Recently it has been suggested that incentive voting needs to be introduced to the UK, a relatively new concept in world democracy, while an article by Peter Singer on Comment is Free talks about how compulsory voting in Australia seems to work. Meanwhile we still use a first past the post system that is lucky to achieve a 60% turnout while neglecting a core of potential voters that desperately need to be tuned in to the political spectrum as they gain new rights, yet are still mollycoddled and kept behind barriers. However with news that the Tory's may win the next election if trends continue, is now the time for a change?

So what do I feel is the situation in the UK, and where do we need to go and why? Lets first take a look at the situation we're currently languishing in...

The systems we follow

From the BBC...

Early analysis showed the turnout rose on average by just under two points in constituencies Labour were defending on Thursday [in 2005], but by nearly three points in seats the Conservatives were defending.

Turnout reached just over 61% with a potential slight boost because of postal voting in 2005, leaving almost 18million potential voters without having made their mark on the future governance of the country. What is even worse of those 61% that voted they didn't get the party that they voted for, all thanks to a hugely unfair system of first past the post.

The systems are bad

I'm almost certainly preaching to the converted here, when explained in a reasonable manner few can disagree with the fairness of the Proportional Representation model, or Single-transferable-vote. We currently have to sit in a country where a party is singularly in power with a minority of the popular vote, and although I see it as a blessing that the Tory's don't have the same number of seats as Labour as a result, I do find it distressing that the Lib Dems only command under 10% of the seats in parliament when the popular vote should see them with 22%.

A quick glance over their election map shows that the higher turnouts in Tory constituencies spoken about early also generally came with higher number of votes for the Tory candidates. This isn't to say their share was higher overall, with Lib Dems also having major success across the board in terms of voting numbers, but it is hard to refute that as the sourness over the war and distaste from the right for Labour policies rose that the turnout also was boosted.

This can be seen all over the world, when disliked parties or candidates are involved in an election more people are spurred to try and make a difference and remove that person/party. From students' union elections to the highest level of democracy, disdain drives more votes than contentment.

The game

The trouble with STV, and the only problem I really acknowledge is that it is perfect for deciding individuals but not for deciding governments. I have to agree in principle with those that say that parliament would be much more representative if there was a fair mix of PR elected MP's, with no huge majorities (in fact probably no majorities) and political parties having to barter with each other for support for their policies. But this is just in principle, in practice I feel that the act of parties having to negotiate on support for policies takes the power away from the people as party leaders could (and would) give concessions on policies that they expect their MP's to follow to ensure that one of their policies gets passed in return. It also ignores the "game" of politics.

The sun and the mail play it well, as disgusting as they are, and that is that politics is about sides. Which one are you on? While a little 2 dimensional at the moment, and certainly wanting for a stretching into at least 3 way matches in the mainstream media, the public engages well with the simplicity of opposition parties and ruling parties. STV simply doesn't play into this as the parliamentary make-up becomes more homogeneous, more about coalition...and with it the media can easily make the whole of government seem to be fumbling around to the general public.

The fair thing to do

STV voting has to be implemented in some form, but for the benefit of the masses the system still has to have a "leading party" that offers some form of silhouette as to the economic and political direction of the country. The fair thing to do is therefore to start realising that MP's are a completely different kettle of fish from parliaments. MP's are around to take our local views to a national level, and to make our local lives better through representation, and their ties to parties when they vote on policy as opposed to local views is a dark stain on democracy in this country. To be fair to the countries voting population, and to make them feel more engaged, MP's need to be free of party labels when they sit in parliament, they need to be informed by their constituency on how they would like to vote, and then to represent and pass judgement in a manner they see fit that mixes their knowledge, their views, and the views of those they represent.

Then you need a separate STV vote for which party rules the country. It is the result of this vote that decides who is Prime Minister, which party can make up the cabinet and which party has ultimate control over policies submitted. Their power will of course be curbed by the initial MP election that will almost certainly, in today's political make-up, mean no majorities to work off...but they will be the ones that are able to drive direction and make the operational decisions of this country without needing to barter or trade with other party leaders to do so (at least no more than they currently would have to).

This system would see the individual voice promoted proportionally throughout the land, while also allowing the media and the greater masses to still understand the game. It may require further reform of constituencies to make way for such democracy, perhaps even of the number of MP's, but with an open mind it is very achievable.

Getting the voters in

The above changes have to happen first before we start considering voting incentives. The biggest incentive to vote is a fair democratic system that makes people feel enthused and as if what they believe has an impact on the decisions being made for this country. However there are other factors to consider...accessibility, eligibility and the "stick/carrot" for voting.

