How about constant democracy?

Proportional representation is the in thing at the moment. As a result I've gone off the idea. Mainly because I don't think most of the people who are advocating it know what it means or which system they're in support of. They're just angry.

Furthermore, most of the popular systems (by which I mean those advocated by politicians) allow the political parties to assign MPs to areas once the votes have been counted and their seat numbers are allocated. This would result in MP's not having to answer to people locally at all. The practice of parachuting in MP's from out of town to places like Liverpool and Manchester has always been frowned upon. Most of the forms of proportional representation advocated at the moment would guarantee that happened on a regualr basis. No more Portillo or Jacqui Smith moments!

The only sort of electoral reform I would support (and would get me to return to voting) is best described as "constant democracy" or "rolling elections". I can't find it on the net, even wikipedia has let me down. It was explained to me, like all the best ideas, by a bloke in a pub years ago. It goes like this, you vote for whoever you want. When you don't like them you change your vote to someone else. There are no elections. It's your right to change who you support whenever you want to.

That way people like me who voted Blair in '97 could take their vote back in the event of, for example, an oncoming war in Iraq. Or the death of a someone like Dr David Kelly. Or the treatment of Gary McKinnon. Or, anything which seemed out of step with what you want. In fact, it would mean there was effectively a potential referendum whenever a controversial policy which lacked public support came up.

The main argument against this put forward by politicians is that they would never get anything done.

For me that sounds like another argument in favour of it.

NM

Comments

Popular Posts