By Steven L. Taylor
Via the BBC: ‘Time tight’ to get electoral reform referendum through
Downing Street has admitted "time is tight" to get laws for a referendum on scrapping Britain’s first past the post voting system through Parliament.
Well, waiting until almost literally the last minute might have obviated that problem. Indeed, as Matthew Shugart noted last week: Labour first promised that they would address electoral reform in 1997. Seeing as how they have held the government since that time, one could argue that they had time to address the issue prior to now.
Two other things to note from the piece:
1. Prime Minister Brown is facing a bit of back bench revolt, as up to 40 members of Labour plan to vote against the bill. For American readers the notion that members of the majority party might buck leadership is unremarkable. However, in the UK it is a far more dramatic event.
2. The story notes “Conservatives say the existing method is fair and ‘keeps extremists out’.” However, the proper translation of such a proclamation is “we fear we would lose seats if reform were passed.” Now, certainly, that being the case it makes perfect sense for the Conservatives to oppose change. However, arguing that an electoral system might let other political actors into office that the existing system is leaving out is to argue that the existing system is not fully representative of the population.
The degree to which the objection by the Conservatives is actually about fringe groups being let into Parliament is dubious anyway, as the alternative vote (explained here) is not a system that will increase the changes that small factions will be able to win seats. Really, if a fringe party cannot currently win a plurality in a given constituency, how in the world will it win an absolute majority? Indeed if a party could win an absolute majority, even based on second and third preferences in a district it would, by definition not be a fringe or “extremist” party.
No, the Conservatives’ fear is that the alternative vote will aid Labour and/or the Liberal Democrats.
Share on Facebook
Sphere: Related Content
By Steven L. Taylor
Psychedelic Self Portrait
It also has a sort of 1970s sfx/TV intro vibe. There’s also a bit of Warhol in there.
alt 365.39
Share on Facebook
Sphere: Related Content
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
Via the BBC: Pro-Moscow Yanukovych ‘to win Ukraine election’
Ukraine’s pro-Moscow opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych will win a narrow victory in the country’s presidential election, electoral officials say.
With more than 97% of votes counted, Mr Yanukovych had a 2.6% lead over his rival, PM Yulia Tymoshenko, media said.
Mr Yanukovych called on Mrs Tymoshenko to quit, but she refused and is expected to challenge the result.
The results suggest a remarkable comeback after Mr Yanukovych was swept aside by the 2004 "Orange Revolution".
And in Costa Rica, also via the BBC: Laura Chinchilla to be Costa Rica’s first female leader
With most votes counted from Sunday’s poll, Ms Chinchilla had 47% of the vote, 22 points ahead of the main opposition contender, Otton Solis.
Ms Chinchilla, a former vice-president, has pledged to continue the free-market policies of outgoing head, Oscar Arias.
[…]
Mr Solis won some 25% of the vote, while the third-placed candidate, Otto Guevara, won 21%.
Interestingly, when Solis ran against Arias back in 2006 the elections was extremely close and the issue of CAFTA ratification (the Centra Amercan Free Trade Agreement with the US–i.e., a free trade policy) was very much a contentious one. It is interesting that four years later (and especially given the global economy) that there has been such a shift in public sentiment. Although clearly that was only one amongst many factors.
Share on Facebook
Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, February 7, 2010
By Steven L. Taylor
Last Treat of the Season
365.38 (2/7/10). The seven month drought commences.
Congrats to the Saints!
Share on Facebook
Sphere: Related Content
By Steven L. Taylor
Next Page »
You know, I’ve been saying that this could really backfire on him and this state. Alabama already gets way more in taxpayer dollars than we contribute, and Shelby’s little stunt could turn the eyes of the nation toward that.
Now, I’m not a bitter U.S. Congressman or Senator with a (D) next to my name, but if I were… Alabama would have a lot less overall federal funding in the very near future. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t appear that the Democrats have much (if anything) to lose by not pandering to Alabama.
Dirty politics? Yes. Completely unheard of? I sure hope so, for Shelby’s sake and for ours. Something tells me it’s not.
Comment by Alabama Moderate — Tuesday, February 9, 2010 @ 4:26 pm