I’m glad someone is leading this discussion but I’m not sure it will resonate with the average Joe/Josephine Public!…
PR is a flogged horse. Not sure if it’s dead yet, but it’s not a filly I’d put my money on.
And…how can we possibly rely on any vote on any new electoral system being presented by a party that is bound to suffer from its selection? Shifting animal metaphors…Turkeys suggesting Xmas is a good thing?
How do we simplify this whole argument for it to appeal to the average voter?
My belief is most people have a nuanced view of the world, not a radical, black-or-white view. Their ‘wants’ are conditional ones, which often overlap into another party’s offerings. So it’s really hard to vote for one party’s proposition - particularly if that party is lying, or in no way likely to honour the promises it is making to us.
Which is why, if we ever take an aptitude test, or some clever computer-modelled survey, they ask us multiple questions on the same subject, but in a variety of ways. Those clever questionnaires are designed to establish what we really want, or what we really are. They make sense, but they’re complex. No point in explaining that to the participant of course! Same way that there’s no point in explaining PR to Joe Voter either!
If we could somehow build a voting machine that behaves in the same way, we’d get a more representative result.
Yes it would perhaps make ‘party politicking’ redundant, but is that such a bad thing?
Is the real problem not that we keep trying to match our democratic aspirations with a voting system not fit to fulfil that purpose?
Try it out, in parallel to our current tired old system. It might take decades to convince enough people but we should at least try.
Also try ‘sentiment surveys’ before asking voters the one-off, life changing, irreversible question, as we did for Brexit. Rinse and repeat. THEN ask the Big Question when we know it’s the RIGHT question - or series of questions anyway.
Thanks Alan interesting ideas. I note that “PR” sounds tired, but I think the difference will be that it’s now in the interests of the two main parties. And calling it something like every vote counts will make a big difference. Words matter. I bet if “remain” had been “stay” and “leave” had been “depart” the vote would have gone the other way.
Thanks for your thoughts. Is PR really now ‘in their interests’? Does the majority think so? When does it cease to become “the ‘word’ that shall remain unspoken?”…like Brexit…
These are the Big Changes Labour could remembered for, if they have the spine for it, methinks.
I sincerely hope you’re right about this, but it does rely on Starmer having good judgment, so I’m doubtful.
I hope you're right about this.
If only you’re right about this! We shall see.
Really hope you’re right Jonathan! 🤞
I’m glad someone is leading this discussion but I’m not sure it will resonate with the average Joe/Josephine Public!…
PR is a flogged horse. Not sure if it’s dead yet, but it’s not a filly I’d put my money on.
And…how can we possibly rely on any vote on any new electoral system being presented by a party that is bound to suffer from its selection? Shifting animal metaphors…Turkeys suggesting Xmas is a good thing?
How do we simplify this whole argument for it to appeal to the average voter?
My belief is most people have a nuanced view of the world, not a radical, black-or-white view. Their ‘wants’ are conditional ones, which often overlap into another party’s offerings. So it’s really hard to vote for one party’s proposition - particularly if that party is lying, or in no way likely to honour the promises it is making to us.
Which is why, if we ever take an aptitude test, or some clever computer-modelled survey, they ask us multiple questions on the same subject, but in a variety of ways. Those clever questionnaires are designed to establish what we really want, or what we really are. They make sense, but they’re complex. No point in explaining that to the participant of course! Same way that there’s no point in explaining PR to Joe Voter either!
If we could somehow build a voting machine that behaves in the same way, we’d get a more representative result.
Yes it would perhaps make ‘party politicking’ redundant, but is that such a bad thing?
Is the real problem not that we keep trying to match our democratic aspirations with a voting system not fit to fulfil that purpose?
Try it out, in parallel to our current tired old system. It might take decades to convince enough people but we should at least try.
Also try ‘sentiment surveys’ before asking voters the one-off, life changing, irreversible question, as we did for Brexit. Rinse and repeat. THEN ask the Big Question when we know it’s the RIGHT question - or series of questions anyway.
Did anyone get that? ….
Thanks Alan interesting ideas. I note that “PR” sounds tired, but I think the difference will be that it’s now in the interests of the two main parties. And calling it something like every vote counts will make a big difference. Words matter. I bet if “remain” had been “stay” and “leave” had been “depart” the vote would have gone the other way.
Thanks for your thoughts. Is PR really now ‘in their interests’? Does the majority think so? When does it cease to become “the ‘word’ that shall remain unspoken?”…like Brexit…
These are the Big Changes Labour could remembered for, if they have the spine for it, methinks.
Let's see!...''simplicity is everything these days!''😂