An alternative to not voting or spoiling your ballot in a general election

[plekhanov]

In all the PR systems I can think of you vote for a number of posts, thereby breaking the direct relationship a constituent has with their MP.

 

How can you run an election for one post under a proportional representation system? Such a system would not be PR.

 

You could use single transferable vote type system, but that isn't really PR.

Oh please STV is pretty much universally regarded as PR and people have referred to it as such throughout this thread.

[Wildcat]

Oh please STV is pretty much universally regarded as PR and people have referred to it as such throughout this thread.

 

Ok yes STV is PR....

 

But it isn't really PR when it is used to elect someone to a single post.

 

Are French Presidential elections PR?

[esme]

discussions of the various forms of PR aside how are we doing on the non voters who abstain or spoil as a protest actually making a noticeable protest instead thing ?

 

you know ?

 

the thread topic

[redrobbo]

Thanks for your PM esme. I've reproduced it below, and will then try to clarify my original post for you.

 

 

however on rereading I found a paragraph you had written

 

...I wish to observe that the UK has a representative parliamentary democracy. MPs are not fettered to vote according to the views of what a perceived majority of their electors feel on a particular issue....

 

which I would interpret to mean that once in office an MP can do what they like and the electorate can, for want of a better phrase, go hang

 

it would relegate the electorate to the status of a disposable resource to be used only when needed and thereafter ignored

 

most people I know think that MP's are in office to work for them and run the country on their behalf for the collective benefit of all, if this idea is correct then that isn't true and never has been true

 

if you can find the time I would be grateful if you could clarify this point for me please as I have to believe my interpretation is incorrect

 

regards

esme

 

When a general election takes place, the political parties set out their stalls to try and persuade the electorate to vote for them. They do this in the form of a manifesto. MPs elected for the winning party are therefore deemed to be mandated to implement their parties manifesto pledges.

 

In the lifetime of a parliament though, issues will arise on which there is no manifesto pledge and on which MPs will be expected to vote. Some of these issues may be of a social concern, for example, back in 1976, David Steel MP had a private member's bill to reform the law on abortion.

 

This was a hugely contentious issue at the time. MPs were not mandated by their respective political parties on how they should vote. Instead, in a free vote, MPs were allowed to vote according to their conscious.

 

What though might be an alternative system of reaching a decision on such contentious issues?

 

Well, in some countries, notably Switzerland and in some states of the USA, they hold referendums on various propositions - and it is the people who decide. But referendums are not usually part of the British system of parliamentary democracy. (NB Not until back in the 1970s, when Harold Wilson introduced a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU. He did this though as a mechanism to avoid a split in the Labour Party and controversially allowed ministers to campaign for or against the proposition. We've had several referendums since then. I personally regard them as an inalienable intrusion into our system of parliamentary representation).

 

There is also, of course, the traditional protest march - where the people hold a mass demonstration (sometimes numbering hundreds of thousands), gathering afterwards in Trafalgar Square or Hyde Park to hear speakers lobby parliament with a viewpoint on a particular subject. (NB I've actually participated in such mass demonstrations myself in the belief that my voice should be heard - though we've still not achieved nuclear disarmament! ) .

 

Writing to your MP is also a traditional way of making your voice heard, and in our modern age of communication, we now have e-petitions.

 

But MPs are not mandated by their political parties or by their electorate on how they should vote on such issues. They may wish to take into account the deluge of protests, the avalance of correspondence, even the number of letters on a particular subject published in their local newspaper or any other means by which their electorate make their views known to them. But they still have to make their own judgment in determining how they should vote.

 

Thus on the great reforming issues of social concern in the past 50 years or so, such as abortion, homosexuality and the repeal of the death sentence, (which I cited in my original post) MPs have voted according to their conscience. Our system of parliamentary representation means we elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. And as I also said in my original post, we do not elect MPs to vote according to the perceived views of the majority of their constituents.

 

Unless there was a ballot on a particular issue, i.e., a referendum such as they have in Switzerland and elsewhere, I cannot myself see how any MP can accurately guage public opinion.

 

Incidentally, when the UK has held referendums, the government is not legally obliged to uphold the result. Referendums in the UK are deemed to be advisory only of public opinion and MPs are still able to vote according to their conscience.

 

MPs may in the process of voting on any bill - even one which is a manifesto pledge - vote against their own government. But to do so would be to defy their own Whip, and could lead to recriminations, e.g., suspension of the Whip, de-selection by their own constituency party or even expulsion from their political party.

