PHASE 2 - DEBATE STAGE
This is the forum for phase 2 of the de Borda consensus voting experiment. The threads you can contribute to are right at the bottom of the page.
The debate stage of this process is the most important. In this stage, we have drawn up a list of "options" (potential solutions to the problem) on the basis of ideas submitted in the previous phase. We have attempted to draw up a list of options which is wide enough to represent the full scope of phase 1, without being so wide as to become impossibly complex. Nevertheless, we realise there are a lot of options on the table - a reflection of both the complexity of this problem and the scale of participation in phase one.
In order to further aid participation, we have grouped the options into "families" which share common elements. There are threads below inviting comments on all of the "families" of options. There is also a thread inviting further options to be submitted (if you feel your ideas are not fairly represented here) and a thread inviting general questions on the process of the discussion, as before.
There are a few ways to participate - again, we are asking everyone to submit at least one comment, though of course you can submit as many as you wish. If you only have a short amount of time to participate, you could:
- Indicate which family of options or particular option you most support, and why
- Criticise the family of options or particular option you support least.
- Suggest modification of a particular option or family of options
Notes on how the options were drawn up:
i) There seems to be a general consensus that individual donations, if allowed, should be capped; that, if allowed, all donations of whatever variety over and above a certain level, along with any state funding, should be made public and accounted for, that these accounts should be in the public domain, and that the Electoral Commission should be in charge of it all.
ii) If funds are to be based - retrospectively, of course - on the number of votes received, a few suggest (and none disagree) that the voters should have two votes: one for the candidate/party whom they wish to see elected, one for the party which they wish to be funded. (Given the limitations of first-past-the-post, the choice might well be different.) Therefore, any option which suggests that funding is based on number of votes received includes the suggestion that voters can allocate funds to a party different to the one they are voting for [updated 03/03 by Jon Bright]
iii) To reiterate, the question we are considering is "How should we fund those who serve, or aspire to serve, in political office in the UK?" To make this clear, we are referring to the funding of "Political Activities" - election campaigns and political research, etc., and not the MPs' wages/expenses. It is taken as a given that politicians elected to assemblies and parliaments shall then be paid, as too shall be their members of staff. (Some expressed misgivings on elected representatives then employing their children!)
iv) All political activities are, of course, subject to the civil law. In the options which follow, any restrictions on activities to be enshrined in the electoral laws are in addition to what is already in the civil law. Such restrictions would also apply to affiliated and/or like-minded organisations; (if tv commercials are banned, for example, then not only political parties but also sympathetic think-tanks and trades unions and so forth would be subject to the same ban as well).
v) No figures of pounds/pence have been quoted in these options. We here talk only of basic principles. If in real life the common consensus were to introduce caps on membership fees, for example, then (in real life) there could be a further multi-option debate and vote, to determine the required level.
vi) Some of the options contain some common elements. Given the number of ideas and suggestions raised in Phase 1, it would have been possible to produce a huge list of options, so to contain literally every possible combination and permutation of ideas. For reasons of practicality, we have developed a range of options to cover the entire spectrum.
vii) The current list of 13 options will (hopefully) be reduced during the course of the debate... but maybe not. Then, when the options are finalised and presented on the ballot paper, they will be in random order.
The Options
A.
-
State funding to all parties above a certain number of elected representatives to match funds raised by those parties and paid centrally.
-
Parties'/candidates' donations/membership/affiliation fees may be obtained from either corporate and/or individual sources.
-
Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
B.
-
State funding to be in direct proportion to the number of elected representatives.
-
Parties'/candidates' donations/membership/affiliation fees may be obtained from either corporate and/or individual sources.
-
Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
C.
- State funding to constituency parties to be dependent on number and ethno-diversity of local paid-up members.
-
Donations/membership fees to parties/candidates to be from individuals only.
-
Political activities in the constituency election campaigns subject to current expenditure limits; nation-wide party activities at these times to be under tighter controls, both fiscal and functional (certain activities, ads etc, banned).
D.
- State funding to all parties (above a certain threshold of votes that are then gained in the subsequent ballot) contesting that next election.
-
Donations/membership fees to parties/candidates to be from individuals only.
-
Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
E.
- State funding to constituency parties to be dependent on both local membership and on that party's community and charitable work.
-
Donations/membership fees to parties/candidates to be from individuals only.
