I'll have to think about that proposal. I can understand what you are trying to achieve. It does smack a lot of 70/80s Labour thinking in terms of bringing politics back to the people - though that does not make it wrong. I'm just concerned that it can be manipulated by parties that would normally be considered as protest vote carriers rather than potential governments.
Milk, it is a myth that FPTP prevents people voting for parties rather than people - it just doesn't. The fact that you prefer to vote for an individual maybe admirable but it has nothing to do with the essential elements of FPTP. As I said earlier there are electoral systems based on proportionalism that allow for individual candidate choice.
I have never once voted based on party! I completely ignore what party someone belongs to. If I'm not familiar with an individual policies I don't vote. I've written in my cats name on several occasions when I wasn't familiar with individuals running. You can keep calling it a myth but it isn't. I've never voted for party and lots of people don't. If you introduce proportional voting you completely eliminate the basic right to chose who governs you... a simple facet of democracy. Proportional voting also limits ideas because parties will select people who tow the party line.
During the height of the Thatcher era the House of Lords was the only effective opposition the country had, because the left was totally emasculated. Even the reactionary old fossils in the Lords baulked at the divisive excesses perpetrated by Maggie and her Merry Men, robbing the poor (and the state) and dishing it out to their cronies. If the Jocks swan off the rest of us will be consigned to an increasingly impregnable Tory power block, so we might need the Lords to ride their mighty Mobility Steeds to the rescue once more.
I vote on party because I would never contribute to the election of a party to whom I held opposing views. If my local right wing candidate declared a personal manifesto that chimed exactly with my own beliefs (not that that's likely, of course) I still wouldn't vote for them because when an actual parliamentary vote takes place he or she will be forced to toe the party line.
With the party system at the top and the whip applied it really means if you want say a tax decrease or a greater service you have to vote on party lines. Individuals views mean nothing in the whip system unless they are the top 4/5 cronies running the show A vote for labour was a vote for Blair after all
This Very few backbenchers ever get the chance (or inclination) to push forward their own views. Unfortunately, most are there purely to further their own political careers than to represent their constituent or make good on their manifesto.
Proportional representation means a wider range of views get to be aired rather than just the choice of the two main parties and there opinions. It's the opposite to limiting ideas.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. I did not say that YOU did not vote for a party. I was referring to the FPTP system. As I said, it is a myth that the FPTP SYSTEM prevents people from voting for parties. Still no use crying over spilt Milk
Tell that to the Italians ......no good having 'ideas' if they can never be put into action because they always have to be tempered., compromised and watered down to mean nothing practical. PR is a very General term covering many versions of systems all with their draw backs. No matter the system employed to select mps its the type of person attracted to run that means the end result stays the same. The birth of the "career" politician is the main reason there is a disconnect from the electorate.
You do know civilisation only came to these shores centuries after it began in China, Japan and many other places. #blametheromans
No and only inbred scots want to break away. It will end up with conflict as the scots have this fantasy that things are theirs. Oil, water etc... They couldnt be more wrong. Its ours (uk).
