Now that the election is over, and the results are in favour once again of a single party when there are many others parties with a voice needing to be heard it is time perhaps to make it possible for those voices to be heard?
Just a few rounded up figures to show what I mean:
Conservatives approximately 11million votes.
Labour approximately 9 million votes.
The rest approximately 10 million votes.
Of those ten million over 3 million went to UKIP.
This last figure shows that there was a lot of people voting for UKIP, which reflects the spurious popularity of the party and its ideas, perhaps as much as it does the protest against the major parties. The Liberal Democrats were subsumed as part of that protest which could be that the Conservative campaign did a good hatchet job on Clegg, or the coalition was not popular.
The Labour party leader did nothing for the party by using yet another 'spin doctor' who seemed bent on nobbling Labour's relationship with the SNP and also suffered from its Scottish referendum approach.
The losers are the minor parties.
Like them or dislike them, the Ukippers deserved a few seats in the new parliament and some of the other minor parties could have seats if the seats were doled out on a proportional basis. In effect approximately 30% of the parliamentary seats could have gone to the smaller parties and that includes in this election the Liberal Democrats who polled 7.9% against UKIP's 12.6%.
I lived in New Zealand for many years and witnessed, and was also involved in the action, the first Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) election and although it seemed like a mess it worked.
How does MMP work?
Parliament is divided into two sections.
Half elected Party seats and half elected candidate seats.
Each party has a list - for example: the larger parties will have lists starting with the leader to the last candidate.
Each seat is contested as usual but instead of having just the names of the candidates on the voting slip there is also a list of parties.
The voter will put a mark against their preferred candidate and another against the party of their choice.
Example: In Sittingbourne and Sheppey a voter could choose Gordon Henderson and either vote for the Conservative party or choose the Green party, or if they were not happy with Gordon but liked the Conservatives then they can choose the Tory party and vote for perhaps the UKIP candidate.
The vote is then counted in favour of the candidate - there can also be a preference system where the voter chooses a second and third candidate in which the preferences are counted and passed on - and to choose the party the votes are counted and apportioned nationally.
When the candidate list is filled (in the UK that would be 325 seats) then the next people on the party lists will be called on until all seats are filled.
This means that it would be rare for one party to govern with about half the seats and instead, because the majority party would have to negotiate with other parties no single ideology could take control and thus eliminate unfair situations.
Note that the word coalition is not used - a coalition is no better than the current situation.
Adopting MMP would give the disaffected a chance to have a voice in government, possibly engage those who see little or nothing for them in the current system, and give small, or minority parties a chance to put their points of view in government.
MMP will also have the advantage of showing up the undesirable parties for what they are. If this means eliminating some from the political scene and adding those whose voice is not heard then perhaps the electorate will respond.
MMP can be cumbersome, but because of this it acts as a check on legislation that would be otherwise hurried through when it needs to be scrutinised and opposed properly and effectively. It also allows parties to work together and be more willing to form all party Select Committees that work across the board as apolitical units.
James Apps. MA Eng. Litt.
