not only possible, but likely that the DUP would use its
majority in this constituency to deny the minorities right to
the representative they chose, and with singular recall use
this to remove the Sein Fein representative and replace them
with another DUP member.
No matter what youre personal views may be on the rights and
wrongs of Sein Fein. This would be totally undemocratic and an
afront to natural justice.
Steve Cooper
Wallace-Macpherson
This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.
Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
differently.
Wallace-Macpherson
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:30:34 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:> Regarding the question of combining STV with recall there are at least
> three factors which you neglect or undervalue
>
> 1) The procedure of recall, which may be adapted for STV. A few
> political opponents cannot recall an MP., not even a strong plurality of
> electors can do this. Firstly, the hurdle -- simply to trigger a recall
> referendum -- is high in comparison with other citizen-initiative
> procedures. I have seen hurdles of up to 33 percent, if I remember
> correctly (California has a much lower hurdle). Secondly, a bunch of
> political enemies cannot boot out an MP - a referendum, in which the
> whole electorate is called to vote, must be held to do this.Again I don't think you understand how STV works or what the result is.
We propose: Introduce citizen-lawmaking, preferably by referendum. See
http://www.iniref.org/case.html
Then the people can decide if they want to introduce recall or not, and
upon which electoral system to use.
> 2) Common sense of the majority in Britain. Given that STV has been used
> to elect the several MPs of a constituency, let us consider what might
> happen to a "minority" candidate. It would be unreasonable to then
> recall her or him for following a political agenda announced
> pre-election. But MPs are responsible for more than one one issue. So
> recall may be necessary because of misrepresentation. Further, MPs may
> conduct themselves badly or behave corruptly and so invite recall.Corruption is an offense and the representative found guilty of corruption
loses their seat, no need for recall to deal with that.
You have "overlooked" most of the arguments in the above paragraph. Why? You selected only "corruption". Of course this may be a reason for recall, if only because the process of justice may take years or may fail to operate at all.
I don't see how
you can have a mechanism for recall becasue you would need to identify the
people who had voted for that individual, no others would or should have
the right to remove them if they are no longer following the agenda for
which they were elected.
It seems that what you want is not democracy but a sort of government by representatives of interest groups (e.g. lobbies, "civil society" groups), or perhaps you would prefer to be ruled by a council of tribal leaders (as long as your own chief has a guaranteed and completely secure place).
I have argued before that constituency MPs, by whichever method elected, must represent the people of the constituency and not only a minority. You ignored this argument too.
> 3) The fundamental but widely ignored right of citizens of a polity to
> recall any official or representative elected by them.Again I don't see how you can combine STV and recall. By its nature
people elected represent a minority of opinion, there for any referendum
to remove them is invalid, as you can get a coalition of their opponents
to remove anyone. I don't think recall is a funderental right. Elections
are, and provided they are regular I don't see a problem.--
Lyn David Thomas
Indirect systems of public governance (with unrecallable MPs. elected by first past the post, single transferable vote or otherwise) have well known weaknesses which may be partly corrected by having the recall procedures in reserve.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/index.html
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Steve Cooper
I was using party names as shorthand for the supporters and
voters. But it would be very easy for the DUP (Party) to get
a campaign started to get the DUP (voters) to call for a
recall vote, and given the partisanship of N.I politics this
would be succesful.
>
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.
>
and this is just a cop out. You can't argue for something like
recall without having an opinion on how to solve the problems
of this when they are pointed out to you.
Decomocracy is more than just going with the current and temporary
whim of the majority. It is about taking into account the
consequences of your actions and arguing for your point of view.
Until you can show that you've put any real thought into these
proposals, and stop coming out with bland statements as the above.
I for one, an ordinary citizen with no political alligences and
commitment to the party political system we have, will never
support sych a system. Because until you can show that such a
system would come up with better government than at present I will
never support this. For all there problems I'd rarther be run by
IDS, Blair, or even Kennedy that Ruport Murdoch & the Sun.
Steve Cooper
Wallace-Macpherson
*snip*
>>
>>It is not only possible, but likely that the DUP would use its
>>majority in this constituency to deny the minorities right to
>>the representative they chose, and with singular recall use
>>this to remove the Sein Fein representative and replace them
>>with another DUP member.
>>
>>No matter what youre personal views may be on the rights and
>>wrongs of Sein Fein. This would be totally undemocratic and an
>>afront to natural justice.
