FIRST PAST THE POST is a perfect voting system for two (or
at a squeeze three) parties. It gives us a decisive result, and a strong
government[1]
able to fulfil the manifesto pledges given to the public. As for a system of
proportional representation it leads to unending backroom deals, watered down
policies, and weak government - It is time consuming when a national emergency
requires a decisive response. Three, four, or five or more parties all
bargaining over, for instance, stronger boarder controls (Ukip), unlimited immigration
(the Greens); and every other aspect of government policy. Tradeoffs will be
made, and the right decision may not be made in terms of what the largest
party, with the greater proportion of voters told the electorate they would do
in their manifesto.
The
case for FPP is a very strong case. A case I have always supported. I hate, for
instance, to imagine what a system of proportionality would have done to
advance the war effort against German Nazism, which, being a dictatorship cared
little for the thoughts of their people unless they conformed to their own; and
whose people in any case cared little for democracy while the Nazi war machine
brought them military success after success. Would Churchill have been able to
command the country having to have smaller parties continually snapping at his
heals to change a decision.
A
national government, I believe would have proven unworkable in the Second World
War if today's proportionality had played any part in the election of Winston
Churchill. He would have been opposed at every unfavourable turn of events that
war is always sure to bring. For the period of the Second World War, the
country needed an inspirational individual who could lead the country
unchallenged by lesser individuals - the Roman republic, as an instance,
resorted to a temporary dictatorship in time of national strife. They gave
power to a single individual when a threat to the republic presented itself;
and the Senate gave unlimited power to such an individual (usually a worthy
general) to assuage the threat; after which the republic returned.
I
believe in a strong government, which, because of its democratic mandate, can
govern freely and effectively – even if I oppose, ideologically, such a
government; but because such a government would have been given its legitimacy
by the people to rule, and to implement their manifesto for the five year term
until it had to face the electorate once more.
BUT I HAVE NOW changed my mind. If we believe in democracy,
then it should work at its purest form, even if on many occasions it presents
itself as an ineffective form. It should nevertheless represent all and every opinion in terms of seats,
and allow, as far as humanly possible every individual voter to make his or her
vote relevant. This does not happen under the present first past the post
system, as we have already seen from this current election. The
disproportionality between the party's has now become cataclysmic in democratic
terms. First past the post no longer represents the true reflection of
democratic opinion, and no true democrat can sustain any love for it.
Westminster
has, during the last parliament received ever closer scrutiny. We have had the
MP's expenses scandal[2]
and the public cynicism toward our politicians continues apace. Ever growing
apathy from the electorate toward the three main parties has produced room for
at least two other parties to join the throng – Ukip and the Greens.
Both
Ukip and the Greens, who have between them garnered five million votes but have
only, because of the FPP system, two MPs; while the Scottish National Party
(SNP), with fewer than two million votes receives 56 members of parliament
compared to only to one by Ukip with nearly treble the number of votes the SNP
received in Scotland.
Ukip's
four million votes (and one MP) would have added over 80 seats under a
proportional system to parliament; which would have truly represented the
diversity of opinion and elevate democracy into a true reflection of public
opinion. A proportional system presents in terms of elected representatives a
truer indication of the state of the electorate's views in seats won, than does
the first past the post system.
All the
first past the post system is good for, is manufacturing apathy against ever
voting at all among those that support neither of the main parties that have always
ruled under FFP to the point where they have taken the voters for granted
(remember, neither of the two main parties exceeded in voting terms their core
vote in this election). In the past both Labour and Tory were set the task of
surpassing the 40% level in order to guarantee a majority. The core vote in
percentage terms for Labour and the Tories has always been in the low to mid
30%. It is this core vote during this election that poll after poll suggested
would lead to another coalition.
Today,
the FPP discourages voting because the two (or three) party system does not
truly represent the people of the UK and their views on such topics as
immigration and Europe (which all of the three main parties, as championing
multiculturalists, are in concord with). It is these two topics that will
dominate the first two years of the next parliament. The FPP has given us a
Conservative majority of 12 seats. This means that Cameron has to assuage his
Eurosceptic back benchers by courting them with ministerial or junior
ministerial posts in order to function, and if any of them take up such position
in government before the European issue is voted upon in a referendum; then
such MPs are disingenuous regarding their Euroscepticism.
A SYSTEM (OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY)
of proportional representation will make every vote meaningful in terms of representation.
Its obvious disadvantages over FPP are listed above. But what FPP has done is
to add to the disillusionment of the people for ever voting at all. The FPP
cloned tripartite system of democracy that has led to the negligence of the
electorate will continue, because it is in the conformity of the 'buggins-turn'
attitude of the two main competing parties; that has led to public
disenchantment with voting.
Russell
Brand was both right and wrong when he impressed the yoof not to vote. Under
the present arrangement; I would say the same, and there is no greater believer
in democracy than myself. This current FPP understanding has led to apathy and
disenchantment among many people whose votes they see as worthless because they
do not support the main parties; and have no means of expression for them under
the FPP system.
Both
Ukip and the Greens have conjured up between them over five million voters
ready to support their cause. But the FPP system does a great disservice not
only to the smaller parties in terms of seats; but to democracy itself because
this kind of true representation is not followed through, in terms of
parliamentary seats. So, sooner or later disillusionment will follow the same
path as that which deposed Louise XVI when the ancient regime finally achieved
the bloody end to its bloody arrogance.
The
FPP is our own equivalent in democratic terms to modern ancient regime. The
same kind of arrogance that Louis XVI displayed in the 18th century
is now being taken up by the two main parties who want to cling to FPP by
dismissing PR to keep them both as the only real choice for the electorate.
Under
proportional representation Ukip's 14% share of the vote last Thursday would
have translated into between 80-86 seats in the House of Commons. Is this fair?
No, but neither of the two main parties care little for fairness because the
FPP works in their own favour and will continue to do so, leaving ever more
voters unwilling to vote, because of the sclerotic state of FPP.
It
is no good the establishment berating everyone to vote if there is not the
possibility of voters seeing their votes truly represented by seats in
parliament. At the moment we have a duopoly of parties in the UK who think and
sound alike on the two great issues of the day – immigration and Europe. This
duopoly could have been challenged under a fairer voting system. But this would
have been anathema, considering the influence of Ukip, to both of them.
Proportional
representation in one form or another now has to be considered for the election
of our representatives in Parliament; if not, which now seems likely because of
the stranglehold the two main parties have on the way people are being allowed
to vote, the disillusionment will fester, as under Louise XVI, and sooner or
later the same kind of retribution will befall the EU that befell 18th
century France.
[1] I
know there have been many cases of minority governments under this system that
has to, like our previous one, seek an arrangement with a third party in order
to govern. But this is still better than full blown PR which may involve
several parties in government decision making each with their own political
agenda.
[2]
Which still continues
No comments:
Post a Comment