| submitted on March 25, 2016 2:25 AM EST |
| Name: |
Griffin Turton |
| Comments: |
Dear Alex Macfie
Thank you for taking the time to add your comment. I hope my reply will answer your queries.
The Relay System values the role of MPs, hence the maintenance of the constituency link.
The weighted voting system would only apply at Divisions in the House of Commons and would not be applied within select committees
etc.
Just because an MP has a larger Total Vote would not necessitate they get more time to speak in Parliament, have more opportunities
to initiate legislation or be paid more.
With the Relay System the constituency link to MPs would remain and the way the electorate vote would not change but we would
gain a representative system that treats all the electorate's votes equally regardless of their location, the size of their
constituency and the demographics of their party's supporters. So virtually all the electorate's votes would count rather
than just be counted.
Yours sincerely,
Griffin Turton |
| How did you hear about this site? |
|
|
| submitted on March 24, 2016 8:54 AM EST |
| Name: |
Alex Macfie |
| Comments: |
The big problem with this proposed system, as with any system based on weighted voting power for MPs, is that it assumes that
voting in the Chamber is the be-all and end-all to being an MP. MPs have many other roles, and it is difficult to see how
the weighted voting system could be applied, for instance, to select committees, which is where most of the real, serious
Parliamentary work is done. Committee members are selected for their specific expertise as individuals, so certain individual
MPs would have more influence in committee due to their inflated vote.
Similarly, do vote-heavy MPs get more time to speak? More opportunities to initiate legislation? Are they paid more?
Weighted voting would work for an electoral college. But a Parliament is not an electoral college, it is a debating/scrutinising
chamber, and is supposed to be an assembly of equals. For this reason, any system of weighted voting for MPs is simply a non-starter. |
| How did you hear about this site? |
Google |
|
| submitted on January 21, 2016 2:41 PM EST |
| Name: |
Mike Walling |
| Comments: |
Great site!! I would like to "talk" with you about using excerpts for a project I'm working on. If interested please e-mail
me at: michaelgwaling@gmail.com
Best regards,
Mike |
| How did you hear about this site? |
google search |
|
| submitted on November 16, 2011 1:03 AM EST |
| Name: |
Saswat |
| Comments: |
Good job mate.hope to see more |
| How did you hear about this site? |
Google |
|
| submitted on January 30, 2007 7:20 PM EST |
| Name: |
Jeff Jewell |
| Comments: |
Congratulations on a brilliant solution that would provide a major improvement in the fairness and quality of democracy.
A campaign for its adoption should be a major priority supported by all activists.
While most citizens realize that the existing voting system doesn't produce results that reflect their preferences, and many
view PR to be the solution, it is only by closely studying other PR systems that their serious defects become apparent. This
is why STV was recommended by the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform, and is the only other implemented
alternative.
But STV and the various implemented forms of PR are all highly problematic, and it is only through understanding this that
the amazing power and simplicity of the Relay System can be fully appreciated.
Indeed, perhaps the most striking characteristic of the Relay System for electoral reform is its elegance of combining both
simplicity and power, in a way that all voters can see to be intuitively fair, and so much more so than any other voting system. |
| How did you hear about this site? |
googled on weighted voting systems |
|
| submitted on December 11, 2006 1:24 PM EST |
| Name: |
Griffin Turton |
| Comments: |
Steve
Thank you for your comments, using the Relay System there would be an option for "Additional Members" which would allow
for a party with significant national support but not enough in any one constituency to win a seat, this is outlined in Part
1 of the main document "The Relay System: Electoral Reform for the 21st Century" |
| How did you hear about this site? |
Author |
|
| submitted on December 10, 2006 8:30 AM EST |
| Name: |
Steve Long |
| Comments: |
Agree with both your ideas (reform and UN peacekeeping.) As for being comprehensible, I don't think it's that complex. It's
simply dividing up all the votes that have been gained by a party nationwide to make sure they get the influence in parliament
commensurate with their support.
One thing: what happens when a party has support across the country, but not enough locally to win a constituency?
|
| How did you hear about this site? |
political blog |
|
| submitted on November 30, 2006 12:58 PM EST |
| Name: |
Matthew Rowe |
| Comments: |
A very good idea - let us hope someone of note sees it! The UN idea is also interesting. |
| How did you hear about this site? |
Friend |
|
| submitted on November 23, 2006 9:23 AM EST |
| Name: |
Nick Bannister |
| Email Address: |
nick_bannister@hotmail.com |
| Web site URL: |
|
| Comments: |
Your system is indeed original, but one element of participatory democracy you seem to overlook is that of comprehensibility
(if that is a word).
How do you propose to explain this system to the electorate, because if someone doesn't understand their voting system they
cannot make an informed choice. |
| How did you hear about this site? |
Lauren Bishop |
|