>>
>>Steve Cooper
>
>
> This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
> electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.I was using party names as shorthand for the supporters and
voters. But it would be very easy for the DUP (Party) to get
a campaign started to get the DUP (voters) to call for a
recall vote, and given the partisanship of N.I politics this
would be succesful.
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.
>and this is just a cop out.
You can't argue for something like recall without having an opinion on how to solve the problems of this when they are pointed out to you.
Decomocracy is more than just going with the current and temporary
whim of the majority. It is about taking into account the
consequences of your actions and arguing for your point of view.
Until you can show that you've put any real thought into these
proposals, and stop coming out with bland statements as the above.
I for one, an ordinary citizen with no political alligences and
commitment to the party political system we have, will never
support sych a system. Because until you can show that such a
system would come up with better government than at present I will
never support this. For all there problems I'd rarther be run by
IDS, Blair, or even Kennedy that Ruport Murdoch & the Sun.Steve Cooper
Having some direct democracy brings bonuses in mobilising citizens' responsibility and seems to be good for the economy! Your old chestnut, that the media barons would decide everything if we had direct democracy, is unconvincing. If people are asked to take serious public decisions, they inform themselves about the issues.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Wallace-Macpherson
*snip*
>>
>>It is not only possible, but likely that the DUP would use its
>>majority in this constituency to deny the minorities right to
>>the representative they chose, and with singular recall use
>>this to remove the Sein Fein representative and replace them
>>with another DUP member.
>>
>>No matter what youre personal views may be on the rights and
>>wrongs of Sein Fein. This would be totally undemocratic and an
>>afront to natural justice.
>>
>>Steve Cooper
>
>
> This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
> electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.I was using party names as shorthand for the supporters and
voters. But it would be very easy for the DUP (Party) to get
a campaign started to get the DUP (voters) to call for a
recall vote, and given the partisanship of N.I politics this
would be succesful.
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.
>and this is just a cop out.
You can't argue for something like recall without having an opinion on how to solve the problems of this when they are pointed out to you.It seems that you skipped many of the messages above in this thread and just jumped in with your "direct democracy can never work because look at Northern Ireland" argument. I offered a number of arguments for recall. Lyn David Thomas ignored some of them.
Decomocracy is more than just going with the current and temporary
whim of the majority. It is about taking into account the
consequences of your actions and arguing for your point of view.
Until you can show that you've put any real thought into these
proposals, and stop coming out with bland statements as the above.
I for one, an ordinary citizen with no political alligences and
commitment to the party political system we have, will never
support sych a system. Because until you can show that such a
system would come up with better government than at present I will
never support this. For all there problems I'd rarther be run by
IDS, Blair, or even Kennedy that Ruport Murdoch & the Sun.Steve Cooper
Having some direct democracy brings bonuses in mobilising citizens' responsibility and seems to be good for the economy! Your old chestnut, that the media barons would decide everything if we had direct democracy, is unconvincing. If people are asked to take serious public decisions, they inform themselves about the issues.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
Lyn David Thomas
>
> This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
> electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.
But you can see how recall can be used to subvert the PR system, which
with STV makes representatives genuinely accountable.
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.
Its too late then. First you have to come up with recall that preserves
the proportionality of the electoral system. I think youwant recall
regardless of its appropriateness or otherwise.
I am against widespread referenda and citizens initiatives. I am not
convinced that they are truly democratic as they usually have very low
turnouts and the issues are not properly discussed. Given the media
ownership in the UK I think you would have to break such monopolies and
near monopolies first and you would need to put constitutional safeguards
in as paramount before permitting rule by referenda. You would have to
also raise treaty obligations above that of any referenda.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
> Not only "minority" MPs may be recalled but also "majority" MPs.. I have
> show in the above exchange with Lyn David Thomas that it is by no means
> easy to push through a recall. At the end of the day it takes a majority
> of the whole electorate.
And if a person is elected by STV to represent a minority viewpoint (which
is the point of STV - to make the representatives representative of the
spread of opinion) then you can have those people removed by a hostile
majority, thus negating the point of the election in the first place.
Again I don't think you understand STV.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
>
> I have argued before that constituency MPs, by whichever method elected, must
> represent the people of the constituency and not only a minority. You ignored
> this argument too.
