Proposal for electoral reform.

Problem
I have a proposal which I think it better than introducing alternative voting system. My proposal is easier to understand and implement, and makes it easier for voters to make their wishes clear.

All three major parties in the UK encourage tactical voting to try and get your vote. Rather than voting for the candidate which best represents your views, you should vote `tactically’ to prevent the party you like the least from gaining the seat.

Graph showing previous election results and encoraging tactical voting [Actually any candidate can win if they get the most votes].

Typical tactics used by the three major parties.

Proposal
This problem can be removed by allowing us each to choose, either to vote for, or against one of the candidates. (+1 or -1).

Expected outcome
This proposal will allow those who want to prevent a candidate from winning simply to vote against them, rather than to vote for a party they don’t particularly like.

All parties would immediately stop negative campaigning because it would help all of the other parties. The lazy campaigning of saying vote for us because we are not the other guys would be removed.

If all the parties are unpopular in an area it would be easier for new parties to win the seat, this would more genuinely match the opinion of the electorate. If all the parties are unpopular the least unpopular would receive the least negative votes, he would take the seat but is likely to be more humble than if he had received a majority of thousands, not really be able to claim he had a popular mandate for his decisions – he would argue they are the least worst policies.

Advertisements

LIberal Doublespeak – paying more is paying less

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11946112

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947701

Liberal democrats are claiming that students who will pay more for their education in the future will be paying less.

Their argument seems to be that the longer you delay paying back a loan, and the slower you pay it back the better.

I’m a bit worried that politicians can make this argument so easily, I think this is the same way they think about borrowing on the national scale. At least on the national scale one thing they often seem to forget is that the cost of borrowing can change.

I think it is very disingenuous to claim that richer students will pay more for their loans because they will pay them back sooner. Also does this mean no one will have a choice but to borrow to pay for their education, will it be compulsory to take loans from the government, or will students be allowed to pay upfront if they have the money? Paddy Ashdown seemed to claim that no one will pay for their education (only pay it back later).

Did we enter the world of double speak?

If anyone knows where I can read the proposals for this legislation please let me know. Mr Ashdown suggested we should read, but didn’t say where.