Once Labour’s understandable elation at a historic third term has subsided, some serious questions will need to be asked about the morality of the mandate. We regularly hear about public disengagement from politics, yet fail to ask a simple question: does the system itself encourage disillusionment by magnifying the victory of the victors and diminishing the performance of the losers?
The figures point to a democratic deficit. Of the people who turned out to vote in the 2005 general election, 35.2% voted Labour, which translates into 356 seats. The Conservatives got 32.3 of the votes and 197 seats, whereas the Liberal Democrats managed 22% of the votes and 62 seats. These figures are based on a 61% turnout, which is barely an improvement on the 59% who voted in 2001 and quite disappointing given the popularity of postal voting. More people didn’t bother to vote than voted Labour.
As it is clear from these figures, there is a disparity between the popular vote and the number of seats. Most people did not vote Labour. As a percentage of the total electorate- including those who did not vote- Labour votes represent only 21%.
No system is perfect, but a system of proportional representation would reflect the popular will more accurately than the current winner takes all system. The argument that PR can lead to instability is unconvincing. In any case, dictators have been known to argue similarly against democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment