Tag: voting

Challenger

It’s another phrase from HHGTTG. “Mostly harmless”. However, there are things that may seem mostly harmless that subsequently turn out to be far from harmless. It’s that law of unintended consequences playing out in real life.

In the UK, we are stuck with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. There is no good in pretending otherwise. Pretending that its perverse effects don’t exist is pure folly. Voting systems inevitably impact the results of elections.

What FPTP means is that the more parties, and their candidates that there are standing in an election, in each constituency, the more the votes cast can be spread. This reality often gives a big advantage to the incumbent. The one who came top of the poll last time votes were cast.

Thinking can go like this. The past winner always wins around here. So, my vote doesn’t count. If a past winner reinforces the impression that nothing has changed, then nothing will change. Because of this feeling of acquiescence, opposition voters may be more inclined to vote for a wide range of fringe candidates. Again, the thinking is that this doesn’t matter because the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion.

In a lot of places up and down Britain this is how both Conservative and Labour politicians have stayed in power. It’s not because people think they are doing a good job. It’s more because their most immediate opposition struggles to marshal a concentration of votes for an alternative.

The conclusion from these facts is simple. If you are a voter who wants to see change then go for the opposition candidate likely to get the greatest number of votes. This is sometimes called tactical voting. It’s not so much tactical as realistic pragmatism aimed at bringing about real change. Look at the numbers. Unless the individuals concerned are one in a million, those formerly in 3rd place, or further adrift are there to do their best but not to bring about change. A vote for a mostly harmless candidate, way down the order, just helps to keep the current Member of Parliament in place.

2024 is a year of great potential. If change were ever needed it ‘s now. I’m confident that the British electorate is savvy enough to choose the path to change. This may mean choosing differently. This may mean taking a close look at the local situation.

No doubt a succession of bar charts will highlight who’s up and who’s down. Take a close look at them. Make sure the challenger really is the challenger. If the numbers say so, and you want change – go for it.

Privilege

How we choose the people who make our laws. That matters. Or at least it should matter.

We are persuaded to think that UK General Elections solve this by putting a ballot in the hands of every eligible voter. Those national elections are called at the behest of the party in power, so there’s an element of choosing the playing field. Also, levels of voter engagement depend a greatly on the current affairs of the moment.

The song goes: “why should we be ballot with the ballot in our hands”[1]. That’s to say that elections should matter in the determination of what happens next. History shows that this is not quite what it seems. The song is a nice sentiment when the ballot makes a real difference. However, for a great number of positions of power and influence there’s no such thing as a ballot.

Basically, the British Prime Minister (PM) has powers that Julius Caesar would have coveted. Elements of the British political system remains feudal. Conferral of honours is part of the power package. There’s no argument that being PM is a demanding job but that shouldn’t be an automatic trigger to bestow gongs and seats on the red benches of Parliament.

The Liz Truss resignation honours list is an abomination.

An affection for honours is much more of a Conservative addiction than any other. It fits so well with a view that statesman come from an elite branch of British society. The over representation of the famous public schools of the country is one indicator. People with certain backgrounds are grossly overrepresented in Parliament. More recently professional political manipulators and bag carriers have been favoured.

Contribution to the political life of the country is code for having helped a particular political party or politician to get where they want to go. To the average citizen there’s little or no relationship between bestowed influential honours and the general public good.

Any appointments process benefits from being accountable and transparent. In this case there isn’t much of either. Publication of a list after the event doesn’t count.

There should be some interest in maintaining public confidence in the system. Well, that’s an assumption I’m making but the evidence shows that there isn’t much interest. Confidentiality surrounds the appointments process. That gives licence to speculation, conspiracy theories and unusual people unexpectedly popping up on lists.

Parliament’s House of Lords is no longer construction exclusively from the landed gentry, but lot of appointees owe allegiance to the status-quo. That status-quo being inherently conservative.

This is a time when people are pulling together plans for the next year. Restructuring ought to be near the top of the priorities. Respecting the merit of meritocracy has some legs. Overriding all, currently, is restoring public confidence in the political system. To not do so will result in troubles ahead. Big troubles.

[1] https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/McLean%20Nou%20Beggars3%20050617.pdf

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.