Referendum on Electoral Reform 5th May 2011

It's a great shame that what should have been a sensible and apolitical debate on the pros and cons of "First past the post" versus "Alternative Vote" has degenerated into a slanging match between Party politicians.

Both sides have been economical with the truth, and some have been telling downright lies, repeatedly, using the Goebbels principle that if you tell a lie frequently enough it eventually becomes the accepted truth.

This is far more important for the future democracy of our country than which politician supports which system, and whether or not we like that politician. If you are voting YES because you don't like David Cameron, or if you are voting NO because you don't like Nick Clegg, you are totally missing the point.

It's about whether the existing voting system is democratic and allows you to have a greater say in who becomes our representative in Parliament. Is it right that 70% of the MPs currently in the House of Commons are there with the support of a MINORITY of their voters? Is it right that nearly every Government (if not all) since the 2nd World War have imposed their ideologies upon the country with less than half the country supporting them? What kind of democracy is that?

"AV" is far from perfect, but at least it does two important things: it retains the constituency link with a single MP, and it ensures that no MP is elected without the support of at least half the voters. What is bad about that?

The current system was just about defensible in the middle of the 20th century, when people were pretty much voting either for the Great Blue Tribe or the Great Red Tribe. Today's politics are more fluid, and we are no longer slavishly devoted to one of two Great Tribes.

So, I am saying YES to change on 5th May and would urge all who have not yet made up their mind to take this (probably) once in a generation opportunity to take a small step forward. Ignore all this talk of excessive cost, electronic counting machines, and so on. It's already been stated in a Parliamentary Answer that the cost of running either of the two systems are not that different, and there are no plans to use electronic counting machines.

Another myth put about is that you are obliged to place all candidates in order of preference. You have no such obligation. If you wish to cast a vote for only one candidate, and you think all the others are appalling then you just place a '1' against your candidate. Easy as 1,2,3 (or just 1 in your case!)

Vote YES to change.

Electoral Reform - Another Gem from the "No" Campaign

The other day Prime Minister David Cameron (who, unlike his Liberal Democrat Coalition partner and Deputy Nick Clegg, is against scrapping the "first-past-the-post" system) came out with the astonishing claim that, had last year's General Election been held under the Alternative Vote system it would have produced another five years of a Gordon Brown Labour Government!

Does Cameron have psychic powers? In order to make such a claim he would need to know what every voter's second and third (and fourth?) preferences would have been if the election had been held under the Alternative Vote system.

This is just another example of the pathetic attempts by the NO campaigners we can expect to see over the coming weeks to persuade us to hold on to a system that returns two thirds of our MPs to Parliament on less than 50% support of their constituents.

Electoral Reform & the Conservative Party

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has come round to the view that we should replace our "first-past-the-post" voting system with something fairer. The cynical view is that, having recognised that he looks like losing the General Election this year, he has come up with this wheeze.

Personally, whatever his reason, I welcome his proposal that Parliament should vote on providing us with a Referendum on whether or not we should switch to the "Alternate Vote" system. As the Liberal Democrats have said, it doesn't go far enough towards true democracy (they want full-blown Proportional Representation), but this is a welcome step in the right direction.

Instead of placing an X against one candidate, we would be invited to number the candidates 1,2,3 etc. in order of preference. Candidates losing out on first preference would have their votes redistributed until such time as one candidate commands the support of at least 50% of the voters.

This at least would get rid of the current preposterous system, whereby any candidate who manages to get more votes than his nearest rival is elected - and more often than not finishes up representing well under 50% of the vote. When this is magnified across all the constituencies we finish up with the Party gaining the most seats forming a government which in reality often represents only 30% of the popular vote. And they call that democracy!

Whenever I hear the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, or any of his pompous acolytes supporting the present system on the grounds that it has "served us very well over the years" my blood pressure rockets and I'm tempted to reach for the nearest supply of Valium. What they mean is that it has served them very well over the years .. to pretend that it is democracy is nothing short of criminal stupidity.

It is only democratic in a two-Party system, and we do not have a two-Party system.

Wake up Conservatives! You are not getting my vote until or unless you agree to a fair voting system.