Democracy stinks if Charlotte can't contribute

Over the last couple of months I've devoted considerable effort to singing the praises of a democracy where there are no safe seats, where the public can vote anyone out.

I've criticised First Past the Post for all the safe seats it creates - several hundred. The MP is, in reality, decided by local Conservative and Labour parties (and, in a very small number of cases, by the local Lib Dems). The voters are incidental.

To illustrate the power of safe seats, remember Neil Hamilton in Tatton. Such was the safety of the seat that, even with the sitting MP found guilty of corruption, we needed an independent candidate with Labour and Lib Dem support to unseat him.

(It's worth noting, too, that although Tatton was once again safe for the Tories in 2001, fewer people voted for Osborne than voted against him in that year - you can have a safe seat even if the majority oppose you).

I've also attacked the list system, as used in the European elections, that allows parties to install candidates at the top of the list with a similar certainty. The European vote in the North East would have required a catacylsm to avoid electing the three candidates the main parties had chosen to top their lists. Again, voting was a formality.

In the back of my mind there's always been an "ah but", and it was brought to the fore by a very interesting post from fellow Lib Dem blogger Charlotte Gore.

Charlotte, who sits on the libertarian wing of the Lib Dems, doesn't think she could win a seat where she wasn't already a shoe-in.

"any campaign run by me could be derailed very quickly by finding a few choice quotes. Charlotte Gore wants to axe the welfare state! Charlotte Gore wants to cut spending! Charlotte Gore is pro Business and anti Union! Charlotte Gore wants to legalise drugs! Charlotte Gore thinks the BNP should be allowed on television! That’s just the start of it. There’s enough in this blog to kill any political career one hundred times over."

"In another world, weirdos like me would get plonked into a safe seat somewhere and told to keep my gob shut for the duration. That’s how democracy works."

There is, of course, the point about making our lives open on the Internet. Unless, like me, you take the coward's option and remain anonymous, you're just bound to give opponents ammunition. Sensible, safe candidates (and there are several who blog) will tone things down a bit and hope that the benefit outweighs the cost.

Charlotte, who throws caution to the wind and tells us what she really thinks, has a similar problem to those people caught out on Facebook. We aren't used to knowing the intimate details of others' personal lives, whether it's Charlotte's opinions shared with the world or Prince Harry's "paki" moment.

It isn't that other people don't have interesting opinions or make stupid mistakes. It's that we don't know about them and discovering the gory details comes as a bit of a shock, even if there's really nothing very shocking at all.

But there's another, wider, issue - democracy itself.

I'm of the firm belief that the benefits of strong democracy - including getting rid of safe seats - outweigh the downsides. But that doesn't mean we should ignore those problems and pretend they don't exist.

One downside is that it encourages safe and homogenous candidates. If you are trying win a seat; if you need a dedicated team of volunteers to support your campaign; if you need people to donate thousands of pounds to support you; if you can't afford to piss off big chunks of your constituency - then there is a benefit to playing it safe.

There are exceptions. Through force of personality, some candidates can carry off the oddball thing. Recall, though, that even Obama - hardly a shrinking violet - had to play it safe and appeal to the widest constituency to win his election. For most of us, safe and mainstream is the way to success if we have to win the voters over.

So let's take away two lessons.

First, democracy is the best system but it isn't perfect. There are people who think that the democratic decision must be the right or the best decision. No. Democracy is a safeguard. Giving the people the ability to kick out, or vote in, politicians has proven in many countries over many decades to be an impressively strong and successful way of running things. It's better than the alternatives, but it doesn't always get it right.

Second, whatever reforms you make to the system, however wonderful your democracy becomes; even, dare I say it, if Clegg's Take Back Power campaign was fully implemented, there would still be very able people who for all sorts of reasons would never win an election. A sensible democratic system allows the nation to harness the abilities of these people.

We're often keen to attack the unelected political advisors and quangocracy. Sometimes with justification. But both have positive elements, and we would be very foolish indeed to say that only those who have won the electoral popularity contest should hold any sort of power in our nation at all.