Fairer Votes? Just Give Us A Fairer Government!

Elections on the 5^th May have generated a great deal of interest as they rightly should. Last year’s national election saw a hung parliament and  a consequent coalition has emerged: that twelve months later it has a united front is evidence of the dedication and commitment each party has made to compensate, compromise and collaborate with each other. Coalitions are indeed often considered weak and ineffective, but this government has so far tackled huge issues (which undoubtedly leave a lot of room for problems and grumbling) concerning education costs and public sector reforms. 

Now the promise of a referendum is delivered. Never in recent centuries has there been such a crucial opportunity to change our system of enfranchisement. As ever, every voter counts. Not only do recent polls demonstrate that opinion is spilt, swinging back and forth on the issues, but with fewer people actively interested in politics at large, this event has created an air of suspense between many. 

65.1% turned out in the elections of 2010 and this was considered a great achievement considering the previous election had only received 61.4% and prior to that 59.4%. However, we should consider that only as far back as 1997, there was a 71.4% turnout – and that was the lowest recorded figure in the post-World War Two era. No doubts can be held that there has been a significant drop in the number of voters – and yet there is greater concern about the way in which our government passes law. In this case, the first method by which to attain a fairer government appears fundamental: vote. With more than a third of the nation not helping to gage true feeling and beliefs, there is not the room for government to be considerate.

Yet, we may question the reasons behind the sudden drop. In a politically correct era, politics has become increasingly filled with jargon and specialist lexicon that prevent access and appreciation for the system. Moreover, with greater media outlets than ever before, parties have simply not campaigned as widely as they possibly could. People’s interests lie in so many different areas today that a government, especially one riddled with cynicism from any onlooker, needs to adapt to circumstance and target groups all through the term – not just at election time. There need be change effected for good, not for votes. Therefore, government need be more clear and defined and pro-active; so make them work for this.

Of course, the previous ideas of making politicians work all throughout their time in parliament sounds quite novel to many sceptics. However, the image serves to highlight how far politics has become a game. We only become actively involved as a society when elections are taking place. Whereas in decades gone by, social reforms, political movements and technological advances ensured politicians were seen every day to make comment and move people to belief, today politicians appear more competitive for votes each April alone and do not add much to their public sphere over the intervening year.

Some of this point scoring politics can be seen quite clearly in the current AV campaigns. For example the ‘No to AV’ programme points out costs that appear quite negligible in the long-term. It suggests millions will be spent on AV in explaining how it works – this should be common knowledge for us to make an informed decision BEFORE voting, not after it could become implemented policy. Also, discrediting the scheme through costs on new machines is hardly an acceptable argument – such machines would be useful under EITHER system of politics. However, more than these, the suggestion that there is excessive cost at having this referendum is rather insulting: democracy should be upheld at all costs; voices should not be ignored because of the ‘price’ of political freedom.

This is not to say that the ‘Yes’ voters have fared much better in their attempts at an independent campaign. It suggests that the AV system provides a bigger say in who comes first and last, and yet this phrase does not reflect the complexity of the vote count. In introducing this vote, there was a pledge it would help tackle what is commonly referred to as ‘seats for life’, but it will leave more than 200 seats unchanged. And surely the every vote counts argument is not unique to AV?

Increasingly, there appears cause for despair. Whilst politicians tackle each other with out of context quotes and front page jibes, the general public are left more unaware of the political ties. Although we have an impression of which party prefers whatever course of action relevant to a particular issue, there is little concrete argument as to why this conclusion has been reached: for both sides refer again and again to similar points.

In short, government is in need of reform and it is only achievable through the collaborative voices of the electorate ourselves. In seeking change, we seek politics to affect our daily lives for the better, for politics in action. No longer should these leaders of nations mock each other’s aims and sit passively by for a large proportion of the year. If only we exercise our own liberties, we could achieve such a more functioning government in many ways. No fully functioning government is given to us on a plate.

For more detailed insights to the flaws of the AV campaign, visit: http://thedolphinsblowhole.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/the-straw-man-referendum-how-the-av-debate-misses-the-point/