The Brexit Party phenomena

The Brexit Party knock-out

 The performance exhibited by this newly formed party is staggering but the simultaneous rise of the LibDem and Green vote suggests that this success was largely based on discontent and was in fact an expression of rage at being ignored. Even now with the facts shouting loud for all to hear, the Labour Party is in blinkered fashion and planning to push for more referenda and the MSM  pundits are adding 2 and 2 and coming up short: ignoring for example that one of the most vigorous leave movements was Labour's very own Labour Leave group. 

Well it looks like we're in for another display of political ostritus with even major players still refusing to accept mere mortals wishes. After all 17.4 million of us are illiterate know-nothings who were misled by a number on the side of a bus! The gall of the suedo intelligentsia believing that their knowledge of rocket science is better than ours - politics is not rocket science - and so almost everyone should be able to grasp the basics but the sight and sound of near illiterates being interviewed on BBC and ITV, stating that the majority of leavers were not educated sufficiently to have a view was truly sickening.

The constant patois of supposedly knowledgeable  officials actively involved in dealing project fear and being proved wrong publicly but then coming back for more, smacks of alternate state moguls pushing their Common Purpose techniques as was seen in Threads (1984), only they had the power of life or death....whoa there; maybe so would the moguls in the same circumstances. Perhaps this is a dummy run for the real takeover.

Creeping Orwellism; Sir Mark Sedwill, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service since 2018 and National Security Adviser to and of the national Security Council since 2017, effectively sets the scene for a power wielding bureaucrat to dictate too much policy shaped by assertions of 'security in the national interest'. Hence the witch-hunt that led to the sacking of Gavin Williamson. This three hatted position rivals that of the PM in power - power that does not answer at the dispatch box and works secretly with civil service hordes to emulate the performance of Sir Humphrey.

Then we have the spectacle of the Speaker of the House wielding more power than the PM and Government: what dangerous stuff, he tells our PM and our Government what they can debate and when and even selects which amendments go forward to be considered. This cannot be right in a Parliamentary democracy or can it? Maybe our belief system is conditioned to believe that we are living in a democracy when we aren't.

What to do? The Speaker's position in its present form must go to be replaced with a position similar to a clerk of court - someone who knows the rules and makes sure that they are followed; not someone who can virtually dictate policy.

Next: we must develop a system of proportional representation that works for our country - even the EU system for electing MEP's is more democratic that the existing first past the post system. So lets pontificate a little - with the able help of the Electoral Reform Society:-

Party List Proportional Representation
In Party List systems, seats in parliament closely match how many votes each party receives, but there is often a weaker constituency link.

Party Lists are the most popular way to elect representatives in the world, with more than 80 countries using a variation of this system to elect their parliament.

    "Party list systems can be very proportional, but if voters can't pick their representatives, the politicians don't have a strong link with their voters"
  
How to vote

Rather than electing one person per area, in Party List systems each area is bigger and elects a group of MPs that closely reflect the way the area voted. At the moment we have 650 constituencies, each electing 1 Member of Parliament (MP); under a Party List system we might have 26 constituencies each electing 25 MPs.
There are three main ways to vote in Party List elections in use around the world.

Closed List: each party publishes a list of candidates for each area. On polling day the ballot paper just has a list of parties. Voters mark the party they support. This is the system used in Great Britain to elect members of the European Parliament.

In this system, a party gets seats roughly in proportion to its vote, and seats are filled by the party depending on an order they choose.

    "While closed party-list PR is very proportional, they empower parties rather than voters by giving them control over who is elected"
  

Open List: on the ballot paper, each party has a list of candidates. In some open-list systems voters must vote for an individual candidate. In others, voters can choose between voting for a party or their choice of candidate.

Votes for a candidate make that candidate more likely to be in the party’s group of MPs that get elected. A vote for a candidate is counted as a vote for their party when it is decided how many seats each party should receive. This means it is possible for a vote for a candidate to help a candidate a voter dislikes, if that candidate is popular with the supporters of the rest of their party.

Semi-Open List: in a semi-open list voters are presented with a ballot like that of an open-list system.

The difference comes at the counting stage. Generally speaking voting for a party is taken as an endorsement of the party’s order and candidates are then elected in an order chosen by the party.

However with enough votes candidates can be elected out of order, though this is rare.

Features and Effects
Countries with party-list PR tend to have lots of parties as list systems are highly proportionate. This means that coalition is often the norm. Many countries use legal thresholds, generally 4 or 5% to stop parties with very low support winning seats. With a lower barrier to entry, new parties can start and be successful if the larger parties do not understand new social issues.

It is possible to have party-lists with either very large or smaller constituencies. For instance, in the Netherlands and Israel the entire country is one big constituency. In other countries smaller constituencies are used. For instance in Finland and Spain provinces are used.

The advantage of smaller constituencies is that MPs are closer to local issues, as different areas will have different problems. But constituencies with fewer MPs are also less proportionate. A constituency with 5 MPs provides fewer opportunities for a smaller party than one with 20.

Closed-lists, in particular, tend to provide excellent opportunities for the election of more diverse candidates because parties can balance their candidates over larger areas.

Independents tend to do poorly under party-lists, who often have to create a list of one. If they win more votes than they need to get elected these votes are wasted.

Single Transferable Vote
With the Single Transferable Vote, you get a Parliament where the strength of the parties matches the strength of their support in the country, and Members of Parliament (MPs) have a strong local link.

What is a Single Transferable Vote system?
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a British form of proportional representation. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Scotland and Australia use this system for some or all of their elections. In America, it is often referred to as ‘ranked choice voting in multi-member seats’, in Australia they call it ‘Hare-Clark’.

How does the single transferable vote system work?
Rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small team of representatives. These representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area.

On election day, voters number a list of candidates. Their favourite as number one, their second favourite number two, and so on. Voters can put numbers next to as many or as few candidates as they like. Parties will often stand more than one candidate in each area.

The numbers tell the people counting to move your vote if your favourite candidate has enough votes already or stands no chance of winning.

Voters don't have to worry about 'vote splitting' or tactical voting with STV – they just put the candidates in order 

How it’s counted
To get elected, a candidate needs a set amount of votes, known as the quota. The people counting the votes work out the quota based on the number of vacancies and the number of votes cast.

Each voter has one vote. Once the counting has finished, any candidate who has more number ones than the quota is elected. But, rather than ignore extra votes a candidate received after the amount they need to win, these votes move to each voter’s second favourite candidate.

If no one reaches the quota, then the people counting the vote remove the least popular candidate. People who voted for them have their votes moved to their second favourite candidate. This process continues until every vacancy is filled.

Effects and Features
The Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system that puts the power in the hands of the public. Evidence from Scotland and Ireland suggests voters use it in quite sophisticated ways.

Voters can also choose between candidates from the same party or different parties. This means voters can elect all MPs based on their individual abilities.

With the Single Transferable Vote, voters can also choose candidates from the same party, different parties or independents. All MPs are elected on their individual merit.
Voters can also vote for independent candidates without worrying about wasting their vote. Ireland has many independent MPs as do some Scottish councils.

Constituencies are more natural, covering a whole town or a county. This creates a recognisable local link, and gives voters a choice of representatives to talk to.

I personally prefer STV, although it involves multiple voting. But the benefits outweigh the detriment.