# Lets Play! Reforming the UK electoral system **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267 "2010-05-04T09:42:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/21 "2010-05-05T12:03:37Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 1. House of Commons > > Dissolve the House of Commons and the regional assemblies. > Create a standard constituency size across the nation. This may or may not be multi-member. > New elections for assemblies in Wales, England, Scotland, and NI. Together they form the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. This neatly answers the West Lothian Question too. > Elections to use Approval Voting, not FPTP. This is a better way of choosing a MP. It’s not Concordet-optimum, but balances choosing the best candidate with ease of use, particularly with large numbers of candidates while promoting the elector-elected relationship. Any sort of party list system promotes loyalty to party over loyalty to electorate. It’s bad enough already and needs diminishing. > > Note that the use of Approval voting permits large, multi-member constituencies if so desired while retaining the elector / elected link. For instance, in Scotland it may make sense for particular areas like groups of islands to be double constituencies represented by two MPs > > I would put restrictions on who may become an MP. Lawyers will be banned from becoming MPs as it’s a conflict of interest. Candidates who are employees of the State may not stand for any elected post (even those outside the Commons), nor may they stand within 1 year of such employment, nor may they be members of any political party - they’re supposed to implement policies regardless of their source. Again, it’s a conflict of interest. Note that this applies to both civil servants and the military. > > MPs must do their jobs. This is the Margaret Moran issue. If a MP is not doing their job or brings their office into disrepute, then they should be dismissed. I’m minded of the Quaestors of ancient Rome who made sure that inactive Senators lost their titles. Perhaps this should come under the Parliamentary Standards Committee? That said, I’m aware that the process could be subverted by a malevolent government, and safeguards would need to be put into place. > > Parliamentary terms will not be fixed, but have a maximum duration of 5 years, as at present. I don’t want to inflict America’s election cycle on us. And it keeps everyone on their toes. > > 1. House of Lords > > To be a revising house, the House of Lords must remain wholly unelected. Otherwise the Commons would be contradicting the will of the people. So who should be members? Basically, I’d leave it pretty much as is but formalise things somewhat. I would like to see more people of achievement as members. I would expect all Privy Councillors to be members if not already members of the House of Commons. Something does need to be done about the Parliament Act. Labour have abused it. So, I would suggest that if the Parliament Act is invoked, the matter is referred to a full session of the Privy Council. > > 1. Government - unity of executive and Parliament. > > I like the PM and ministers being MPs and part of the House of Commons. I like it that they are regularly held to account. I like them having to watch their backs and having to carry their party with them. This system really showed up John Major, whereas under an American system, he’d have triangulated or something. > > I most certainly don’t want an elected President as in America, and I prefer the current monarchy to an elected President in the Irish mould. QEII has done a very good job, as did her father. I have strong doubts about Charles, but William looks to take after his grandmother. > > Political advisors should be paid out of Party purses, not by the state. > > 1. Money. > > Only citizens may make contributions to politicians and political funds. All non-trivial donations are public. This neatly blocks both corporate and union sponsorship, and donations for contracts. > > All MPs expenses are public. They work for us. Get over it. Quartz If this will be your manifesto I’m voting for you:D ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/22 "2010-05-05T13:25:41Z")
The value of having an unelected House of Lords is that they don’t have to go through the "Baby kissing"routine when considering important issues. Most elected politicians will say or propose anything that will put them in office, no matter how impracticable. Also there should be some sort of basic intelligence test to be able to vote. ---
**Author:** ![ivan732](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aeb1de/32.png) [@ivan732](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan732)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/23 "2010-05-05T13:31:57Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > The idea of a non-elected, hereditary head of state is just plain undemocratic, immoral, and evil. And so is the whole system of Barons, Dukes, Knights, etc. What system? Getting a knighthood is not much different from getting a medal from the President, confers no political power or wealth, and is not hereditary. As for the House of Lords, only a small proportion of them are now hereditary peers, and if the Commons ever agree to further reforms that will probably be the end of hereditary peers all together. Even now, by no means all Earls, Barons etc. are members of the Lords. Most Lords are ex-politicians, industrialists, people like that, rather than “nobility”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/24 "2010-05-05T13:35:15Z")
I’m still interested in the proposal for multi-member districts in the Commons. Forget the U.S. Senate. Anyway the analogue to the Commons is the House of Representatives? Why wouldn’t multimember district be a magnet for electoral mischief? Frankly I don’t see any real benefit to them, unless there are enough members elected from the district to support an intradiatrict form of PR. It’s my impression that multimember district were a feature of the rotten boroughs that had to be dealt with in prior electoral reforms. And I would be interested in more detail on the concept of “uniform size” of constituencies. What is the basis of measure? I hope it’s not geographical area. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/25 "2010-05-05T14:08:21Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > And I would be interested in more detail on the concept of “uniform size” of constituencies. What is the basis of measure? I hope it’s not geographical area. I would have it as population. Going purely by geographical area is a no-no, of course, but there has to be some respect for it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/26 "2010-05-05T14:20:04Z")
If the measure is population then howdo you show “respect” for geographical size? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/27 "2010-05-05T14:50:47Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If the measure is population then howdo you show “respect” for geographical size? By allowing some flexibility. For instance, if you decide on a population per MP of 100K, you may have to compromise it when you note that the population of the Orkneys & Shetlands is less than half that and you can’t really group them with anything else. Similarly for the Isle of Wight with a population of 140K. Contrariwise, you could group the Hebrides with other islands. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/28 "2010-05-05T14:55:16Z")
You need to have sufficient flexibility to allow 5-10% variance from parity. But let’s be fair, how many UK electorates could you not drive (walk?) around comfortably in a day? Compared to say [Kalgoorlie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Kalgoorlie) Covering an area of 2,295,354 square kilometres (886,241 sq mi) (an area the size of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Great Britain combined), Durack, Lingiari, O’Connor & Kennedy. Of course to to keep electorates +/- 10% there are also several less than 40 square kilometres. If the UK has what 650 electorates vs Australia with 150 so they’re about the same average number of voters. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/29 "2010-05-05T18:36:20Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If the measure is population then howdo you show “respect” for geographical size? Obviously, you try to keep the districts as compact as possible, and following existing city limits, neighborhood boundaries, etc. when you can. But in the US House of Rep’s, the restriction is that a district can be no larger than an entire US state. Thus you have the entire state of Wyoming being 1 district, with a population of only 490,000; while the average is about 650,000, and the largest is 900,000. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267/30 "2010-05-05T21:08:05Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > But not “off with their heads”, like you did with King Charles. > After all, Liz seems fairly nice, as does most of the family. (And that Harry is quite cute.) Just pull their titles, their ill-gotten inherited wealth, and send them off to get a real job. A (normally) powerless figurehead is a real and useful job. It gives you someone who is uninvolved with the practical day-to-day business of government but is available to do most of the of the ribbon cutting/ship commissioning ceremonial duties. And at the same time, and even more importantly, it keeps the Head of State job (and the respect and deference that always seem to come with it) out of the grubby hands of elected politicians. If you want to be\*\* really \*\*smart about it, you can do what Canada does and make the Queen of Canada live in the UK and have a much lower profile local representative of the QoC (picked by the PM) on-hand for the ribbon cutting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-play-reforming-the-uk-electoral-system/538267.md?page=1)