18 December 2019 Part 2
More Post-Election News
The good news is that the stranglehold of the remainers on our Parliament has been removed and the wishes of the people from the 2016 referendum will finally be delivered.
The other good news is that the horrific spectre of a Corbyn-led hard left Labour Government has been put to rest, and Labour is in the wilderness until the message gets through and the party reforms itself. How long this will take is anybody's guess.
However, the time is long overdue to take a hard long look at our First Past the Post electoral system, that works on a winner takes all solution no matter how fine the margin.
The Conservatives in spite of their apparent stunning victory are still a minority government only winning 43.6% of the total vote, which translated into 365 seats (56% of total seats) when on proportion they would only have 283. 43.6% does not mathematically or fairly translate as a resounding victory by any standards except those of British politics.
When one is the beneficiary of the unfair skewing of the numbers that First Past the Post consistently provides to one of either of the two major parties, it obviously is a wonderful system, but it certainly is not fair or just.
Another basic rule of democracy should be that all votes carry equal weight, but this certainly is not the case, as electorates are not of equal size throughout the UK.
The SNP with 3.9% of the total vote won 48 seats or 7.4% of the total number of seats when proportionally they should have won just 25 seats. Compare this with the LibDumbs who won 11 seats with 11.6% of the total vote, when proportionally that equates to 71 seats (in this instance this is a good result since they are almost as big nutters but more damaging than the SNP in the long term).
The Brexit Party pulled most of its candidates to avoid splitting the "Leave" vote, to give Boris an easier and clear run, and won zero seats on 2% of the total vote, when proportionally 2% equates to 13 seats.
If one was sitting an exam 43.6% would count as a fail, not even a close fail, and certainly not a resounding victory.
When the euphoria of ridding ourselves of the malevolent shackles of the EU, and vanquishing the neo Commie Corbyn and his hard left cronies, we should have a hard look at First Past the Post, and give serious consideration to adopting a fairer and more democratic system, where the make up of our national Parliament more fairly reflects the true distribution of the total vote.
I would not for one minute recommend straight Proportional Representation, where MPs are elected from Party Lists, rather than being elected as individual candidates, but we should seriously consider adopting a system that allows a voter to vote with both his head and his heart by ranking the candidates in order of preference, namely, "Optional Preferential Voting" where the voter ranks as many or as few candidates in order of preference, and the contest is reduced to a 2 candidate race after preferences have been allocated and the winning candidate has at least 50% plus 1 vote of the total votes cast, and with it a genuine mandate.
Does it work? Yes it does, worked well in Australia, but they use the Hare Clark system for Federal Elections, which is more complicated and produces a lot of informal votes.
This discussion is overdue in Britain, elections should be about representation of the people not Party C versus Party L and playing the system to advantage.
Get one thing straight, Party Politics in Britain is not about representation of the people, it is about manipulation of the people, and competing factions within the parties, and gaining and holding onto power for political and in many cases personal advantage and benefit.
PS The Conservative Party has gained a dominant position in the new parliament, with 43.6% of the total vote, some 8.4% less than Proposition Leave received in the 2016 referendum, which a majority of MPs of all parties has worked over the last 3 years to frustrate.
How many see the irony in this?