I originally thought that AV was a way to break up the two party system; I was wrong. If you look how the votes in a UK election break down you find most votes are given to the three main party's (Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems). The others usually totaled together come less than those three. So dropping say The Monster Raving Looney Party will have little effect on the overall votes. Only when you drop the third party will it have an effect.
Considering the close ties between Labour and LibDems and considering that in most cases the LD is 3rd then the effect would be to boost Labour. Only if the LD is second place and Labour 3rd will the LD gain a seat.
A political system that is biased towards one party is less democratic. So AV is wrong.
Rejecting AV shouldn't be seen as rejecting voting reform.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
How we vote - the power of the Internet
It seems to me that in this 21st Century, to continue with the current voting method of filling out a ballot paper that is then counted during the early hours of the next day by hand is ridiculous.
When you consider how much trading is done online from accessing your bank account to purchasing your grocery; it should seem feasible to be able to vote securely online. The National Census could be a step towards that where a code is issued with a one off use.
For those without access to internet at home then they could access internet at a library or provide access at polling booths.
From the Internet you could display the profiles of each candidate, what they stand for etc. before you vote.
The result would be immediate and verifiable.
The statistics available could be enormous from age demographics to social demographics.
I can't understand why the political elite show no interest in this type of voting unless they fear it could catch on. For example asking people to vote for NHS reforms or Tuition Fees or going to War. Could this be the start of the Big Society and take away some of the power from MP's?
When you consider how much trading is done online from accessing your bank account to purchasing your grocery; it should seem feasible to be able to vote securely online. The National Census could be a step towards that where a code is issued with a one off use.
For those without access to internet at home then they could access internet at a library or provide access at polling booths.
From the Internet you could display the profiles of each candidate, what they stand for etc. before you vote.
The result would be immediate and verifiable.
The statistics available could be enormous from age demographics to social demographics.
I can't understand why the political elite show no interest in this type of voting unless they fear it could catch on. For example asking people to vote for NHS reforms or Tuition Fees or going to War. Could this be the start of the Big Society and take away some of the power from MP's?
AV Reforms
If ever you want to discover how Politicians look after their self interests listen to the debate on AV reforms. With misleading comments about cost, Australia-Fiji, and one person one vote from the no camp; and making politicians work harder and being more accountable from the Yes camp.
The truth is that First Past the Post is undemocratic and akin to the Unions old Block Vote;which both parties despise and protects the status quo of a two party system between Labour and Conservative. With policy swings between right and left. AV may give a 3rd party a chance, but the use of the least popular candidates vote to try and push the other candidates towards 50% seems at best to be unrepresentative and fail to rock the safe seats it promises to rock.
For true democracy first abolish the whip so MP's can vote by conscience and represent their constituents.
The electorate should ask why on AV? AV came about as a carrot to attract the Liberals and it worked. The Liberals don't want AV they want PR but they see AV as a step towards PR.
Personally I think we should move towards a USA system where we vote for the executive (PM, Home Office, Chancellor and Foreign office) and then vote for Congress (constituent MP's). This may sound crazy but Mayors are already being voted into office. Conservative proposals are for Head of Police to also be voted in, rather than being appointed. The benefit of voting PM and executives nationally is that they have to appeal to a National audience; with a manifesto. MP's just have to represent their constituents local views.
The truth is that First Past the Post is undemocratic and akin to the Unions old Block Vote;which both parties despise and protects the status quo of a two party system between Labour and Conservative. With policy swings between right and left. AV may give a 3rd party a chance, but the use of the least popular candidates vote to try and push the other candidates towards 50% seems at best to be unrepresentative and fail to rock the safe seats it promises to rock.
For true democracy first abolish the whip so MP's can vote by conscience and represent their constituents.
The electorate should ask why on AV? AV came about as a carrot to attract the Liberals and it worked. The Liberals don't want AV they want PR but they see AV as a step towards PR.
Personally I think we should move towards a USA system where we vote for the executive (PM, Home Office, Chancellor and Foreign office) and then vote for Congress (constituent MP's). This may sound crazy but Mayors are already being voted into office. Conservative proposals are for Head of Police to also be voted in, rather than being appointed. The benefit of voting PM and executives nationally is that they have to appeal to a National audience; with a manifesto. MP's just have to represent their constituents local views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)