Sunday, 25 April 2010

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

I posted yesterday that Labour could come third in the share of the vote in the General Election but have the highest number of seats. This really does need to be addressed we need to return some sort of value to the peoples vote in this country. People are no longer voting for the person standing in their constituency but they join the masses who are rolling along with the crowds as they watch the C list political celebs on the news.

A Labour MP was out canvassing yesterday and whilst talking with a voter was told " I would vote for you but I don't like Gordon Brown." It shows the detachment from what a MP is supposedly doing for his/her constituents and that by them winning the seat it effectively gives credence to a person no one wants such as Gordon Brown.

Of course none of the major parties want any form of PR because they can win power at present with so little numbers. If there is a low turnout of 68% or less and they get 35% of that turnout they can be the largest party by effectively having less than a fifth of the publics support. That means 4 out of 5 people could have opposed and not voted for the eventual winner.

Of course Proportional Representation is no walk in the park. There is so many differing types and you need a maths degree to work some of them out. That to stick with the method of "You have most votes you win" is the easiest option. Labour have exploited the first past the post system by ensuring that their core vote has so many seats to return.

If we use the european voting method you are left with areas like the North East which has 3 seats and you would have needed 17.7% share of the vote to gain a seat where as in the North West which has more seats to share out you could gain a seat with 8.1% of the vote.

A parliament which is made up of MPs from a proportional representation method would probably always be a coalition as no one would ever get to 50% of the vote. Even Thatcher or Blair in their hey day never got 50% shares of the vote. Maybe compromise is what we want? Maybe we need a complete change?

The BNP would benefit greatly from PR in the General Election in 2005 the BNP gained 0.7% share of the whole of the UK vote they would have got 5 MPs. If that had been reflected by the European vote share of 6.2% where everyone had a chance to vote for the BNP then that would have returned 40 MPs. Over 940,000 people voted for the BNP when everyone was given a chance to do so. In this General Election because of the way the election is drawn up you can expect 600,000 to 700,000 votes this is not a drop in support it is purely down to the logistics and expense of trying to fight every single seat.

Will they ever bring in PR?

I doubt it, because they have too much to lose. The main three parties would never have control of parliament just to themselves ever again. Would it be good for democracy? It would be good in the sense that every voter would be able to vote for the party they wanted and not have to use their vote in protest to keep one party out or feel if they vote for the party of their choice they have no chance of being represented simply because of the postcode you are in means you are outnumbered by other voters.

If they do ever fly up an idea of PR you can be sure as eggs are eggs they would have worked out how it would be good for them and increase if not stabilise the power base of the main three parties.

How I would I like it to be?

I think we should utilise councillors more. If you want to have folks to represent your community have them voted in at council level and they are not to run under any party banner. This way you wouldn't have labour/tory/lib dem/BNP councils. You would have people running the council for the good of the community. Services run themselves and for them to implement what local communities wanted. Even putting to regular votes what people wanted money to be spent on. Like you get in America where they vote on what laws should be passed or what schemes should be implemented.

On a national level it should be a list of candidates as you have for the euro elections and then select the number of candidates from each party by the percentage share of the vote. Also cut the number of MPS down as low as 200. With the councils having more powers and decisions being made by the people themselves you have untied the politicians from having to look after the seat but for them to work on a national level.

Then finally have the prime minister elected from a national vote much like you have in France vote one week from a list of everyone who wants to do the job and then 2nd week a vote off from between the top 2 from the previous week.

It is not perfect and I am sure whatever method we chose someone would try to manipulate it. But we do need to stop the total injustice of what we have now where less than 20% of the people can choose who governs this country and where a million voters have no voice or representation at all.

VOTE BNP AND GET YOURSELF REPRESENTED




1 comment:

  1. An American citizen has the right to run for election in the republican or democrat parties. This is because America is a two party system. The reason America has devloved to a two party system and the UK is still a multi-party democracy of sorts is because the USA has 200 representatives and the UK has 650. It would be virtually impossible for a third party to gain a seat in the USA, and its very difficult for fourth parties in the UK.

    To make the results of first past the post more proportional, you would need to add more seats. A legislature with 1200 seats is more proportional that n one with 700, which is more proportional than one with 200. This is because its easier to win a seat if there are more of them.

    Council seats show this effect. There are over 20,000 council seats and so its very easy to win one. Hence, small parties have council seats, but not MPs.

    You may not like the idea of 1200 MPs though. However, there is a way to keep all the benefits of 1200, but still stick with only 500 or so. It is achieved by having 1200 constituencies and having MPs serve more than one, with controls in place to make sure an MP serves around 72,000 people.

    This way small parties would have representation, say half a seat in Barking and Dagenham and another half in Epping forest and Sandwell, while large ones would still have local MPs who are popular across their entire constituency.

    All under first past the post. Non-contiguous first past the post, in fact.

    For more information see http://www.mediafire.com/ncfptp

    ReplyDelete