Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

One person, one vote is often a rallying cry for democracy activists.

Everyone should have representation.

Equality should be sacrosanct in a democracy should it not or is it?

But should everyone have equal representation?

THE 2019 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS RESULTS ARE IN AND BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS LITTLE WILL CHANGE EXCEPT THE SQUABBLING WILL BE OFTEN AND MORE INTENSE.

Unequal votes are a result of history.

Inequality between votes may also not be built into the system but a result of the balance of parties within the system.

Under the English system of first past the post a very few voters have a disproportionate influence due to being swing voters in swing constituencies.

The conduct of election and referendum campaigns in the UK is letting voters down. Trust in what politicians say—and in how journalists report it—is at rock bottom.

If British residents aren’t equal, then nor are their representatives.

So should democracies stick the principle that everyone should have equal weight or compromise if for politics?

In a simple majority system of one vote = one person, the outcome is easy to conclude and scrutinise for fairness and election rigging.

Therefore one vote = one voice is also a very practical way to run a democracy.

Or is it?

There are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process – breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons.

Should a vote have weight based on someone’s contributions to their community, and society as a whole? If one has done good things, their vote should be more important than that of a selfish person who does not contribute in a positive way.

Should a Party with no members, no Manifesto, lead by a self-elected leader from a previous Party that spread Falsehoods be allowed to take up its seats in The European Parlement to effectively try to destroy all it stands for at the cost of the taxpayer?

Yes.

Should a party that is in power be allowed to select the leader of a country without a general election?

Yes.

However, we should be striving to deepen our democracy, not just to protect the democracy that we already have. Voters deserve much better. We should be tackling misinformation, promoting quality information, and encouraging open, respectful discussion among citizens.

Almost any misleading claim can be expressed in a way that isn’t strictly false, so a ban on falsehoods would change little. There are also dangers: for example, populist campaigners could “weaponise” adverse rulings to claim victimisation by the “establishment.”

The solution is, for example, Ireland has recently blazed a new path in how to prepare for referendums, convening a group of randomly selected citizens—a “citizens’ assembly”—to meet over several weekends to learn, deliberate, and reach recommendations.

Why is this a solution because of the challenge arising from the digital revolution that has transformed political communications in the last decade.

This allows the citizens of a country to have a unified clear voice on what is to be voted on.

Now is the time to ensure that how we conduct election and referendum campaigns is designed with voters at its heart.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Advertisements