h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's a 'What If?' forum somewhere, but I can't find it, so this will do.
What would happen if, instead of having a national general election, each individual constituency had their own stand-alone local election once every 4-5 years, or sooner if something happened to the incumbent? The total number of MPs would still decide which party was in charge.
I'm not looking at this from the angle of "is this a good idea that we should implement", I'm just interested in what people think would be the implications.
Firstly, for quite a while, most of the country would keep having elections at the same time, resulting in a de facto general election anyway. Slowly however, over the decades, they would smear out over the entire period as more and more constituencies have incidents which take them out of the usual cycle.
Also, I suspect that parliamentary majorities would be much smaller. The electorate would be able to see the make-up of parliament changing by increments in real time, so I suspect they would tend to shy cautiously away from any party that seems to be getting too powerful, and back the underdog instead. Any impetus for real change would dry up within a couple of years, with only a small proportion of local elections being influenced by it.
Or maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

Election of parliament by thirds, say, do you mean?

Some local councils do that. As it happens, this year we are having a full district council election, because there have been boundary changes. But usually a third of the council seats are up for election each year (except the fourth year, which is when all the county council seats are up for election).

I like the idea a lot at national level. It would break the general election cycle that currently encourages political parties to implement policies with an eye to the impact in what they know will be a general election year.

Mol

A33147155

A possible disadvantage:

Currently the most intense politicking is focussed on general election dates. Could governments' room to manoeuvre be constrained by their constantly having an eye on the next electionette? (And would this be a bad or a good thing?)

Not quite. The idea is that each individual constituency would have a local election the requisite 4-5 years after their last election. Of course, for a while, there would be little difference, because each constituency would reach their election-time at the same time as the others, 4-5 years after the last _real_ general election. However, a few would end up out-of-step because the MP died, or resigned, or whatever, and that number would steadily increase because, instead of being brought back in step with the rest of the country by a general election, they would stay out-of-step while more add to their number. Eventually, very few would be left on the normal cycle.

I'm not so sure. What's the current attrition rates of MPs between parliaments? I have a hunch that it would take an awful long time for a significant number of seats to get out of synch.

Why?How will it make anything better?



Wouldn't that lead to stagnation?

Personally I'd like to see everyone fired up for each and every general election..We already have far too few people voting due to complete and utter apathy.

Agreed we need a change but I think it's the first past the post that needs sorting.That's why we have ended up with a lame duck Coalition government instead of a government that everyone feels represents them..

I can see pros and cons. On the plus side, by-elections are more about the candidate than the party and tend to revolve around local issues. The multi-million pound ad campaigns and biased national media are less likely to come into play but it will leave seats open to freak results where a minority party targets a constituency and concentrates all their resources there - a la Caroline Lucas, George Galloway and Nick Griffin. These weirdos are arguably better for democracy than the faceless drones put forward at General Elections by the big parties who are strictly drilled in following the party line.

I also agree though that a plethora of elections happening here, there and everywhere could alienate the public.

I quite like this idea... There are what? 650 MPs? How would this work...

Set up the electoral system so that two constituencies hold a by-election every week. Every single week, somewhere, there's an election. Schedule it so that the two constiuencies are always far apart. Each constiuency would have an election every six and a half years... but they would by "in sync" with only one other, completely different place.

The governing party's majority would ebb and flow with public opinion, and there'd have to be procedures for transferring power when the ones in charge lost their majority. We'd end up with a constant unstable coalition. I quite like that idea...

It's funny. We used to deride Italy for being run by ever-changing unstable coalitions. Then Berlusconi put stop to that - but we didn't stop deriding.

"Why? How will it make anything better?"

I never said it would, Incognitas. I'm just interested in it as a thought experiment.

Well I want some Real change.I'm utterly,utterly sick of getting the samo,samo all the time.We got rid of our Duck house chap only to get another Tory stick to the party line.40 years of being represented by a Tory and the constant status quo just makes me want to swear. (anyone who comes up with the inevitable joke here will be the first against the wall)

Possibly the strongest point in favour of this is the major parties would be utterly horrified at the idea.

Which is why it will never happen of course

Incog: there's real danger in Scottish independence - without the votes of the Scots, the rest of the UK would instantly become a single-party dictatorship, Tory in perpetuity. There simply aren't enough non-Tories outside Scotland for it to make any difference at all.

I quite like this idea, just because it would be different, and it's about time we tried something new.

TRiG.

We will see...I'll believe in it when it happens.

My theory about Scottish Independence is that even if it doesn't happen, it could still be an effective lobbying exercise. The underlying argument for it is that an economic policy which favours London and a small section of the South East at the expense of the rest of the UK is unsustainable. This argument is now front and centre. So are some ideas about what might be done about it. They may or may not be *good* ideas, but the onus is now on Westminster, if they wish to prevent independence, to come up with alternatives.

'It's the economy, ya bam!'

Favours?As far as I'm concerned if it wasn't for the jobs situation I'd BO up north so fast.

Looking at the local house prices of £80-100,000 in Wales for a terraced house in not bad state made me realise how much I want to get away from the craziness that is the SE.

I really see Solent city being built year by year at the present..and soon it will be one corridor of cement across the south.

Well point taken. But the horrors of high house prices and development is because there are more jobs with relatively high income. You are, of course, welcome to exercise the freedom of the market and move.

This is the very problem I'm talking about. If South Easterners would like to get with the programme they are welcome. However, they have consistently voted to create their problems. I'm somewhat assuming that their problems are of their collective choosing.

Why move to where there are no jobs when you have more chance of getting another job where you presently are?That's not of OUR making.That's down to government and business.


If the work was ooop north then more of us would move.