On The General Election and Voter Apathy.

Let me get one thing straight - I am glad we live in a democracy and so have a chance to have our say on matters. I just think it could be better. Allow me to explain...

We appear to have an electorate who do not feel that there is any point to voting. Why is this? Some would say that it is because the ideological differences between the main political parties is small and so there is no real choice. Others may say that no politician (or prospective politician) has any intention of serving the interests of the populace and therefore they have nobody to vote for.

~ Opinion Polls and the Media ~

While there may be strands of truth in the above, I believe the media has a lot to answer for. For me, it all comes down to a simple observation that could be made by a lot of people.

As we approach 6th May, the opinion polls are, increasingly, being reported daily with every fluctuation and variation being analysed and the election result being extrapolated. Is this really necessary? I think it's doing harm to our democracy because, for the people who haven't taken part in the opinion polls (i.e. most of the populace), is not the following thought a logical conclusion?

"The result of the election is being reported as if it has already been made. Nobody has asked me what I think so surely I don't need to bother voting if the decision has been made without me?"

I'm not saying that the media shouldn't report on the opinion polls but I do think they should give them less precedence and it should be reinforced that despite these polls, it is the electorate as a whole who decides and, if they want to go against the opinions of a minority, then it is quite possible.

~ Safe Seats and the First-Past-the-Post Electoral System ~

This brings me to my next point. Surely the idea of a 'safe seat' only adds to making people feel like there is no point in voting since their existing candidate (or party) is "guaranteed" to be re-elected. Add to the mix how very little campaigning is carried out in safe areas and you surely have yourself a circular situation where only a few people vote (the 'regulars' who probably always vote the same way anyway) and little effort made to change this situation through campaigning. So of course the result is going to stay the same!

As a quick aside I'm glad the internet is making it easier to keep track of what work an MP is undertaking on behalf of their constituency and our country as a whole. So while it is easier to hold your MP to account it is still disappointing to me that the only time you see any campaigning is in marginal seats at election time.

It does annoy me when people vote habitually and not for any thought-out reason. Saying "I vote for Labour because I'm working class" (or the other way around for the Tories) is nonsense these days. For a time, yes, this was true but I don't think that being of a certain social class has to inevitably lead to you voting for a particular party anymore. Besides, in our current voting system I believe we are meant to elect our best representative and not necessarily a political party. Not that I believe in a two party political system - but I'll come back to this later.

So in theory at least, the MP for a constituency is supposed to represent the people of their area at a national and international level. I believe that their political allegiance should be used only as a shorthand to gauge a candidates ideology but that they should, primarily, represent the interests of their constituents. I won't go into my dislike of the party whip system since I've discussed that here before (though saying that I can't find the link!) instead I'd like to question what happens in the case of an MP (or a party) with a safe seat? Where or what is their impetus to improve things for their electors?

I believe that while the existing first-past-the-post voting system seems like a good idea on paper, I believe it is causing complacency in our politicians and is leading to a discrepancy between the share of the vote and the representation of those votes in the House of Commons.

To demonstrate this discrepancy I shall choose some choice figures from the 2005 general election results:

• Labour received 35.3% of the vote which gave them 55.2% of the total number of MP's
• Conservatives had 32.3% of the vote, giving them 30.7% of MP's
• Lib Dems got 22.1% of the vote which equated to 9.6% of MP's
• UKIP got 2.2% of the vote but won no seats (so 0% of MP's)
• Health Concern won 0.1% of the vote and had 0.2% of MP's

So how can we get past this problem of safe seats and make Parliament more representative of the people? One answer that I am finding myself increasingly drawn to is a voting system based on Proportional Representation (PR). There are many variants of PR and I can not claim to have studied the differences and so I do not have an educated opinion on which form would be the best. However, I do believe that any system that vastly reduces the possibility of a safe seat and that reduces the difference between votes cast and MP's elected has to be a move in the right direction.

I do not believe those that say that coalition governments are weaker governments. Why should having to debate and compromise be a bad idea? Surely that's the the whole point of a parliament? Why should one political party (supported by a minority of the electorate) dominate and be able to force its ideas onto everybody else? Surely that is closer to a dictatorship than it is to a democracy?

I believe in a parliament that is representative of the populace and I doubt that the ideologies of the people of this fair country fall neatly into two groups (i.e. Labour & Conservative). With a proportional parliament I think we will get better governance. Okay, so there will be disagreements but if Parliament is truly representative of the electorate then surely the decisions taken will also be in line with the thinking of the majority of the country? Then the compromises hammered out in the House of Commons will be as if all of the electorate in this country had got together at a big table and discussed it themselves.

There are some schools of thought that say that PR can vastly reduce the effect of polls on the election outcome. So notice that I used the word "electorate" (meaning all citizens who are eligible to vote) in the above paragraph and not "voters" (meaning that proportion of the electorate who actually voted). I would hope that implementing a PR electoral system would go a long way to reducing voter apathy and increase voter turnout but I would not be adverse to making voting obligatory.

To be able to vote is a hard-won right that we in this country have taken for granted. Our present and previous governments have taken full advantage of this (and who can blame them). Our political system has worked well in the past but I think that we the electorate have now reached the point (like a coming-of-age) at which we are ready to take more control of our government. I think we are ready for proportional representation.