NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i7t0xBK2wYQ

I'd like to know what you thought of this idea. I think it would make the whole system far better. The video I've made here outlines my reasons why.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i7t0xBK2wYQ

I'd like to know what you thought of this idea. I think it would make the whole system far better. The video I've made here outlines my reasons why.

Accounatability is important; otherwise how are constituents to judge whether their MP is voting how they want?


Also people vote for a party because they agree with the overall stances of that party, it's absolutely important that the cabinet is made up of people who agree with those views because that's what people are voting for.

Accounatability is important; otherwise how are constituents to judge whether their MP is voting how they want?

But in this system, if the government as a whole wants to do something that the constituancy doesnt then the MP can vote against it. Accountability is only valuable if it can be used to further what the constituants want. And ultimately, the MP will have the more immidate fear of the party than he will his consitutants


Also people vote for a party because they agree with the overall stances of that party, it's absolutely important that the cabinet is made up of people who agree with those views because that's what people are voting for.

People also vote for an MP as well as a party. They vote for that MP because they believe that he or she will do what is best for them in parliament, regardless of the partys stance. Sometimes the party may have a stance in an election but later it changes and then the MPs have to change with it if the party commands them. If the MPs believe that something is wrong they should attempt to change it. Power should be focusesd within the hands of the MPs not the executive, because the exectuive are not directly elected.

But in this system, if the government as a whole wants to do something that the constituancy doesnt then the MP can vote against it. Accountability is only valuable if it can be used to further what the constituants want. And ultimately, the MP will have the more immidate fear of the party than he will his consitutants
Surely that’s a case for changing the party whip system, rather than add a layer of secrecy to MPs who, after all, are meant to be responsible, representative and accountable to the people.

Power should be focusesd within the hands of the MPs not the executive, because the exectuive are not directly elected.
Again, this seems to be a case for a change to the party system, rather than a case to make Westminster even less accountable.

But in this system, if the government as a whole wants to do something that the constituancy doesnt then the MP can vote against it. Accountability is only valuable if it can be used to further what the constituants want. And ultimately, the MP will have the more immidate fear of the party than he will his consitutants
If this was the situation then an MP would have no reason to vote for what's best for his constituency he has free reign to vote on his personal preferences rather than what's his constituency wants. How are people to judge if their MP's doing a good job if they don't have a clue what he's up to. Accountability is the cornerstone of democracy and is valuable in itself.



People also vote for an MP as well as a party. They vote for that MP because they believe that he or she will do what is best for them in parliament, regardless of the partys stance. Sometimes the party may have a stance in an election but later it changes and then the MPs have to change with it if the party commands them. If the MPs believe that something is wrong they should attempt to change it. Power should be focusesd within the hands of the MPs not the executive, because the exectuive are not directly elected.
All the executive are elected MPs. And most people (in my purely anecdotal evidence) vote for party over local person

The whole idea behind a secret ballot is that people can't be pressured unfairly into voting one way of the other. However, politicians are meant to be pressured by their constituients into voting whatever way their constituients want. That is the purpose of a representative democracy, to give all the people a voice without having to listen to every one of them individually. It is an unfortunate side effect of having parliamentary votes a matter of public record that MPs will be pressured into voting along party lines, but it is better than the alternative.

If this was the situation then an MP would have no reason to vote for what's best for his constituency he has free reign to vote on his personal preferences rather than what's his constituency wants. How are people to judge if their MP's doing a good job if they don't have a clue what he's up to. Accountability is the cornerstone of democracy and is valuable in itself.[QUOTE=Forsakia;13158072]

He has the reason that he has a mandate to vote for their best interests. The way they would know ultimately is to make the voting record a matter like the thrity year rule. Keep them absolutely secret untill such time as the MP has lost his seat. They know if the MP is doing a good job by the results. Clearly if he is just blindly supporting the government on issues that affect them negatively then they will see that in the numbers of people who voted for or against it.

[QUOTE=Forsakia;13158072]
All the executive are elected MPs. And most people (in my purely anecdotal evidence) vote for party over local person

I am a British citizen, I know that. But said MPs are not elected to the position of the exective directly. Thats the point.

He has the reason that he has a mandate to vote for their best interests. The way they would know ultimately is to make the voting record a matter like the thrity year rule. Keep them absolutely secret untill such time as the MP has lost his seat. They know if the MP is doing a good job by the results. Clearly if he is just blindly supporting the government on issues that affect them negatively then they will see that in the numbers of people who voted for or against it.
So once he's lost his job they know whether they should have kept him or not?

MPs can't pass legislation on their own, if it's a close ballot that just loses the constituents don't know whether their MP voted the way they wanted and was on the losing side or betrayed them and voted the way his party wanted him to.

