This thread invites complaints or suggestions for improvement on the draft ballot paper.
The Draft Ballot
- 296 reads
You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here
Support openDemocracy today
This week's editor
Tahrir Square meme: Event
openAwakening in conjunction with the University of East London is organizing a three-part event series on ‘The Tahrir Square Meme’ to be held at UEL's Dockland Campus.
Our first event is Rap and the Arab Spring.
The Long Revolution
Read Anthony Barnett's lecture for the Raymond Williams Society and his foreword to the new edition of The Long Revolution:
The Long Revolution Raymond Williams
Occupy movement
For England's Sake!
Most Popular
Our Authors
Jim Gabour Sunday Comics
James Warner Standing Perpendicular, as books do
Markha Valenta Inter Alia: religion, politics, culture
Paul Rogers on Global security
Li Datong on China from the inside
Mary Kaldor on Human security
Daniele Archibugi on Cosmopolitan democracy
Postcards from the future
Book - Fred Halliday's oD essays
Demotix: photo partner
i would still like to see an option that bans state funding AND donations (both corporate and individual) with political parties' income restricted to their membership fees, which should be capped to prevent rich individuals becoming too influential.
both the tories and labour receive millions of pounds every year in membership fees and even the libdems earn at least £700k. if spending was capped at £250k per party per year there would be a much more level playing field with more opportunity for new parties to challenge the existing order.
Avtar Singh points out that the option of using nothing but membership fees has not been represented in the ballot. It seems to me reasonable to include it. I realise there is a plan to eliminate points which have not gained a lot of support, but I have not noticed the membership fees option being greatly disliked either. Collective solutions - whether we like it or not - often consist largely of views that were neither greatly applauded nor widely condemned when first aired. Also - for reasons I will explain in another post - it seems to me the discussion, so far, lacks a theoretical foundation, and this destabilises all views expressed so far.
In your summary table it shows option I/J as allowing corporate funding, but in the text it says individual donations only. Which is right?
{Ed. You're right, sorry; and the text is right, the table is wrong: I/J is no corporate funding. Peter Emerson
PS The table has now been corrected.}
I am happy that the draft ballet paper reflects people's opinions. But I am a little surprised that there were only 2 options dropped through discussion/ phase 2. I kind of expected fewer options by this stage.
As drafted option G/H doesn't really reflect my understanding of the capital fund idea. I saw this as offering a means to fund activities that promote democracy - with political parties inevitably part of that, but NGOs, corporates etc also competing for the money.
The idea as I see it is to force the parties to innovate, rather than just getting money for doing the same old thing. In that spirit, I'm not sure why the capital fund would necessarily have to be limited to in-kind support - not much innovation there.
As drafted, G/H doesn't really bring this across - indeed the new version makes the capital fund sound like little more than a formalised version of current in-kind arrangements.
The ballot is fair. Salaam Shalom Paix, Hazel.
The proposed ballot links a number of issue. I do not think that can reasonably be avoided!
Proposed ballot seems fine.
The ballot might reflect individual views meaningfully if we had been dealing with clear-cut issues, based on principles tested in debate. Reasons given for proposals, comments and criticisms have provided a tantalising hint of what is otherwise lacking: a discussion of underlying principles.
How important is it, for example, that citizens are equally able to stand as candidates? How important is it that each candidate should gain equal exposure? These matters are complex. What would count as equality in these matters: simply an option to join a political party? Full financial equality for independents? From the perspective of the electorate: should information on candidates and parties be provided compulsorily, or on request? How much information should be offered, and in what format? It would also be useful to discuss how to deal with conflicting principles. Discussion of the practical process would then have a firmer foundation.
Suggestions could then be put forward and assessed by each individual in the light of his/her preferred, and relatively coherent, combination of principles. The outcome – a combined view on the practical process - would still not necessarily be coherent, but it would be more stable.
The draft ballot is fine with me. There is an option which accurately reflects my view.
Unfortunately I was unable to contribute to the last round of the discussion due to log in problems. Fortunately these now seem to be resolved. However, I think that most of my thoughts were conveyed by others and I think the draft ballot contains as an option that I could agree with and a fair selection of alternatives. The only issue is that of capping donations. Does 'membership fees' mean an individual can only pay the set fee or could they pay more, there would need to be a cap.
I am against state funding, who would control this and decide on any changes in rules? The government of the day most likely, who could then fix it such that they are more likely to stay in power. The funding being related to previous turnout simply enforces the status quo preventing dynamic small parties from breaking through even more than occurs at present due to our undemocratic first past the post system (but thats a discussion for another day!).
{Ed. I think the final ballot paper, option C/E2, will answer your question. It says: "Only membership fees (without additional
contribution) to parties/candidates, and only from individuals." Peter Emerson.}