Why this election matters more than most (IMHO)

[caddyman]

I am less worried about who wins the election (though I have my preferences) than how they win the election. Essentially, the system we have of sending an elected representative to Parliament evolved and worked properly before the party system evolved. The electorate (such as it was) was represented by someone who would look out for local concerns.

Over the centuries, the electorate has increased as the franchise has widened (and rightly so), but parties have evolved and we now vote for the party rather than the individual (with occasional exceptions). That means that the local link is less important than in theory it ought to be; it is the National party that counts, not the local upon which first past the post essentially rests.

This means that whilst the MP for each area has a local majority, it has nothing to do with that MP unless she/he makes a spectacular gaffe or outstanding contribution and all to do with the National party machine.

This means then, that Nationwide a party can command widespread support that is not reflected locally and whilst polling a spectacular percentage of the National vote, get few seats in return.

It applies most starkly to the Lib Dems right now, but the principle is simple: if we are voting for National parties expounding National policies, the National will should prevail. If we are voting for local personalities on local issues, the local will should prevail - as often it does, hence a large number of Lib Dem councils but few MPs. The local-local criterion works, the local-National doesn't.

It is simply wrong, in my opinion, in 21st century society that an election where one party commands the support of 29% of the electorate can expect to gain 14% of the seats, while another party that has 28% support can gain 43% of the seats.

Democracy is the rule of the people. Coming top, (or winning outright)in an election, when placed third in the popular vote is simply not the rule of the people, therefore it is not democracy.

One of the reasons, I suspect, that fewer and fewer people vote. They don't think their vote will count and I submit that the figures support that belief.

Comments

[irdm.livejournal.com]

The wrongness of "professional politicians".
Other than the peerage, of course, but that's not a job, it's a way of life.
At least then one can formalise the corporate bribery and perhaps get some into the public purse.

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

A classic example of the problems this causes is the heathrow thing. The local heathrow Labour guy has apparently fought a third runway like crazy and is admired by his constituents. However unlike the Tories his parties policy is to build it so many people are reluctantly saying that despite the fact that their local MP has really done his job and served them brilliantly they feel they can't vote for him because if they do his party gets in and then anything he has done is basically irrelavent. Rather sad I think.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

I had the same difficulty with Lynne (our MP, standing down this time) - she did lots of good work opposing the Iraq War and asking awkward questions about WMD, but a Labour MP despite being a party rebel.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

"One of the reasons, I suspect, that fewer and fewer people vote. They don't think their vote will count and I submit that the figures support that belief."
I cannot understand how this is allowed to continue, why surely such a thing can only maintain the status Quo and who wants that? I mean they only know four cords.

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

Good analysis of the current situation and how we arrived here.

But the reason for the lack of reform is very simple; it just doesn't serve the self-interest of those in power or opposition to bring about reform when the opportunity arises. And even where efforts are made to bring about change the effort of the few is obfuscated by the selfish motives of the many. The real reason that change isn't delivered is that it's simply too much effort. Why do something to remove power from themselves, when attentions can be diverted by delivering ill conceived and poorly costed policies in responses to an irresponsible biased media, that seeks merely to sell copy by stirring up a sea of outrage among a largely ignorant hypocritical disinterested and easily influenced population.

Labour was elected with a mandate for reform and could do no wrong for almost 4 years. But in the subsequent 9 years they’ve demonstrably failed to deliver, and much of what has been achieved is of questionable benefit long term. Waste is at epidemic proportions, they’ve waged one highly questionable war and one piss-poorly managed war, they’ve eroded Governmental delivery mechanisms and accountability, presided over the MPs expenses furore and the banking crisis (aka Robbery of the tax payer).

The Tories have arrived at a general election distinctly disadvantaged in response to 2001 census info which means constituency boundaries have shifted to favour other parties - a fact that seems to have taken them by surprise.

And above all the age old system of Yah Boo Politics still dominates proceedings.

The system seems to be irreparably FUBAR.

And my power to influence it has never been so irrelevant.

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

Interestingly on our local news the Green who was standing for cambridge was selling himself on the fact that should he get to Westminster (don't hold your breath mate) he (nor any other Green) would be whipped. The Whip is such an insane and utterly undemocratic thing and yet it almost never comes up in debate and this is the first time I've heard anyone use it as an election ptch.