I long ago lost count of how many people had suggested to me that only the intelligent should be allowed to vote, or that votes should be weighted (i.e. be worth more or less than one, in individual cases) so that they had greater meaning than they tend to do.
I have some sympathy with the grievance, which is that the most dim-witted, ignorant, dishonest and/or self-centered elector has exactly the same voting power as another who is bright, has studied and followed the subject of governance and the various parties, and whose motive is solely for what is best for the country.
Nevertheless, the principle of "one person, one vote" as a universal right for our citizens is something that should remain intact. It was fought for, long and hard and for different groups, for good reasons. Beyond that, who is to decide who should or should not have a vote under an alternative system, or how much each vote should be worth?
Any perceived problems such a scheme might be thought to solve would be overshadowed by new and far bigger issues it is certain to create. No, we need to stick with what we have, warts and all, and live with the consequences, just as we have managed to do all these years.
Yes, it will continue to allow pandering to and conning the simple-minded and the easily led by the spinners, and the more dishonest parties will thus (and through other means) continue to enjoy hugely greater support than by rights they ought to be receiving. The alternatives, though, would be much worse in different ways, and the dishonest participants would simply adapt to the new framework.
It would solve nothing, in reality.
Therefore, although it is healthy to look at our electoral system and processes from time to time, it is not an excuse to make changes for change's sake, and this is one idea that should
never be accepted.
On the subject of alternative voting methodologies, and of keeping our democracy under review, it is good that we looked at the Alternative Vote idea, and with that too came to a very firm "no" decision. As some reading this will no doubt recall, I have looked at voting systems myself, and in the past even gone so far as to devise my own electoral system suggestion and political structure, in order to address the expressed concerns at our present arrangements.
As always, those ideas and similar ones must be decided by the people in a referendum, if they should ever come up for serious consideration, as they involve a judgment that balances (for example) a desire for proportionality against voting for a named candidate rather than just a party (or similar identifying description).
My idea of 300 legislative MPs elected by my nationwide
True Proportional System (TPS), plus 600 part-time Constituency Representatives elected by local First Past The Post (FPTP) voting, has considerable merit, and if one thinks about it also has a tendency to reduce the perception that results are being swung by those perceived by some to be less fit to vote or be counted as highly as others. The change in that respect wouldn't be huge, but I think it could be sufficient to tip the balance and defuse that argument.
It's a thought; but of course my ideas are hardly likely to be adopted or even seriously considered – though, as with our local ward boundaries, I do intend to put my case forward should a review be instigated one day...