And I am arguing that politics is an interconnected process that is too
complex to be reduced to single issue referenda the run. That the better
method is to ensure that the people elected to represent the people
represent the spread of opinion and that the method of election used
should give the greatest control to the people rather than interest groups
and parties. This best system is STV. You seem determined to introduce
recall and from your answers you have demonstraited that you don't
understand STV.
I think direct democracy is a recipe for gridlock and the opposite of
"joined up government". See the example of Los Angelies where the people
have voted down proposal after proposal for a rapid transit system, yet
the place is in dear need of such, a proposal that has the overwhelming
support of the electorate in survey. Unfortunately to appove such a
scheme they need to approve an extension in the mechanisms to finance it,
this they refuse to do. This is where joined up government suffers. Rule
by refernda is a disaster. You seem to think that pressure groups will
not be involeved in referenda and somehow the people will sort the issues
out independently of the media - they won't. Referenda should be used
sparingly - not commonly.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Michael Macpherson
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:09:52 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:>
> This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
> electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.But you can see how recall can be used to subvert the PR system, which
with STV makes representatives genuinely accountable.
Message ID <3F3DF9B2...@iniref.org>
(You neglect) "Common sense of the majority in Britain. Given that STV has been used to elect the several MPs of a constituency, let us consider what might happen to a "minority" candidate. It would be unreasonable to then recall her or him for following a political agenda announced pre-election. But MPs are responsible for more than one one issue. So recall may be necessary because of misrepresentation. Further, MPs may conduct themselves badly or behave corruptly and so invite recall."
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.Its too late then.
First you have to come up with recall that preserves
the proportionality of the electoral system. I think youwant recall
regardless of its appropriateness or otherwise.
Increased accountability, which you attribute to STV, may also be obtained while retaining FPTP. How? By using citizens' initiative and referendum and recall. With citizens' initiative and referendum "representation" is also improved, radically, because, on some issues, the people represent themselves.
I am against widespread referenda and citizens initiatives. I am not
convinced that they are truly democratic as they usually have very low
turnouts and the issues are not properly discussed.
There have been no citizen-initiated referendums (worth mentioning) in GB+NI so your claims are based on zero home experience. Elsewhere turnout tends to depend on the issue and has often been much higher than most recent election turnout. What is your evidence that with I and R "issues are not properly discussed"? To which polities do you refer?
Given the media
ownership in the UK I think you would have to break such monopolies and
near monopolies first
People seek information and make up their own minds if given the chance to co-decide on public matters. As with direct democracy in Switzerland, internet can help here.
and you would need to put constitutional safeguards
in as paramount before permitting rule by referenda.
Constitution should be made by the people. I and R would be the best way.
Numerous state constitutions of recent years could only become valid through
referendum.
You would have to
also raise treaty obligations above that of any referenda.
--
Lyn David Thomas
You have an elitist view of democracy. In democratic countries, international treaties are subject to *obligatory* referendum.
further,
Lyn David Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:11:19 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:>
> I have argued before that constituency MPs, by whichever method elected, must
> represent the people of the constituency and not only a minority. You ignored
> this argument too.And I am arguing that politics is an interconnected process that is too
complex to be reduced to single issue referenda the run. That the better
method is to ensure that the people elected to represent the people
represent the spread of opinion and that the method of election used
should give the greatest control to the people rather than interest groups
and parties. This best system is STV. You seem determined to introduce
recall and from your answers you have demonstraited that you don't
understand STV.
Again you evade my point.
A question about STV. Do the individual MPs represent all the people of the constituency or only a minority?
Studies have shown that "ordinary" citizens can grasp complex public issues.
I will comment below on direct democracy and referendum,
An election method (indirect) such as STV cannot be an alternative to initiative and referendum (direct democracy). I and R compensate for weaknesses of indirect governance.
I think direct democracy is a recipe for gridlock and the opposite of
"joined up government". See the example of Los Angelies where the people
have voted down proposal after proposal for a rapid transit system, yet
the place is in dear need of such, a proposal that has the overwhelming
support of the electorate in survey. Unfortunately to appove such a
scheme they need to approve an extension in the mechanisms to finance it,
this they refuse to do. This is where joined up government suffers. Rule
by refernda is a disaster. You seem to think that pressure groups will
not be involeved in referenda and somehow the people will sort the issues
out independently of the media - they won't. Referenda should be used
sparingly - not commonly.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Good "representative" governance may be fine. We do *not* propose
to hinder it. The elements of direct democracy which we propose allow fine-tuning,
improved feedback, creative input of citizens and their groups, checks
on MPs and governments, a veto on legislation and other benefits.
