3 thoughts on “Episode 32 – 30th April 2010

  1. Regarding Tom Morris’s piece on leadership debates, in the US, the last presidential debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters was in 1984. Since then, they have been sponsored by the Commission for Presidential Debates, an entity created and controlled by the two major parties. So please don’t look to the US for a model of sponsorship of this important new (for you) political event.

  2. I listened to this episode, in the rain, whilst doing a leaflet run round the local area. It kept my spirits up, especially the interesting review of different ways of translating votes to representation.

  3. Wow, just about everything Malden said about STV was incorrect. Transferred votes under STV have full strength, not reduced in any way. Secondly it IS proportional when used in multi-member constituencies as the Lib Dems propose (the more seats there are per constituency the more proportional it becomes). Thirdly it wouldn’t make the system unfair in the Lib Dems’ favour at all, as a proportional system it represents parties proportional to their vote. By “unfair” what you actually mean is that most people who vote for them wouldn’t be effectively disenfranchised any longer. If they got 20% of the vote they would get 20% of the seats, exactly as any other party would.

    Also AV does solve one problem of FPTP and that’s the fact it doesn’t force people to vote for a party they don’t support to stop a more disliked party to get it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>