I do not know if this issue has been published widely in Spain, but today in the UK there are local elections which adds a referendum on changing the voting system after the next election. The current system, called "first past the post" (first past the post, or the first to reach the goal) means that whoever has more votes in a constituency, whether that be by a majority, wins the seat. As a lifetime. Like Eurovision, for example. The new proposal, called "alternative vote" (AV) means that each voter, by submitting your ballot, must indicate in what order the candidates prefer it. For example: first the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat second, third, the green room, conservative, and so the number of candidates have their ballot. If the first preference count each ballot the most voted candidate does not get absolute majority in the constituency are caught the game in ballots voted first preferences is eliminated and second preferences are added to the other parties. Counted again, and if now is a candidate with an absolute majority wins, and if not, the next game is removed unless re-voted and redistribute their ballots using the second preferences, and until a candidate with an absolute majority or only two candidates. Initially sounds complicated but really, what makes this AV system is taken into account that the voters can have a second opinion on who wants to win the seat. For example, if your choice is an independent candidate, but that can not win, you may have a preference about who prefer after him (PSOE, PP, IU, another independent, other party, etc). Why, it does not take into account the second choice if your first choice is eliminated? This approach helps to take into account the views of the electorate rather than less. And the person who desire to pull this mess, you can always check only one candidate and not participate in subsequent rounds to be removed if it is. Some people explained it by comparing it to go shopping. If you go for beers, or detergent, and do not have the brand you want, you'll probably get another one, the second most prefer or that offers other things such as best price or more product for your money. Can be comical, but is well illustrated.
The funny (or not so) is that the debate on this system, as surely would happen in Spain, it is focusing on whether it helps or not better reflect the democratic views of the electorate, but what would help or hurt political parties and proponents and opponents of the proposal thus aligning just opportunistic. Thus, AV is supported by small parties, especially the liberal-democratic, the third most votes in the country, which, like the United Left in Spain, less performance out of their votes to the national level could another system. They like the AV not only because they provide more seats, but because in places where removed before the two large, their second preferences can swing the balance in the final tally on the side is best for their supporters, or at least less bad .
In contrast, the major parties prefer the current system, which encourages bipartisanship. The national parties spread their votes much as expensive pay their seats that never get too many, and the parties local, but devastate in a given region, will never make a big deal nationally.
Why should we vote this now in the UK? Because in the general elections did something very unusual, that there was no absolute majority. The largest party was the conservative, the second and the third Labour Liberal Democrat, was left with enough votes to give the government the key to any of the first two. Who give it to the closest ideologically Labour, which had lost the majority and large number of votes, seats and popularity, or the sworn enemy, the conservative right, which had won the election? In the end it was given to the latter, citing the condition, among others, to hold a referendum. And here it is. And you're going to lose.
'll see how the vote goes today, but polls say no AV. And one of the main reasons, it seems, is that the British believe that government coalitions are bad in themselves. I mean, not so much a possibility among others, is that if there is something intrinsically wrong, such as drought or flood. I must seem it's like playing a cup final and if someone does not win by a landslide, giving the trophy to six players on one team and five from another. Whenever there are elections, is seen as a showdown over all between two proposals, which sometimes slips a third party, but where he wins, obviously in a fair fight, style 'Chariots of Fire', gets the whole prize, the other claps, attends the ceremony and will train selflessly to the beach until you reach the next Games. Even the parliament is positioned so that half of the banks is in front of the other half, rather than the supposedly more egalitarian-Chamber coleguil.
is, that those governing rinses two parties together are not going, when are commonplace in other countries. Indeed, elsewhere the strange thing is that there is absolute majorities rule allowing a party without any support needed parliamentarian. Thus, in recent months, the British do not really know what to think of a government blue-gold, 70% Conservative, 30% Liberal Democrat, who is trying to be fiscally conservative and socially progressive, sometimes paddling two opposite directions, having no habit of talking with the enemy, rather than ignoring four years to the tea.
And as the AV is believed to have more favor coalitions in the future will surely be defeated in the referendum. Curious way to look, goodness gracious. Then see who complains that there are not enough choices that democratic party machinery eat any initiative.
And what would happen in Spain with something like this? Well, viz.
0 comments:
Post a Comment