Voting Systems. Part Three.

I have just returned to the keyboard, it is now 21:15 GMT [22:15 BST] on Tuesday 11 May.
A very interesting six hours watching, on TV, the run up to Mr Brown speaking outside No 10 before going, with his wife, to meet the Queen to formally resign from his position as Prime Minister, he then returned to No 10 and spoke outside again before going inside to thank his staff, friends and members of the Labour Party. While this was happening Mr Cameron, with his wife, was meeting the Queen to tell her that he was in a position to form a Government, she appointed him as Prime Minister, he was then driven back to No 10, spoke outside No 10 and then he and his wife went inside, job done! All very clinical, evidently most of the staff in No 1o do not change. Details of what the Conservatives and Lib Dems yielded from the yardsticks of their manifestos have not been announced yet. There was a suggestion that they had agreed on a fixed term between elections, very interesting, particularly when a coalition government is in place, as it will mean that a Prime Minister cannot call for an election when it best suits him or her, I am in favour of that.
The data produced above shows why the Liberal Democrats have favoured proportional representation for years. The claim is made that, quite fairly, it more truly reflects the wishes of the voters. I am not in favour of it on two accounts, the first is that though a person may vote for a candidate from a particular party there is no guarantee that, even though that candidate "won" that seat he or she will become an MP. It follows that every party will strive to nominate a candidate in every constituency because every vote counts, the fact that many candidates will be doomed to lose their deposits is immaterial. In the UK that could mean 650 candidates from each party will contest an election. If one party gets fifty percent of the total votes cast only 325 of their candidates will become MPs, those 325 being the top 325 names on the list prepared in order of preference by the party. It follows that many voters who supported a party may not have the faintest knowledge of the MP who is designated by the party to represent them and, what is more, the MP may not have any connection whatsoever with the constituency he or she has been chosen by the party hierarchy to represent. To counter some of these faults of pure proportional voting different amendments to the simplicity of the system have been mooted.

This blog will continue in Voting Systems Part Four, starting "My second objection ----- "
Thank you.

Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.