Every voter can vote for every potential government on offer. None can leave any seat uncontested.

If you can't elect your government, your well recognised human rights have been sneakily bypassed. Yet that is the position of every voter in any seat where any of the parties or alliances contending for government choose not to stand.

Every party or alliance which is contending more than half the seats, enough to be elected the government, must be forced instantly to contend all seats. You should only be allowed to contest either (1) every seat in the whole country, without exception, or (2) only the minority of seats relevant to a local interest. You should not be allowed to contest a majority of seats but not all.

The system of deposits to discourage non-serious candidacies in each seat dates back to a purely local view of representation and a time of seeing unopposed candidacies as acceptable. It would follow that you should not be charged deposits for more than half the seats, because as soon as your party contests half there must be no impediment to contesting all, so that you can be required to contest them.

Injustices this will prevent include:

* The tradition of not opposing the Speaker. It leaves the population of 1 whole seat excluded from the national party choice. Shockingly actually reintroduced in 1997 after it had lapsed in 1974, and in the 60s parlt rejected a solution of making the Speaker into the MP for a notional seat with no population. If you don't want the Speaker contested you must force the incumbent Speaker to retire at every election.

* The old practice, still only partly breaking down of British parties not standing in Northern Ireland, In the 70s-80s they had no direct equivalent allied parties there to give voters there a choice for the British government.

* Martin Bell against Neil Hamilton in 1997. Non-Tory voters excluded from the party choice in order to be asked to back a local initiative by an Independent whose candidacy was based on accusing his opponent's character of being tainted by things he had not been convicted for, so that I agreed totally with Hamilton's wife that it was a breach of innocent until proved guilty.

No comments yet, be the first to post one!