Accessibility

Disabled people, those with extra-ordinary family commitments, carers and no doubt many other types of people are all the sort of people that need fair representation by their government, yet are the ones with the least options in terms of how to vote. Postal voting has been gradually implemented for voters in the UK over the last few years and is a perfect example of promoting accessibility in elections.

Can we go further? Well e-voting is being piloted and could, if secured properly, be a much better way of getting voters engaged. Adverts on TV that encourage people to "press the red button" and vote are much more engaging, especially if combined with certain incentives or reminders of compulsory voting. At my students' union it was very interesting to see that when e-voting was introduced so that people could vote 24 hours a day on the internet (with a STV system I might add) the turn out for the elections doubled. The year after that it doubled again. The reason for this is still ambiguous, but with campaign levels similar year on year, and candidate numbers also similar, there is a strong argument to be made for a correlation between the amount of people that vote and the ease and lack of formality that the process is presented with.

Eligibility

Currently people from the age of 16 can find themselves in work, with child, and even in a home of their own. They are expected to take on more rights and responsibilities, but they are not able to vote. Almost 1.5 million extra people could be voting, but instead they are not able to elect a government that, even with the worst timing, will be affecting their lives when they reach 18 without a chance to have dictated who that government is. Of course I don't advocate 14 year old's voting because they will be affected more directly by the governments in power when they are 16, but you have to reach a more fair point of integrating young people into the political process. Alienating them when they are starting to feel like adults is not a good way to cultivate a relationship with the democratic process.

Also, maybe controversially, I say that prisoners should be able to vote. With over 81,000 prisoners currently in lock up there is no chance of them voting in reforms to legalise murder, drug taking or child abuse (as I'm sure the Mail would try to hypothesise) but despite having their rights limited for the safety of the general public this shouldn't be extended to voting. Of course there is an issue with prejudice against the incumbent government that may present itself, but if we want to have a fair system we need to let thee people exercise a right to vote so that they also don't feel disenfranchised from the system.

These people have families, they have conditions to live with in prison that can be changed by politicians, and they potentially have futures outside of jail if not on a long sentence. Why should they therefore be excluded from the process that can directly affect their lives when they've done their time, that affect the lives of their children who have performed no crime other than having a parent that has fallen on the wrong side of the law?

Compulsory voting

It is stated that at the last election in Australia they had a 95% turnout, with only a predicted 1% of the electorate getting fined for not voting. This is a great proportion to achieve and should be congratulated. There are of course disadvantages that can be cited with compulsory voting, however some I hope that are lessened if my accessibility comments above are considered. In reality the only issue I believe would appear is that of "rights", and the right not to vote. It is said some 5 million people may not turn up even if it was compulsory, but in all honesty this isn't far off in terms of percentages with the Australian result.

While I personally think that the right not to vote has some credence, I also think that it is somewhat of an oxymoronic or paradoxical right if you expect that right to be protected by people that you haven't voted for in the first place. With greater accessibility people should be easily given the option of spoiling their vote if they wish to make it known they don't like the candidates, the process or the system...but they should at least be proactively making that statement rather than lazily.

Incentive voting

The latest news from the independent councillors commission is of course to introduce local lotteries to get people to come to elections. I think that the idea is great for areas that are made up of mainly one demographic and for areas that are in desperate need of a higher turnout in their elections, but once looked at nationally starts to fall down. For a start lotteries may be appealing to all on some level, but they will be appealing to the poorer section of our society much more. There is also a skewed perception of the result, with people able to vote for whoever without caring because their eyes aren't set on seeing who wins the election but who wins the money. There is also of course the fact that giving people money for voting is expensive for the tax payer, and I'm sure we'd all rather just have a tax cut than fund a lottery for those that are currently disenfranchised from the system, right?

Stick or carrot?

All in all I wouldn't rule incentives out, but would only use them if the use of different voting systems significantly increased voter turn out across the nation, utilizing them to promote elections in areas that aren't turning out quite so readily. However compulsory voting is very attractive, if not in the short term certainly in the long term. More voters is always going to be more democratic and more proportional of the whole countries wishes when it comes to the make up of parliament...and as the system of compulsory voting sticks it will also stop being a chore for people that could previously choose to ignore the political process and become something people know and want to engage with.

To conclude...

We need desperately to make voting fairer and to make this country more democratic. We need a two layer system of voting that allows fair sized constituencies to be properly represented by the MP's that the most people are happy with representing them, and that allows for a party as a whole to provide direction and operation for parliament. We then need to assess the changes in voter turnout that this brings, and where appropriate introduce either incentive voting or, more likely, compulsory voting.

Ironically we are stuck in a situation where things are so undemocratic that governments can keep pulling back from the prospect of introducing STV when it means the will of the public may weaken their political power, so how long it is before we get the changes we desire is anyone's guess, unless of course STV becomes the only way to keep the current Labour party in power past the next election.