According to this Washington Post story by Dan Balz, the British Conservative Party has told the Liberal Democratic Party that if the Liberal Democrats support a Conservative government, that government will then allow a referendum on Instant Runoff Voting, which in Britain is usually called the Alternative Vote. But, the Conservatives aren’t willing to allow a referendum on proportional representation.
The link goes not to a standard news story, but to a series of questions and answers from readers of a Washington Post blog. One of the amusing parts is near the end, where a reader brings up a question of who the new leader of the Labor Party might be. The readers suggests it may be Ed Balls, and then the reader adds a parenthetical remark saying he has an “unfortunate name.” That is a rather odd comment to make when one is e-mailing with a reporter named Dan Balz.
I understand Ed’s nickname is “Biggie”. 😉
IRV/AV (UK) = Keep Cons in power.
Obviously the Lib Dems should now join with the Labour folks IF there is a Labour blood oath to have a P.R. law enacted with NO referendum.
Otherwise keep having NO confidence motions ASAP in the new Parliament — i.e. nonstop new elections — until P.R. does get enacted.
END the gerrymander area fixation from the Dark Age — akin to the flat earth stuff back then.
Other obvious reform — the NONPARTISAN election of ALL major executive officers — i.e. the P.M., Attorney General, etc. and ALL judges — using Approval Voting (U.S.A.)
P.R. legislative and nonpartisan App. Voting executive/judicial — regardless of the EVIL monarchs / oligarchs in the EVIL party hack parties.
The UK election meltdown was a case of mismanagement.
Thousands of voters were turned away from the polls although they had long waited in lines to vote.
Using Occam’s theory, we can attribute this massive disenfranchisement of voters to incompetence, in fact several observers say that is exactly what happened.
It is also the perfect way to enact a coup – by “accidentally” not printing enough ballots, by unintentionally not having enough poll workers, by “accidentally” removing voters from the voting rolls, by sending voters home without letting them vote because the polls closed while they were in line.
How much did the disenfranchisement of student voters impact the election? What if all students who waited in line to vote had actually been allowed to vote?
I will argue that incompetence was in play here. And such incompetence will not be corrected by changing electoral methods or adopting complex non transparent voting machines.
Incompetence starts at the top and works its way down.
From the Telegraph UK: General Election 2010: Electoral Commission ‘lacked grasp of reality’
The woman who presided over last week’s voting chaos “lacked a grasp of reality†in running a general election, Britain most senior returning officer has claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7701561/General-Election-2010-Electoral-Commission-lacked-grasp-of-reality.html
Jenny Watson, who earns £100,000 for working a three day week as chairman of the Electoral Commission quango, has faced an angry response from thousands of voters who were unable to exercise their democratic right on May 6.
…
the same system had coped perfectly well in the past, often with higher turnouts of voters.
Incompetence my eye. Sure bureaucrats are incompetent but it is too coincidental when the ‘incompetence’ happens predominantly to precincts used by voters who disagree with your favored candidate. We have seen this in Florida and Ohio just to name the two most recent and egregious cases.
In Anchorage Alaska, a GOP incumbent candidate for mayor decided to cease the practice of a polling station on the college campus. Surprise, surprise, surprise this little stunt held down democrat votes keeping his pathetic ass in power for one more term. And in this rare case, the democrat was considerably better.