Mrs Quist senses my bemusement as I stare agog at the party committee elections material that hit my doormat on Friday morning. Along with several thousand other conference delegates I have the onerous duty of picking the right people to sit on the party's key committees and perhaps even enter the House of Lords.
But what a choice. Six elections. 85 places to be filled. 161 candidates. 212 pages of manifestos to read.
And these are important. With an electorate substantially smaller than a typical local government ward, and a proportional system that minimises wasted votes, my vote could quite easily decide one of the places.
Here's what I should do. First, I should know what the various committees and panels do: difficult to make a reasoned decision otherwise. Then I should carefully read the manifestos to help me decide which candidates I feel would do the best job. Since the chances of a bunch of A5 manifestos being enough for me to make the decision, I'll contact a few of the candidates directly to clarify points or ask questions. Finally, I'll devise some system to score the candidates so ranking them doesn't drive me completely mad and then cast my votes. To maximise the chance of my vote counting, I'll rank at least five or ten candidates.
And here's what I really do. I start optimistically thumbing through the Federal Executive "election statements". Most contain reasonable CVs and the sort of platitudinous statements of intent that I'm sure I'd be putting in myself were I standing. After about ten pages I get bored with that and my eyes start slipping over the pages. OK, this obviously isn't going to get me through one whole booklet, never mind all six.
I'm already admitting my failure to act as a responsible elector, but obviously I need a slightly faster approach. My next gambit is to look for names I know. Logically, this makes little sense: the day when knowing Costigan Quist actually makes a candidate more likely to do a good job isn't here yet, and I've a strong suspicion won't be rolling round for a while. But I'm not the first person to vote for the guy I know and I won't be the last.
Unfortunately, much as I'd like to boast about how well-connected I am within the party, it isn't enough. I need more people to vote for. Next I look at people I know of. And here I hit a small dilemma. On the one hand, someone who's well known in the party is probably more capable than a randomly picked member but, on the other hand, I want to see committees with fresh faces and not packed with the great and the good serving time. I resolve this dilemma by randomly picking a few well-known names and leaving the rest.
Still not enough names, damn it. I'm keen to see a good proportion of women and ethnic minority (or "BEM" in the current jargon) committee members so, despite my firm opposition to positive discrimination I riffle through the booklets and select a few likely looking candidates. Then, feeling a little guilty, I top it up with a handful of white men who's manifestos look visually appealing when glanced at for a second or two.
There, job done. Is is democracy? Yes. Whatever other faults the system may have, it's most certainly democratic. Does it result in the selection of the best people? Unless the rest of the electorate are a lot more dedicated than I am, I have trouble believing that. If we measure it in terms of outcome - how balanced and effective the committees turn out to be - I'd be mildy surprised if all this voting delivered a result any better than random selection.
Posts
Cameron turns both ways
14 minutes ago
5 comments:
Not that I can say who I am, as internet campaigning is not allowed, but I hope made it through your selection criteria!
I went through the same process - although I like to think I did spend a fair amount of time flicking through the manifesto booklets . . . still, I have to admit I don't feel entirely confident I know what *all* the committees do.
This was the first time that I actually knew a number of the people up for election, which was a rather depressing thought. I did enjoy voting for Claire Rayner though (usually not swayed by 'celebrity', but what the hey). And yes, bme guilt.
I didn't get past the 4th preference in any of the elections, and I would advise anybody else not to sweat over the big numbers. They might matter, but it is most unlikely they will matter very much.
Indeed under ERS rules for STV (as opposed to the Meek rules) there may be some merit in plumping - voting 1 for a candidate you know is good, particularly if they are likely to be elected, and leaving the rest blank, rather than adding noise by making near random choices. I can go into the reasons for this if anyone cares.
Also, electing 15 at once is ridiculous. Some of these committees should be divided into constituencies in time or space.
Am I the only person who always uses all my preferences? (In elections where there are no BNP candidates or equivalents, that is.) For elections with large numbers of candidates, I've hit on the system of photocopying the ballot paper and then cutting out the names of the candidates so that I can shuffle them around on a table as I read the manifestos, till I have the names in what I think is the right order. With that visual aid, the task becomes quite manageable, although with this election I did find I couldn't do more than two or three committees at a time without either losing concentration or my eyes getting tired while transcribing the numbers. I did them in three batches; it probably took about two hours altogether.
The effort involved does count against STV as a system for general elections, I think, but it still strikes me as the least worst system that's feasible with current technology, and I just wouldn't feel I'd done the job properly if I didn't use all my preferences. The idea that using one's vote is a moral duty of citizenship was too thoroughly drilled into me at an impressionable age by my history teacher (I grew up in a Germany still coming to terms with its past, which had something to do with that.)
It's an honourable sacrament lizw. But I wonder how long it took you, and what the turnout is. I suppose I am saying is that you can probably get 95% of the value with a handful of preferences, so don't let the enormity of the task put you off voting altogether.
STV in general elections would be much easier, because we would have parties to go by. In most cases voters would rank 2 or 3 candidates of their preferred party, then 2 or 3 candidates of their next party, and so on. A much easier task.
Physical sorting like you did sounds very helpful. Perhaps if the manifestos were printed on flyers rather than in a booklet, we could sort the flyers into order, and then transcribe the order to the ballot paper.
Post a Comment