Click here to access a very interesting article from the BBC. Apparently bestiality was made legal in 1969 (the practice of having sex with animals). However animal rights groups have campaigned for a change in the law and Hans-Michael Goldmann, the head of the parliamentary committee investigating the new amendment, told the Tageszeitung newspaper that the new legislation was intended to clarify the current legal position.
Would this have been on the political agenda if the pressure had not existed?
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Friday, 23 November 2012
Another Angry Voice! - Excellent blog
Thank you Mr Vadgama for finding this blog from a fellow Yorkshireman! Click here for the link. Enjoy!
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Unit 1: Additional Member System
Back to our good old friend Queen Lion and her jungle parliament....CP Grey calls it MMP, we know it as AMS.
In pairs, discuss and jot down the key pros & cons of AMS.
Do this for all the electoral systems you have studied.
Finally, as a group, decide on which electoral system (inlcuding FPTP) you would use for the UK Parliament elections. You should obviously be able to justify why you have chosen the one you have, but also, why you have discarded the rest.
Examination quesion: June 11 - Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? (25 Marks)
In pairs, discuss and jot down the key pros & cons of AMS.
Do this for all the electoral systems you have studied.
Finally, as a group, decide on which electoral system (inlcuding FPTP) you would use for the UK Parliament elections. You should obviously be able to justify why you have chosen the one you have, but also, why you have discarded the rest.
Examination quesion: June 11 - Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? (25 Marks)
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Unit 1: Electoral Systems and spoiled ballots
Thanks to Jacob for this article on the Scottish elections in 2007. This was when the Scottish decided to hold elections to the parliament on the same day as local council elections. Three different types of electoral system were used on the same day.
Click here to access the article. A useful piece highlighting the potential problem of alternative systems to FPTP.
Click here to access the article. A useful piece highlighting the potential problem of alternative systems to FPTP.
Unit 1: Democratic Deficit
Click here for a piece by the BBC on the recent Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) elections.
Questions for discussion include how legitimate are the newly elected commissionaersand does it highlight the issue of democratic deficitu in the UK?
Questions for discussion include how legitimate are the newly elected commissionaersand does it highlight the issue of democratic deficitu in the UK?
Monday, 19 November 2012
Unit 1: Another explanation of STV
Click here to access a really simple explanation of STV. Remember, we are not concerned with the 'Droop' formula as such, although it would be useful to remember the name.
What you do need to know is how it affects representation in an assembly or parliament. Remember, this is used in Northern Ireland (due to the specific needs in this part of the UK)
This clip from New Zealand explains the system really well....with no Droop formula to be seen!
How does the Single Transferable Vote work? The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation which uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.
Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference, so if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions.
STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.
Advantages & Disadvantages of the Single Transferable Vote
| The case for | The arguments against |
| STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected. Under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party. | In sparsely populated areas, such as the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to massive constituencies. This was one of the reasons cited by the Arbuthnott Commission for not recommending STV for non-local Scottish elections. |
| Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) under STV. This means that most voters can identity a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability. | The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote took place. |
| With STV and multi-member constituencies, parties have a powerful electoral incentive to present a balanced team of candidates in order to maximise the number of higher preferences that would go to their sponsored candidates. This helps the advancement of women and ethnic-minority candidates, who are often overlooked in favour of a 'safer' looking candidate. | A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates is prone to so-called 'Donkey voting', where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot |
| STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern. | Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better. It could be argued, therefore, that a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters. |
| Competition is generally a good thing and competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different. | In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather big and confusing. |
| Parliament is more likely to be both reflective of a nation's views and more responsive to them. Parties are broad coalitions, and can be markedly split on certain key issues, such as war. With only one party person per constituency, the representatives elected may well not reflect the views of their electorate. Many voters in the UK general election of 2005 were faced with a dilemma, as they wanted to support a certain party, but did not want to support the war in Iraq. STV would have helped them express these views much more clearly. | |
| Under STV, as opposed to hybrid systems such as AMS, all MPs are elected on the same basis, thus lessening the chances of there being animosity between them. | |
| There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats. | |
| When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are unlikely to pick up second-, third- and lower-preference votes. | |
| By encouraging candidates to seek first-, as well as lower-preference votes, the efficacy of negative campaigning is greatly diminished. | |
| There is no need for tactical voting. | |
| There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies. For example, there is more of an attachment to the City of Leeds or the City of Manchester, than there is to, say, Leeds North East or Manchester Withington, whose boundaries have a habit of changing fairly regularly anyway. |
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Unit 1: Single Transferable Vote explained
Stupid backing track, but a simple way of explaining a difficult electoral system.