We suggest (unrelated to the case which you describe above) improvement to the Californian system of ballot initiatives, by *integrating* meaningful participation with the parliamentary system. Plenty of time and resources for deliberation of the issues is built in, so detailed effects and implications of legislation can be considered before decisions are taken. There are likely to be quite few referendums.
Surveys in Britain also overwhelming support for the introduction of citizen-triggered referendums. How to translate that wish into policy?
RegarDDs
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/action.html
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Wallace-Macpherson
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:09:52 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson wrote:>
> This is hypothetical. In a recall procedure decisions are made by the
> electorate. You emphasise only parties as political actors.But you can see how recall can be used to subvert the PR system, which
with STV makes representatives genuinely accountable.
Message ID <3F3DF9B2...@iniref.org>
(You neglect) "Common sense of the majority in Britain. Given that STV has been used to elect the several MPs of a constituency, let us consider what might happen to a "minority" candidate. It would be unreasonable to then recall her or him for following a political agenda announced pre-election. But MPs are responsible for more than one one issue. So recall may be necessary because of misrepresentation. Further, MPs may conduct themselves badly or behave corruptly and so invite recall."
> Also, you have not considered our proposal to introduce elements of direct
> democracy. This, like other constitutional changes, should be done by
> referendum. Once citizens' initiative and binding referendum have been
> introduced (assuming they are wanted) then the electorate may act to introduce
> recall, and/or change the electoral system. Regions and countries may choose
> differently.Its too late then.
First you have to come up with recall that preserves
the proportionality of the electoral system. I think youwant recall
regardless of its appropriateness or otherwise.
Increased accountability, which you attribute to STV, may also be obtained while retaining FPTP. How? By using citizens' initiative and referendum and recall. With citizens' initiative and referendum "representation" is also improved, radically, because, on some issues, the people represent themselves.
I am against widespread referenda and citizens initiatives. I am not
convinced that they are truly democratic as they usually have very low
turnouts and the issues are not properly discussed.
Given the media
ownership in the UK I think you would have to break such monopolies and
near monopolies first
and you would need to put constitutional safeguards
in as paramount before permitting rule by referenda.
You would have to
also raise treaty obligations above that of any referenda.
--
Lyn David Thomas
further,
Surveys in Britain demonstrate overwhelming support for the introduction of citizen-triggered referendums. How to translate that wish into policy?
RegarDDs
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/action.html
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
Wallace-Macpherson
"Good "representative" governance may be fine. We do *not* propose to hinder it. The elements of direct democracy which we propose allow fine-tuning, improved feedback, creative input of citizens and their groups, checks on MPs and governments, a veto on legislation and other benefits.
We suggest (unrelated to the case which you describe above) improvement to the Californian system of ballot initiatives, by *integrating* meaningful participation with the parliamentary system. Plenty of time and resources for deliberation of the issues is built in, so detailed effects and implications of legislation can be considered before decisions are taken. There are likely to be quite few referendums."
CLARIFICATION: There will probably be rather few referendums. The question of how many proposals "the system" can handle wil be considered. Some regulation of the number of citizen-proposals (initiatives) can be achieved by adjusting the hurdle -- number of endorsements needed to put a proposal before parliament.
Wallace-Macpherson
wrote:
"Good "representative" governance may be fine. We do *not* propose to
hinder it. The elements of direct democracy which we propose allow
fine-tuning, improved feedback, creative input of citizens and their
groups, checks on MPs and governments, a veto on legislation and other
benefits.
We suggest (unrelated to the case which you describe above) improvement
to the Californian system of ballot initiatives, by *integrating*
meaningful participation with the parliamentary system. Plenty of time
and resources for deliberation of the issues is built in, so detailed
effects and implications of legislation can be considered before
decisions are taken. There are likely to be quite few referendums."
CLARIFICATION: There will probably be rather few referendums. The
question of how many proposals "the system" can handle will be
Wallace-Macpherson
Further to this:
We already agreed, more or less, that an MP elected by STV could be
replaced, preserving "proportionality" by
(a) re-allocating the votes cast in the original election and choosing
the "first reserve" candidate
(b) calling a by-election.
We have so far not reached agreement on how the electorate could recall a particular MP elected by STV and so exclude her or him from re-election.
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/campaign.html
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org