He has the reason that he has a mandate to vote for their best interests. The way they would know ultimately is to make the voting record a matter like the thrity year rule. Keep them absolutely secret untill such time as the MP has lost his seat. They know if the MP is doing a good job by the results. Clearly if he is just blindly supporting the government on issues that affect them negatively then they will see that in the numbers of people who voted for or against it.
If you're going to reveal an MP's voting history at every election then why bother hiding it in the first place?

MPs can’t pass legislation on their own, if it’s a close ballot that just loses the constituents don’t know whether their MP voted the way they wanted and was on the losing side or betrayed them and voted the way his party wanted him to.
Exactly.

Enforcing secret ballots doesn’t remove the threat of the Chief Whip.

He has the reason that he has a mandate to vote for their best interests.
So what if the MP has a mandate to vote for his constituents' best interests? There's a good chance the MP would just ignore that as he now has the right to vote however the hell he wants. It would hardly be the first time a politician has lied.

The way they would know ultimately is to make the voting record a matter like the thrity year rule. Keep them absolutely secret untill such time as the MP has lost his seat.
That would be pointless, his constituents couldn't hold it over him any more.

They know if the MP is doing a good job by the results. Clearly if he is just blindly supporting the government on issues that affect them negatively then they will see that in the numbers of people who voted for or against it.
No they wouldn't. Regardless of how the results, constituents still wouldn't know how the MP voted.

Besides, there's always a good chance that under these circumstances, the government would just illegally spy on how their MPs vote.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13158125']So what if the MP has a mandate to vote for his constituents' best interests? There's a good chance the MP would just ignore that as he now has the right to vote however the hell he wants. It would hardly be the first time a politician has lied.


That would be pointless, his constituents couldn't hold it over him any more.


No they wouldn't. Regardless of how the results, constituents still wouldn't know how the MP voted.

Besides, there's always a good chance that under these circumstances, the government would just illegally spy on how their MPs vote.

That wasn't me dude. It was Zahrebska.

That wasn't me dude. It was Zahrebska.
Ah, screwed up the quoting. Fixed.

wowzer.

Thi is interesting. I say opposed though I am not a citizen of the UK. however, I'm sure there are a few congressmen and senators that would agree to something like this. :D

I'd rather that my MP wasn't saying that he votes one way and actually voting another. If he's going to vote against his party he should come out and admit it.

Accounatability is important; otherwise how are constituents to judge whether their MP is voting how they want?Thread over.

If MPs were not accountable then what would be the point of representative democracy.

MPs can't pass legislation on their own, if it's a close ballot that just loses the constituents don't know whether their MP voted the way they wanted and was on the losing side or betrayed them and voted the way his party wanted him to.

Yes, but what reason does he have to betray the constituants? With a secret balot it is in his interest to keep voting the way they want him to so as to make it harder for the government to do things that the constituancy doesn't want. That way they will vote for him again when the bills fail to pass and they don't damage the constituants interests.

Thread over.

If MPs were not accountable then what would be the point of representative democracy.

They are acountable by what happens in parliament, what actually gets done.

They are acountable by what happens in parliament, what actually gets done.That's like saying it's my fault if 10 people decide to beat me up because I wasn't able to persuade them not to.

Yes, but what reason does he have to betray the constituants? With a secret balot it is in his interest to keep voting the way they want him to so as to make it harder for the government to do things that the constituancy doesn't want. That way they will vote for him again when the bills fail to pass and they don't damage the constituants interests.

Say a yes/no issue comes up. MP thinks yes is the right option, but his constituents want him to vote no. With secret ballots he can vote yes without his constituents ever finding out.

And it's ridiculous for them to judge him based on the majority decisions of 600 odd MPs. He could have voted the way they wanted him to and lost every time or betrayed them but lost every time. It's no way to judge his performance.

They are acountable by what happens in parliament, what actually gets done.
They're not individually accountable though. And when each one has less than 0.2% of a say in what gets done (in terms of normal MP at least, obviously cabinet members and PM have more) you can't judge them individually on the actions of the whole.

I think we'd be better off if we got rid of political parties and constituencies voted for their MPs based soley on their personal voting records and stances. Then we might actually get some proper choice and representation rather than each election being a battle between green apples and slightly-less-green apples.

But this secret ballot thing seems ultimately just to do this in a round-about way: it removes the power of political parties to police their members' voting habits, but brings a whole lot of problems with it, including the loss of transparency and accountability.

Let's just cut to the chase and limit the power of political parties or dump them altogether.

How would you form a cabinet without political parties?

How would you form a cabinet without political parties?
The whole formation of the executive would have to change if political parties were axed, not just the Cabinet.

One option would be to have voters directly elect MPs to positions in the executive. Alternatively, the jobs in cabinet could rotate between MPs, either in a random or managed process.

Obviously, that assumes that the role of the MP wouldn’t change drastically, in regards to their election, etc.