Click here to access the 2007 results in Northern Ireland elections (using STV).
Click here to access the 2007 results in Northern Ireland elections (using STV).
Single Transferable Vote System : Northern Ireland Elections other than to Westminster
- Country divided into multi-member constituencies with 3-5 members per constituency. Parties may put up as many candidates as there are seats.
- Voters may rank all parties appearing on the ballot paper in order of preferences although in practice many will not rank all candidates
- Voters can choose within parties as well as between parties. For example an individual might rank anti-war candidates in two parties highly rather than ranking 4 candidates in one party highly.
- Seats are allocated using the Droop quota system in which the number of votes necessary to secure election is the total number of votes cast divided by the number of seats in the constituency +1 +1 additional vote.
- For example in a 4 member constituency where 10,000 people vote, a candidate requires the following:
(10,000/(4+1))+1 = 2,001 votes
At what point did I lose you Tash?? :-)
If a candidate gains an appropriate share of first preference votes s/he will be automatically elected.
- The second preference votes of this candidate are redistributed to other candidates and these second preference votes may enable another candidate to reach the quota in which case their second preference votes will be redistributed.
- Alternatively the bottom candidate is eliminated completely and their second preference votes are redistributed. The process continues until all constituency members have been elected.
- It is a time consuming process but can be aided by computer and it generates greater proportionality than FPTP which is seen as particularly important in the context of N. Ireland Politics.
Unit 1: An argument for PR
An old clip 1984 which explains the disadvantages of FPTP and the advantages of PR. Very bias, but really useful for evaluation of a very common essay...
Unit 1: John Prescott - Legend?
This is the moment politics got real...
On a serious note, do you think this improves his reputation, or is it just another reason we should not trust politicians?
On a serious note, do you think this improves his reputation, or is it just another reason we should not trust politicians?
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Unit 1: Partcipation in Elections
PCC elections: Watchdog to probe record low turnout
Why do you think turnout was so low?
Fewer than 15% of voters turned out in the 41 English and Welsh police areas electing a PCC, a peactime low. Click here to access the article.
Why do you think turnout was so low?
 |
Despite high-profile candidates such as ex-Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott, turnout was still the lowest in peacetime Britain
|
What can we do to increase participation in our suppsedly democratic society?
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Unit 1: What is the Alternative Vote?
Thanks to James Edwards for finding this piece.
What is the alternative vote? A referendum on 5 May 2011 will ask UK voters whether they want to change how MPs are elected in General Elections.
Click here to access an excellent piece explaining just how AV works and what the advantages and disadvantages of changing the system are.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Unit 1: 2010 Elections - Rap style
This is a satirical (look it up Vlad) look at the 2010 Election - it is just for fun!
The highs and the lows of the 2010 General Election from 2010.
The highs and the lows of the 2010 General Election from 2010.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Unit 1: FPTP explained
This article includes a video explaining the 'First Past the Post' system and the advantages and disadvantages...essential knowledge for any electoral system essay.
FPTP is the second most widely used voting system in the world, after Party List-PR.
In crude terms, it is used in places that are, or once were, British colonies. Of the many countries that use First Past The Post , the most commonly cited are the UK to elect members of the House of Commons, both chambers of the US Congress, and the lower houses in India and Canada.
