Writing in the Independent, Brian Bradey and Emily Dugan author an article discussing what secret deals may be being made in the run-up to May 6th.
"However, Gordon Brown's recent sympathy for adopting a new electoral system has encouraged those who favour a deal. David Cameron has always opposed changing the system, but some believe that if he felt reform was unavoidable, he would favour a more proportional system than Labour has been willing to countenance."
So we have arrived at a situation where Gordon Brown decides that a change must be made to the system whereby we elect those who are supposed to represent us and opts for the 'Alternative Vote' (as promised in Labour's Manifesto). Now Bradey and Dugan report that Cameron, in an attempt to secure the keys to No10, may well be doing a 'U' turn on his wish to retain 'First Past The Post'.
And just where the hell does the electorate fit into this decision of any possible 'system change' to our method of voting? Who the hell gave our political elite the right to mess around with the voting system without consulting the electorate? When will the political elite realise that it is the people who elect them and therefore, by right, it is the people who should decide what change is made.
If there is to be a change to the voting system, then how about all the choices are explained, without any 'spin', and all options - Proportional Representation, Alternative Vote, Alternative Vote Plus, Supplementary Vote, Single Transferable Vote, Additional Member System and First Past The Post are provided for the electorate to decide and then - and only then - a referendum held?
1 comment:
I believe that, constitutionally, they cannot change the system without the consent of the people. That consent can only be given through a referendum - so I think we have final say on whatever they propose.
I stress very heavily that 'I think'. Not very sure.
Post a Comment