<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title><![CDATA[Jubilee Centre - Blog]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/jubilee/blogs.php</link><description><![CDATA[Comments on the blog: What Might Real Electoral Reform Look Like?]]></description><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:29:55 GMT</lastBuildDate><item><title><![CDATA[Jaylynn]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1712</link><description><![CDATA[I much preefr informative articles like this to that high brow literature.]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1712</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:29:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Jeremy Ive]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1437</link><description><![CDATA[Thanks John,

I don't think that the Bishop of Durham is arguing that the method of election should not be concern, only that the method of election in itself does not guarantee justice. We must confuse procedural with substantive justice -- however it does not follow  that procedural justice is not important or should not be our concern as well as for substantive justice. Democracy not a sufficient and perhaps not a necessary condition for substantive justice -- but that is not an argument against needed reforms in procedure where 
this becomes an issue, where clearly it is.
]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1437</guid><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:44:41 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[John Hayward]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1419</link><description><![CDATA[Russell, his point is not just 'about misplaced expectations from democracy' - it is that discussing 'the method by which they come to power,' as you put it, should not be our concern: instead of campaigning for or against 'how someone, or some system, came to power,' we should 'speak the truth <i>to</i> power rather than <i>for</i> power or merely <i>against</i> power.' 

No doubt a case can be made for and against each of the many possible voting systems being discussed (FPTP, FPTP+, SV, AV, AV+, STV, AMS, PR-Squared, and so on). However, instead of a worldly obsession with 'our own modernist democratic processes,' our calling, Wright concludes, is to 'speak up about the big issues of justice, freedom, the very nature of government and democracy, the responsibility of all rulers not just to their own political backers or financiers but to those they rule.']]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1419</guid><pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:11:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Russell Phillips]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1417</link><description><![CDATA[Tom Wright is incisive and brilliant as ever in the quotations given. However his argument, if I have grasped it, is about misplaced expectations from democracy and how the real issue is the extent to which those in positions of power exercise their responsibility. 

However granted that all parties in the present debate on voting reform agree, at least in the context of 21st Century UK, that we want an electoral system which *democratically* elects representatives and a government, this is a helpful but irrelevant point. We are not discussing the burden or responsibility of those in power, but the method by which they come to power. I don't think anyone is arguing, in 21st century British context, for the merits of benevolent dictatorship. Are they? 

The introduction of the Alternative Vote preserves almost all elements of the present system, including single-member constitencies. It simply ensures that the MP elected represents at least 50% of their constituents votes (either first or subsequent choice). Surely this will reinforce the democratic legitimacy of government. Surely this is better than a system where, as in 2005, a government elected on a 36% mandate can govern alone. 

Was it not Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/310/what_might_real_electoral_reform_look_like#comment1417</guid><pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:30:29 GMT</pubDate></item><atom:link href="http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments.xml.php" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /></channel></rss>