First Past The Post used to be even more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems.
Advantages of FPTP
It's simple to understand and thus doesn't cost much to administer and doesn't alienate people who can't count.
It doesn't take very long to count all the votes and work out who's won, meaning results can be declared a handful of hours after polls close.
The voter can clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next government.
It tends to produce a two-party system which in turn tends to produce single-party governments, which don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.
It encourages 'broad-church' centrist policies. ie extremist parties will find it very difficult to gain power.
Disadvantages of FPTP
Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support as it does not matter by how much they win, only that they get more votes than other candidates.
It encourages tactical voting, as voters vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike.
FPTP in effect wastes huge numbers of votes, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing.
FPTP severely restricts voter choice. Parties are coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in your constituency has views with which you don't agree, you don't have a means of saying so at the ballot box.
Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, FPTP rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, i.e. with just enough votes to win in each particular area. Thus, losing 4,000 votes in one area can be a good idea if it means you pick up 400 votes in another. With smaller parties, this works in favour of those with centralised support.
With relatively small constituency sizes, the way boundaries are drawn can have important effects on the election result, which encourages attempts at gerrymandering.
Small constituencies also lead to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re-election at each election. This not only in effect disenfranchises a region's voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy.
If large areas of the country are electoral deserts for a particular party, not only is the area ignored by that party, but also ambitious politicians from the area have to move away from their homeland if they want to have influence within their party.
Because FPTP restricts a constituency's choice of candidates, representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', where the 'safest' looking candidate is the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election.
Encouraging two-party politics can be an advantage, but in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged.
Questions for discussion: This piece tends to highlight the issues with FPTP. Can you write a short piece arguing why we still use it and in fact, why it is the best voting system we have!
First Past The Post (FPTP), also known as Simple majority voting or Plurality voting. How does First Past The Post work?
Under First Past The Post (FPTP) voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing. FPTP is the second most widely used voting system in the world, after Party List-PR.
In crude terms, it is used in places that are, or once were, British colonies. Of the many countries that use First Past The Post , the most commonly cited are the UK to elect members of the House of Commons, both chambers of the US Congress, and the lower houses in India and Canada.
First Past The Post used to be even more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems.
Advantages of FPTP
It's simple to understand and thus doesn't cost much to administer and doesn't alienate people who can't count.
It doesn't take very long to count all the votes and work out who's won, meaning results can be declared a handful of hours after polls close.
The voter can clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next government.
It tends to produce a two-party system which in turn tends to produce single-party governments, which don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.
It encourages 'broad-church' centrist policies. ie extremist parties will find it very difficult to gain power.
Disadvantages of FPTP
Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support as it does not matter by how much they win, only that they get more votes than other candidates.
It encourages tactical voting, as voters vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike.
FPTP in effect wastes huge numbers of votes, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing.
FPTP severely restricts voter choice. Parties are coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in your constituency has views with which you don't agree, you don't have a means of saying so at the ballot box.
Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, FPTP rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, i.e. with just enough votes to win in each particular area. Thus, losing 4,000 votes in one area can be a good idea if it means you pick up 400 votes in another. With smaller parties, this works in favour of those with centralised support.
With relatively small constituency sizes, the way boundaries are drawn can have important effects on the election result, which encourages attempts at gerrymandering.
Small constituencies also lead to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re-election at each election. This not only in effect disenfranchises a region's voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy.
If large areas of the country are electoral deserts for a particular party, not only is the area ignored by that party, but also ambitious politicians from the area have to move away from their homeland if they want to have influence within their party.
Because FPTP restricts a constituency's choice of candidates, representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', where the 'safest' looking candidate is the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election.
Encouraging two-party politics can be an advantage, but in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged.
Questions for discussion: This piece tends to highlight the issues with FPTP. Can you write a short piece arguing why we still use it and in fact, why it is the best voting system we have!
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)