Nick Rants About... The Election : Articles : Paperjam

Nick Rants About... The Election

Rant // Nick // 8th May 2005

It is around half two in the morning on Friday 6th May 2005. Guess what, I've got the election coverage on. I did vote, and despite being in a seat where tactical voting should apply, I stuck to my principals and voted for the party I actually wanted to win.

A number of people (though most commonly attributed to Churchill) have said that democracy in the UK is the worst possible of all systems, except for all the rest. I think this is a moot point.
If you look at the two main options for democratic elections, it goes as follows;

First past the post:
Advantages - your local MP represents your local interests. Despite a general feeling that this is a bunch of dingo's kidneys as they are essentially a party member, this is a quite important point. If you don't have a local MP, who are you going to appeal to, the district council? Having worked professionally with both central and local government I can say that local is worst. Only just - they both have the massive inefficiency, lack of accountability and demotivated staff. The difference is an MP might actually be able to make a difference.
If you believe democracy should be representative of the people, you should recognise that people in different areas have different concerns. Someone in Chelsea does not have the same needs from the state as someone in an ex-mining village in the valleys in Wales. Those people should all have a voice, and a homogenised centralised voice cannot represent this. If everything was left to a referendum (apart from removing the need for a large government - now there's an idea) we would still have capital punishment, compulsory ID cards, CCTV on every street corner. Hmm. Two out of three.... But isn't the point that people want this so should have it?

Disadvantages - 42% of the country can elect a government with a two thirds majority, ignoring those who don't even vote. How is this fair? This system also encourages the practice of voting to keep someone out. There will be many people who have voted Labour, Tory or Lib Dem purely to keep out the party they like the least.So far in the coverage we have seen large swings to the Lib Dems in many constituencies, despite there not being much chance of a win. How much more of a swing if there were proportional representation? Or were they simply people who want to give 'Tony a bloody nose'? Is it logical that people vote for a 'compromise' party just because of where they live?

Proportional Representation:
Advantages - You pays our money and you takes your choice. This simply represents the country, fair and square - you cannot argue with this. There is no tactical voting, it is decided on the policies. As has been stated by the media on a number of occasions the election will be decided by 40,000 to 100,000 people in marginal seats (take your pick on the numbers) - so is it any wonder that we had only a 59% turnout at the last election? And we are often told the result may be different if it rains!!?? Is this a way to run the fourth largest economy in the world? As for the local argument - how small to you go? A county that has both large industrial areas and impoverished rural ones? A town which has a right and wrong side of the tracks? Your street? There is a limit to how far you can go without chaos.

Disadvantages - Who you gonna call? SpinBusters! A PR system takes no account of regional variations. If two thirds of England live in the prosperous south east, how will a decrepit ex-industrial town in the North get a say when the only party representing them gets just their votes. You could say, well tough. The country has spoken. But since when has your next door neighbour who is retired and requiring home care, or your other neighbour who is a single mother trying to work have the same needs as your two income, no kids household? Let alone a country. Plus there is a worrying clarion call disguised here - Centralise! It was estimated in a control based system in the Soviet era it would take the entire population of Poland to organise the steel production behind the iron curtain in a planned economy. Of course that is probably just some bullshit propaganda urban myth, but top down management on this scale is simply inefficient.

Benign Dictatorship:
OK this is a joke option. But let's try it.
Advantages - No election campaigns. No spin - if you're in charge you can tell it as it is (though highly unlikely with your average dictator). No complaints about them not doing what they said in the manifesto. If it's truly benign, happiness, puppies and fluffy bunnies. Justified civil disobedience / coup d'etat if enough of you don't like it.

Disadvantages - No choice. No say. Coup d'etat tend to be rather difficult to organise at your local church hall (unlike political meetings) and slightly more bloody.

OK so it's quite difficult to find a decent system. One problem is the political party system. Be honest - did you vote for your candidate or the party? If you voted for the party then we may as well have PR and be done with it. But if we do you have to accept the consequences. If you voted for the representative, then you are a better (or better informed) person than I. If you rid us of the scourge of political parties then realistically you have to know what your candidate stand for, and in an open, non-party based election, how many candidates and views? Do you vote for the person who wants to massively increase funding for hospitals but privatise the police?

Ultimately a vote is a compromise. There will never be a party or person who represents yours views. You simply have to choose the closest match. With a party system this is simplified. With First Past the Post this is simplified further - who don't you want to get in. God forbid we should think for ourselves, rather than accept the opinion of politicians who are experts in nothing other than being politicians. In the current system I (perhaps foolishly) will always vote for the best compromise, rather than against the worst one. If everyone did the same, maybe there would be more change.

As a last thought;

An incredibly large proportion of our 'constitution' - the mish-mash of law and precedent we have - is defined more acutely by lawyers - be they the European Court, Law Lords, Court judges or simple precedent from case law. Every legislative act goes through this loop. The principle, though unofficial but which I believe correct, is that an act of parliament, though passed, still must be tested the first (and probably subsequent) times it comes into play. Hence judgements against imprisonment without trial, challenges to the various terrorism acts.
The law is a sophisticated tool, built from hundreds of years of practice, and is (despite what a lot of people think) essentially progressive and liberal. The government can make legislation but cannot enforce it if is fundamentally contrary to existing law - only if the law is repealed, which is far more difficult than new legislation. This is the most important check we have against government.

The one worry I have is that the current (or soon to be current, be they Labour / Tory) government don't recognise this.

A postscript

Surprise surprise, Tony's back. With a still not inconsiderable majority, via what I calculate as a mandate from around 25% of the electorate, including the no-shows. Labour got 50% more votes than the Liberal Democrats. They got 550% more seats in Parliament. Think about it. Then go and argue for First Past the Post if you can. Meanwhile I'll sit here gnashing and wailing and planning a coup d'etat, 'coz it's the only way we're going to get a change in this piss-pot of a country. Anyone else interested in joining?

Paperjam