[esme]

thank you for the clarification

 

so basically an MP follows the party line, if the party has a position on an issue, otherwise they follow their own conscience and at no point are the opinions of the electorate ever taken to be more than advisory

 

further if an MP goes against the wishes of the party, they can as a final sanction be removed from office, but if the MP goes against the wishes of the electorate then the electorate can shout and scream all it likes but nothing will happen

 

the electorate vote for a candidate and they achieve office based on this vote and then make decisions on the electorates behalf without recourse to the opinions of the electorate for the next five years or until a new general election is called

 

you can protest upcoming decisions by writing to your MP but if the protest goes against the party line then you are wasting your time

 

and as you say you can always join a protest march, however even these are ineffective against the party line, as are e-petitions of which I have yet to see one change a parties stance on an issue

 

these measures seem to be there to simply allow the electorate to waste time and blow off steam while the MP's carry on their merry way

 

and despite all this MP's are genuinely confused why they are held in such low esteem by the electorate and why a large portion of the electorate disengage from politics and don't bother voting or spoil their ballots

 

this is a recipe for disaster, the electorate will be pushed, prodded, cajoled and ignored up to the point where they no longer comply with their elected representatives demands, and then it will get messy

 

this has to change

 

---EDIT---

 

however this is completely off topic and should really be in a separate thread

[Rupert_Baehr]

That sums it up pretty well, Esme.

 

But the Party Line is a red line painted on the floor on each side of the House of Commons. Members were required to remain behind their own party line (because if they did so, then irrespective of how angry they were with the party opposite, they couldn't stick swords in them. )

 

Some countries elect representatives - people who represent the people. In many cases, they listen to the people, because if they don't, they won't get re-elected. Not only are members of parliament not representatives of the people, the candidates themselves are often forced on the electorate.

 

If, to be a candidate to stand in Parliamentary elections for a given constituency, you had to be a councillor elected by the people of that constituency, then the parties would find it more difficult 'parachute' their candidates into seats.

[esme]

That sums it up pretty well, Esme.

 

But the Party Line is a red line painted on the floor on each side of the House of Commons. Members were required to remain behind their own party line (because if they did so, then irrespective of how angry they were with the party opposite, they couldn't stick swords in them. )

they never thought of throwing them ?

 

Some countries elect representatives - people who represent the people. In many cases, they listen to the people, because if they don't, they won't get re-elected. Not only are members of parliament not representatives of the people, the candidates themselves are often forced on the electorate.

 

If, to be a candidate to stand in Parliamentary elections for a given constituency, you had to be a councillor elected by the people of that constituency, then the parties would find it more difficult 'parachute' their candidates into seats.

 

so MP's don't represent the people because of party politics

 

and party politics at it's heart, regardless of whatever laudable aims any particular party had at it's founding, is a means whereby a very small number of people can force their opinions, views and indeed laws onto the electorate regardless of the wishes of the electorate

 

this is not democracy

[Phanerothyme]

OK, I've got the paperwork and started filling it in for the "No Thanks, we'd rather stick splinters in our eyes" party. I'd stand, but I'm not a British or Commonwealth passport bearer, but I'll happily act as the agent for Central. It costs £150 to register a new party, anyone willing to meet up and sort it out? There's paperwork, and financial probity and the whole shooting match to be ironed out, but three people ought to be able to cover it. I should also point out that I am skint as usual.

 

But even if it's just a dry run - the 2015 Election will be FPP mark my words - it could be educational.

 

I freely admit that the "No thanks we'd rather stick splinters in our eyes party" is a bit of a mouthful - but if some people are serious about this then everyone else should be able to come up with a winning name for the party by midnight.

 

The papers can be ready by Tuesday night with a bit of effort and despatched to The Electoral Commission along with a cheque and and electronic version on Wednesday, which gives a day's leeway to chase things up by phone.

 

So c'mon people, we need party names!

[redrobbo]

OK, I've got the paperwork and started filling it in for the "No Thanks, we'd rather stick splinters in our eyes" party. I'd stand, but I'm not a British or Commonwealth passport bearer, but I'll happily act as the agent for Central. It costs £150 to register a new party, anyone willing to meet up and sort it out? There's paperwork, and financial probity and the whole shooting match to be ironed out, but three people ought to be able to cover it. I should also point out that I am skint as usual.

 

But even if it's just a dry run - the 2015 Election will be FPP mark my words - it could be educational.

 

I freely admit that the "No thanks we'd rather stick splinters in our eyes party" is a bit of a mouthful - but if some people are serious about this then everyone else should be able to come up with a winning name for the party by midnight.

 

The papers can be ready by Tuesday night with a bit of effort and despatched to The Electoral Commission along with a cheque and and electronic version on Wednesday, which gives a day's leeway to chase things up by phone.

 

So c'mon people, we need party names!

 

Umm... The proposed "No thanks we'd rather stick splinters in our eyes party" is not only "a bit of a mouthful" as you say Phanerothyme, but at 10 words long it can't be registered as a political party. A political party's name can only be up to 6 words long.

[Phanerothyme]

Your post is notable for its lack of suggestions, red!