• The post you are reporting:
   
  No PaulB - I am talking about how it has been done and might work here. Not the American system. The American turnout is in fact lower than ours and I think the very long drawn out elections they have might be the cause. I dont want that system here. Yes there are similarities, the whole idea of open primaries after all comes from there.
  
  Why should a party not obtain donors to hold constituency primaries in the fashion of Totnes? Cost is the main problem these face and if it opens up interest and involvement in politics then great. I dont see a system where primaries are held between every election, only when a sitting MP resigns or dies. Sitting MPs could just be subject to re-selection by their Executives and only go to an open primary if the exec wants it. This should reduce the costs and 'contain' the process.
  
  One of the great things about this is that it may reduce the power of the 'political class' in favour of the electorate and is therefore very much in tune with the localist theme.
  
  It might also work better and be less diffficult when the number of MPs has been reduced and the size of constituencies levelled. one other thought that would reduce the overall cost would be to exempt Constituencies from Open primaries where the party has 20% or less of the vote and come third or worse.
  
  Sid- you are so predictable. What you say clearly expresses distrust contempt for democracy, clearly prefering control by the Party machine of course.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason