This site is still in its early stages, but if I wait for it to be nicely polished it will never be published. More topics will be added over time. Launched 26 March 2019. Last Edited 20 February 2020.
Democracy - who's country is it anyway?
to be completed.
topics will include:
-
voting systems
-
referendums
-
local government
-
how many councillors do we need?
The country's divided down the middle - 20-60-20
When people vote on an issue in a referendum, or MPs vote in parliament, not everyone who is voting actually cares about the result. There will be a group of people who passionately hold one view, and another group who passionately hold the other view. But the two active groups, added together, might not even be the majority of voters.
Beware the floating voter! The floating voter is not particularly interested in the issue being voted on, probably doesn't understand it in much depth, but that person's vote carries as much weight as a vote from someone who really understands it. No disrespect to disinterested voters - they have better things to do than become experts in something they're not interested in!
Here's why it's important - suppose you had a referendum on whether vicars in the Church of England should be obliged to conduct gay weddings (sorry to keeping using gay rights as an example). A fraction of the population will object on religious grounds, and a smaller fraction will say yes because they are passionate about gay equality. The biggest group are neither concerned about religion nor gay equality, as they are not particularly affected by either - so which way do they vote? They will almost certainly vote for the point of view that is most easily understood.
So we need to careful when we launch referendums (referenda if you prefer). We might find that the 'people's choice' is dominated by voters who don't actually care what the result is, so they go for the simplest option to understand. The Liberal Democrats found this, to their cost, in 2011, when the country held a referendum on the Alternative Vote method of choosing MPs. Some people hated it because it would ultimately lead to Proportional Representation, others loved it for the same reason. Most didn't bother to think about the complexities and consequences, and just voted for the simplest option.
If we say the country's split 50-50 on an issue, we are implying that everyone has an opinion on it. Usually it isn't true - there's always a proportion that don't have a view on the issue itself - and the way these people vote depends on which side can put forward the simplest case. Consequently, anyone planning a referendum needs to consider the size of the disinterested population - and if that size is large, then maybe the issue isn't suitable for a referendum at all.
Which is a shame - because referendums can be a clear way of determining what people actually think, and of making governments obey the will of the people. I like referendums, as I like having the opportunity to vote and say what I think - but I don't like the way that promises of referendums have been used in recent years as a cynical (and risky) way of gaining favour and political power. Especially when a government promises a referendum to make a change (to gain votes in an election), and then when the referendum is launched, the government campaigns against it. David Cameron played Russian Roulette with our country and its constitution three times - on the third time, the gun went off. David Cameron has paid the price with his job - if only it was so easy to be as dismissive about the mess he has left the country with.
In this website, I propose a referendum to abolish smoking. That's an issue that has very few disinterested voters!
Voting systems
The Electoral Reform Society has a good summary of voting systems.
As a passionate believer in democracy, you think I would be in favour of proportional representation. Certainly it would better for debating Brexit, but in general it is better to have the system we have got. Why? It's because our system favours having just two main parties, so the choice of government is, except in relatively rare circumstances of hung parliaments, entirely as determined by the people's vote. You get a strong government and a strong government-in-waiting. In proportional representation systems, these things do not happen. You get a coalition of disparate parties who make some form of deal, which works for a while until the parties disagree over something, and then you either get a new coalition or a general election. The formation of coalitions has little, if any, resemblance to the way people actually voted.
As an example, imagine a parliament with three parties, each with roughly a third of popular support. Party sizes fluctuate according to the vote, but none ever gets more than half the vote. This means that irrespective of the popular vote, any two parties can form a government. The choice of which parties form a government is entirely up to the members of parliament themselves.
Proportional Representation is party-based - voters tend not to vote for candidates. You also get very large 'constituencies' or no constituencies at all, so you lose the idea of a local MP. These things create a disconnect between MPs and the people who elect them.
The system we have encourages just two main parties - it is up to them to appeal to the voters, for it is the voters who decide who forms the government.
Finally, voter turnout tends to be lower in proportional representation systems than in ours. Proportional representation sounds like democracy, but it isn't.