Wednesday 16 March 2011

The Problem With Elections

One of the demands of the Liberal Democrats before they agreed to team up with the Conservatives and stab us all in the back was a referendum on the voting system.
Nick Clegg and his cohorts are demanding we switch from the first past the post system we currently where a voter puts an 'X' beside their favoured party on the ballot paper, to an alternative voting system where they rank the candidates on offer. 1 for Labour, 2 for Conservative etc.
The greatest difference i can see is it will be more representative of voters choice, Labour won the 2007 election with only 34% of the country voting for them meaning 66% didn't want them but were stuck with them anyway.
That is a good thing obviously but what grates with me is not the method of how they get in, it's how once they get the keys to the door, they are left alone for 5 years to do what they like.
I would like to see some mechanism where an election is triggered if the voters don't like what they are up to.
As things stand, the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition Government can slash and burn everything as much as they like for the next 4 years and there is nothing we can do about it.
That's what i want to see changed by having a threshold where if a Governments popularity sinks below 30%, the country holds another election. All the polls, and we have lots of them, would be gathered and analysed to make one final running percentage.
Alternatively, why not reduce the limit and hold elections every 2 years so we can remove them before any real damage is caused and scandals are not half forgotten by time.
It would also force them to consider things more carefully instead of front loading their time with all the bad decisions so they can offer election time bribes when they come into their final year.
We can tinker with how we elect our Prime Ministers all we want but it won't stop any of them being liabilities when they get in power. Isn't that so Mr Clegg.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

hmmm,

i think we first had this debate in the USA circa 1787... it is amazing how much damage Obama, a democratic house, and a democratic senate did to the USA in 2 years. It may be irreversible.

You might consider annual elections!

q

Cheezy said...

"it is amazing how much damage Obama, a democratic house, and a democratic senate did to the USA in 2 years."

Yeah, it was all pretty going well before then wasn't it? It's just the last 2 years and 2 months that's done it. It's amazing how much clearer everything is when you take one step back, isn't it?

"The greatest difference i can see is it will be more representative of voters choice"

Only just though. AV is Gordon Brown's reluctant concession to those calling for PR... i.e. it's not PR at all. We're being given a false choice. I hate FPP, but even I can barely muster the enthusiasm to encourage people to vote for AV.

"Alternatively, why not reduce the limit and hold elections every 2 years"

With respect, that's a terrible idea. Even in good times (and there are not good times) any program involving required fiscal and/or monetary changes needs time to 'bed in' and reap the intended benefits. Our politicians are short-termist and brainlessly populist enough as it is, without putting them on a virtually permanent election-footing. What was a good idea was the change made in last year's Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, making the election term fixed so the ruling party can't just announce a snap election for tactical reasons.

Anonymous said...

Cheezy,

good point. The democrats started doing damage the last two years of W's office when they took control of the house and the senate. if only W had used the veto like clinton did in the 90's...

Cheezy said...

My point exactly, Q. Stand up close and you can see a shitty president. Stand back a bit further and you can see two of them. Stand back even further and you can make out two shitty ones and one reasonable one (albeit one who lied about getting gobbled in the Oval Office, the dirty old dog... and she wasn't even hot).

The Dem controlled house is poor, as you rightfully say, probably worse than the GOP one. We can't really blame them for the worst security failure in US history, coupled with the worst intelligence failure in US history, but I know that we'd like to.

Nog said...

I think that when it comes to terms, the United States have one of the most magnificent term systems ever conceived. President every 4 years, House every 2 years, 1/3rd of Senate every 2 years. The President almost never wins seats in the House or Senate in mid-terms.


An automatic election on a poll drop would cause endless problems. Whose poll? What if unpopular decisions need to be made? It seems to me that a rule like this would be most unwise.

The whole legislature every 2 years? Again, it would hamper long-term decision-making and make everything constantly poll driven.

There's good in being able to make a hard decision that kills you in the polls for six months or two years knowing that there isn't another election for three or four years. If people really care, they'll vote politicians out who do things they don't like in the first or second year of a four year term.


-Nog

Lucy said...

Maybe i give too much credit to voters with the idea of a 2 year plan. I would hopefully think that voters would see that tough decisions have to be made, such as the financial hole we are in at the moment, and realise whoever was in it would still need to be done. How it is being done and if it is fair would be vital and make the Government act in a more reasonable way. Besides, i also give us credit (too much again perhaps) that we would look at the wider issues rather than just the economy. Mostly it would give us a chance to stop any ridiculous ideas (ID cards, poll tax, tuition fees, NHS reform) before it was too late and cost us a fortune.

Cheezy said...

"I would hopefully think that voters would see that tough decisions have to be made"

But it's not so much the voters I'm concerned about, it's the MPs. With a 2 year cycle it's like they'd be in 'campaign mode' for half the term, when they were supposed to actually be working.

I lived in New Zealand for years, which has a 3 year parliamentary term. They're currently considering (even with the usual western disillusionment with politicians that NZ has, just as much as anyone) lengthening it to 4 years, for just this reason.

Nog said...

You aren't wrong in thinking that having some elections every 2 years is a good idea.

In the United States , there are lots of federal and state offices that matter. If I were to kill someone and get executed, it would only be because the Texas State Legislature (2-year terms in the House, 4-year staggered terms in Senate) has a death penalty statute, my conviction and sentence is upheld in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (6-year staggered terms), and the Governor doesn't pardon me or commute my sentence (4 year term).

As I understand it, the House of Commons is the only political body that really matters in Britain (or at least in England). If this is true, then just about everything gets voted on every House of Commons election. That would make changing its terms a lot messier.



-Nog

Lucy said...

Good point about the permanent state or being in campaign mode.