Britain"s 19th century voting system exposed
This week's British general election has been dramatic for many reasons, not least of which for further exposing how antiquated and unfair the current electorial and voting systems are.
Despite being eligible to vote since the early 1990s, this was the first time I have ever voted in the British general election. My decision to do so this time was partly for the experience and partly because this was such an important election and I wanted to play my part in it.
What surprised me is that when I arrived at my local polling station, no one checked my ID once I'd given them my polling card. Apparently, this is the normal policy throughout the country but it really makes me question people's concerns over why they think this system is more secure than online voting. Somebody could have stolen my card and voted on my behalf. Or someone who has chosen not to vote could give their card to someone else, including someone not even eligible to vote.
And then there were all the problems thousands of people had with voting at some polling stations because there were queues and they closed at 10pm. Again, online voting would eliminate that problem completely.
Finally, the idea of having to wait until the afternoon of the following day before all the votes had been manually counted, plus the thousands of people necessary to make that happen, seems incredibly old fashioned. And indeed it is as the system is essentially the same since the 1872 Ballot Act. Although I wouldn't deny there is something exciting about seeing the results emerge through the night and into the next day, it's out of step with the Digital Age we are now in.
Online voting
Online voting has been proposed in Britain before for general elections but has never really progressed through to implementation for various reasons. But I think that if the next election is to be in 2014 or 2015 there's a good chance it will be available then, even if only as an option for those who choose it. Estonia, for example, has offered it since 2005, even allowing people to place their votes for several days up to the final election day.
Online voting would likely also increase the percentage of people who voted. This year, out of the 44 million people registered to vote in the British general election, only 65% actually did (although that was still up on 2005). So that's over 15 million people who didn't vote and who know's what sort of difference it would have made if they had. Online voting would make it more convenient and quicker for everyone. With the current system, even the weather can impact turnout.
In this day and age where we can apply for mortgages, bank accounts, credit cards and more online, why can't we vote online as well?
Is proportional representation the way forward?
Of course, the other problem with the current British electorial system is the 'first past the post' approach which usually means that the percentage of votes each party gets doesn't necessarily equal the number of MPs they have or that they even win the election. For example, although the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote overall this year, they only won 57 seats, instead of the 149 their share should represent. That would only be 30 less than Labour who 29% of the votes and 90 less than the Conservatives who got 36%.
The difference is even more dramatic when you consider the results of the 2005 British general election when Tony Blair's Labour party won 356 seats, compared to the Conservatives with just 198. It looks like a comprehensive victory for Labour until you realise they won just a 35% share of the votes - just 3% more than the Conservatives, which in mymind means there really was no clear winner.
If we look back at the 1997 general election when Tony Blair first came to power, although Labour did comprehensively trounce the Conservatives with a 42% share of the votes, compared to their 31%, the 418 seats they won is disproportionate to the Conservatives' 165 seats.
There has recently been a lot of talk of reforming the British electorial system and that is very likely to happen now in one way or another. Proportional representation, where there is a closer match between the percentage of votes and the number of MPs, is probably the most known possibility at the moment although there are obviously inherent dangers with it. In a three party system like Britain has, it is highly unlikely that any one single party would ever gain 50% or more of all the votes, meaning hung parliaments and coalitions will become the norm, just like they are already in some other countries.
Proportional representation also creates the possibility of more extremist parties, like the BNP, having elected MPs in the Houses of Parliament, as they do already in the European Parliament which uses that system. They received a worrying 1.9% of the votes this year, and that would give them enough to have 12 MPs. If you want to know how bad it would be for a party like that to ever gain power, watch the movie V for Vendetta.
The funny thing about the current system though is that it would be potentially possible for a party to get the largest share of the vote but only come second in all the constituencies and thus not have a single elected MP. Is that really a fair system?
Despite being eligible to vote since the early 1990s, this was the first time I have ever voted in the British general election. My decision to do so this time was partly for the experience and partly because this was such an important election and I wanted to play my part in it.
What surprised me is that when I arrived at my local polling station, no one checked my ID once I'd given them my polling card. Apparently, this is the normal policy throughout the country but it really makes me question people's concerns over why they think this system is more secure than online voting. Somebody could have stolen my card and voted on my behalf. Or someone who has chosen not to vote could give their card to someone else, including someone not even eligible to vote.
And then there were all the problems thousands of people had with voting at some polling stations because there were queues and they closed at 10pm. Again, online voting would eliminate that problem completely.
Finally, the idea of having to wait until the afternoon of the following day before all the votes had been manually counted, plus the thousands of people necessary to make that happen, seems incredibly old fashioned. And indeed it is as the system is essentially the same since the 1872 Ballot Act. Although I wouldn't deny there is something exciting about seeing the results emerge through the night and into the next day, it's out of step with the Digital Age we are now in.
Online voting
Online voting has been proposed in Britain before for general elections but has never really progressed through to implementation for various reasons. But I think that if the next election is to be in 2014 or 2015 there's a good chance it will be available then, even if only as an option for those who choose it. Estonia, for example, has offered it since 2005, even allowing people to place their votes for several days up to the final election day.
Online voting would likely also increase the percentage of people who voted. This year, out of the 44 million people registered to vote in the British general election, only 65% actually did (although that was still up on 2005). So that's over 15 million people who didn't vote and who know's what sort of difference it would have made if they had. Online voting would make it more convenient and quicker for everyone. With the current system, even the weather can impact turnout.
In this day and age where we can apply for mortgages, bank accounts, credit cards and more online, why can't we vote online as well?
Is proportional representation the way forward?
Of course, the other problem with the current British electorial system is the 'first past the post' approach which usually means that the percentage of votes each party gets doesn't necessarily equal the number of MPs they have or that they even win the election. For example, although the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote overall this year, they only won 57 seats, instead of the 149 their share should represent. That would only be 30 less than Labour who 29% of the votes and 90 less than the Conservatives who got 36%.
The difference is even more dramatic when you consider the results of the 2005 British general election when Tony Blair's Labour party won 356 seats, compared to the Conservatives with just 198. It looks like a comprehensive victory for Labour until you realise they won just a 35% share of the votes - just 3% more than the Conservatives, which in mymind means there really was no clear winner.
If we look back at the 1997 general election when Tony Blair first came to power, although Labour did comprehensively trounce the Conservatives with a 42% share of the votes, compared to their 31%, the 418 seats they won is disproportionate to the Conservatives' 165 seats.
There has recently been a lot of talk of reforming the British electorial system and that is very likely to happen now in one way or another. Proportional representation, where there is a closer match between the percentage of votes and the number of MPs, is probably the most known possibility at the moment although there are obviously inherent dangers with it. In a three party system like Britain has, it is highly unlikely that any one single party would ever gain 50% or more of all the votes, meaning hung parliaments and coalitions will become the norm, just like they are already in some other countries.
Proportional representation also creates the possibility of more extremist parties, like the BNP, having elected MPs in the Houses of Parliament, as they do already in the European Parliament which uses that system. They received a worrying 1.9% of the votes this year, and that would give them enough to have 12 MPs. If you want to know how bad it would be for a party like that to ever gain power, watch the movie V for Vendetta.
The funny thing about the current system though is that it would be potentially possible for a party to get the largest share of the vote but only come second in all the constituencies and thus not have a single elected MP. Is that really a fair system?
Source...