The AV system will significantly help independent candidates.
I've noticed a tendency for the electorate to say one thing when canvassed, either in the street or on the doorstep, but old habits die hard when we are in the polling booth. When that pencil is poised over the ballot paper, irrespective of what was said to the canvassers, we ultimately vote for one of the main three instead...
I'm guilty of that myself if I'm honest. In this years General Election I felt the local independent candidate was too low profile and simply wasn't going to make the breakthrough. So given the high stakes this time around, I took the view that I should vote tactically for one of the big three, trying to remove Labour and avoid the Conservatives getting too large a majority. It worked out beautifully...!
But with the proposed AV (Alternative Vote) system, I realise that I could have safely voted for the local independent candidate as my first choice and cast my second vote for one of the big three. That would certainly be a more accurate reflection of who I really wanted to represent me in Westminster.
So if that voting behaviour occurs more widely across the electorate under the AV system, a good independent candidate would clearly stand a much better chance of being returned. At the same time, if the independent candidates still could not gather enough support, I would continue to have a say in which of the main three ultimately represents me. I would not have effectively lost my vote by bravely (or foolishly?) casting it in favour of the long-shot...!
So I suggest that all independent candidates should campaign in favour of the proposed AV system, as and when the promised referendum gets off the ground. It is not a perfect system, but it is better than the FPTP system that we currently use.
Why do all the proposed voting systems have to be so complicated?
I cannot see why there cannot be a system where the national share of the vote is calculated and the percentage of votes achieved is multiplied by the number of seats in Parliament.
The main arguments against this are: it takes away the electorate voting for a constituency MP; it lets in minority radical groups; it will cause coalition governments, such as we have today, but it could well be a success time will tell; you don’t really know who or what you are voting for; and the old chestnuts always used - it is too simple, it will never work, if it was such a good idea why hasn’t it been used before and why change a system that works already?
How I envisage this working is as follows:
House of Commons should be reduced to 500 MPs. Each party lists a number of candidates in order of seniority from party leader down to number 500, numbers 2 – 10 would be Senior Cabinet Ministers, but this could be altered in cases of coalition. If you only nominate 150 candidates then you cannot win more than 150 seats in Parliament as the electorate would not have had an opportunity to consider people not included in your list, and the balance of your seats will be shared out between the other parties in the same way as the original seats were allocated (i.e. percentage of national vote multiplied by the seats available)
Prior to the election party lists would name their candidates and also list what town/region they live in. After the election and the results are known the parties could then allocate their MPs to a region to act as their local MP – but there would be no reason why all parties should not have an MP covering the same region. In this way the electorate are well represented and probably by the party they support. If a party ends up with 290 MPs the party could divide the nation I into 290 regions and each MP could represent a region – or if they prefer they could just divide the country into 290 areas they feel they want to represent and allocate their MPs to those areas – or they may decide there are 10 Ministers who won’t have time to be a local MP as well and so they will divide the nation into 280 areas of representation that they want their MPs to represent.
Today the trend is moving closer towards people wanting to vote for a party in preference to voting for a particular MP, but sometimes they are driven to vote tactically and negatively to prevent a party winning in their area. This gives a very false reading in the election results of how the people really feel, whereas if there was no need to tactically vote then every voter would feel free to vote for their party of choice and their vote would truly count. There is no complication of having to list a range of candidates in your preferred order, there is no complicated calculations to be done by election officers. The count can still be done in a similar way to how it is currently done, and results published on a constituency basis which would also help parties decide how they would distribute their MPs, and each set of results are then sent to a central office for the totals to be collated to give a full national result.
If people are able to vote for whoever they wish to vote for then the results will reflect the true view of the nation – if there is no need to offer a local protest vote then the minority radical parties are less likely to pick up random votes, but also if the nation is becoming more radical then why should it not be allowed to be represented in Parliament – no matter how distasteful that may be to most of us? This will be detrimental to the likes of Independents, who want to fight on local issues, but if there are enough across the country then they should be able to form a party and could possibly gain 1% of the vote and so win 5 seats in the Parliament.
If a MP dies or resigns during the course of a Parliament then the party that (s)he represents can select the next available person on their original list to fill that post – there would be no need for a by-election. If a MP decides to resign from a party, then (s)he will resign from Parliament and the party that (s)he represented can select the next available person on their original list to fill that post – there would be no need for a by-election.
This system would work equally well if the electoral system changes to a fixed term of office or if it stays as it is so that the Prime Minister can call an election at a time that best suits him/her – I prefer fixed term of office as this gives stability with the knowledge that a government has a definite term to do all it intends to do.
The Parties would still have their national networks and offices, as they will have councillors and local organisations, and so campaigning need be no different and the rules of campaign expenditure need not be changed, as you would just allow the cost per constituency multiplied by the number of candidates nominated.
Have you considered the obstacle of a highly politicized 'third sector', who are in line for more funding under the comming 'big society', they will be ready to block the little guy's path...