-
Political activities in the constituency election campaigns subject to current expenditure limits; nation-wide party activities at these times to be under tighter controls, both fiscal and functional (certain activities, ads etc, banned).
F.
- State funding to constituency candidates (to those who subsequently pass a certain threshold of votes gained in the subsequent election).
-
Donations/membership fees to parties/candidates to be from individuals only.
-
Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
G.
- All state and non-state funding to be pooled into a "democracy capital fund". Parties, candidates and others - i.e., ngos etc - could then bid for funds, in relation to specific activities.
-
Donations and/or membership/affiliation fees may be from either corporate and/or individual sources, but all go to the fund.
-
Political activities at both constituency and national level to be under tighter controls, both fiscal and functional (certain activities, ads etc, banned).
H.
- State funding to be in kind only: party political broadcasts, election leaflets, occasional newspaper advertisements, all-party round-table debates, etc., such activities being more common at election times.
-
Donations/membership fees to parties/candidates to be from individuals only.
-
Political activities at both constituency and national level to be under tighter controls, both fiscal and functional (certain activities, ads etc, banned).
I.
- State funding to parties/candidates to be determined by the votes cast in the subsequent election.
-
Parties/candidates may receive donations and/or membership/affiliation fees from either corporate and/or individual sources.
-
Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
J.
- State funding to constituency parties/candidates to be determined by the votes cast, with those who vote receiving a tax credit.
-
Parties/candidates may also receive donations/membership fees but from individuals only.
-
Political activities in the constituency subject to current expenditure limits; nation-wide party activities to be under tighter fiscal controls during election campaigns.
K.
- State funding to be banned.
-
Parties/candidates may receive donations and/or membership/affiliation fees from either corporate and/or individual sources.
-
Political activities of parties/candidates to be subject only to ‘market forces'. Parties in debt not allowed to contest elections.
L.
- State funding and corporate funding to be banned.
-
Parties/candidates may receive donations/membership fees from individuals only.
-
Political activities in the constituency subject to current expenditure limits; nation-wide party activities to be under tighter fiscal controls during election campaigns.
M.
- State funding to be banned.
-
Parties/candidates may receive donations and/or membership/affiliation fees from either corporate and/or individual sources.
-
Political activities in the constituency election campaigns subject to current expenditure limits; nation-wide party activities at these times to be under tighter controls, both fiscal and functional (certain activities, ads etc, banned).
Summary
In the following summary, any differences between options in the same family are shown in tint.
|
Family
|
Option
|
INCOME
|
EXPENDITURE
|
|
State funding to be paid to national party (P) or local constituency (C)
|
Non-state funding
|
Financial controls on campaigning
|
Activities (what they do with the funds): are they to be restricted?
|
|
individual
|
corporate
|
in constituency
|
in the country
|
| |
|
A/B
state + corporate funding
|
A
|
state matches funds raised by parties over a certain size |
P
|
yes
|
yes
|
current
|
current
|
no |
|
B
|
state funds as per № of mps, msps etc. |
P
|
yes
|
yes
|
current
|
current
|
no |
| |
|
C/D/E/F
state funding but no corporate funding
|
C
|
as per members and ethno-diversity |
P
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
current
|
yes, nationally |
|
D
|
all (above a fixed votes threshold) equally |
C
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
current
|
no |
|
E
|
as per community and charity work |
C
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
tighter
|
yes, nationally |
|
F
|
to candidates receiving a fixed threshold of votes |
C
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
current
|
no |
| |
|
G/H
state funds democracy process
|
G
|
state funding goes into a capital fund |
C
|
yes + yes, all funds to be pooled
|
tighter
|
tighter
|
yes, both levels |
|
H
|
state funds in kind, not in cash |
C
|
yes
|
no
|
tighter
|
tighter
|
yes, both levels |
| |
|
I/J
state funding/votes
|
I
|
state funds party as per its share of votes |
C
|
yes
|
yes
|
current
|
tighter
|
no |
|
J
|
state funds party as per its share of votes |
P
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
tighter
|
no |
| |
|
K/L/M
state funding banned
|
K
|
ban |
n/a
|
yes
|
yes
|
‘market forces'
|
no |
|
L
|
ban |
n/a
|
yes
|
no
|
current
|
tighter
|
no |
|
M
|
ban |
n/a
|
yes
|
yes
|
current
|
tighter
|
yes, both levels |
The Threads
