Electoral Reform Society Spins a Message
The Electoral Reform Society (advocates of PR) are claiming that voters were swindled because parties took control of local authorities without getting the biggest share of the vote. This is becaue of the Ward based system used in local elections which is similar to Parliamentary elections. The ERS cite Kingston Upon Thames as an example.
ERS have got it wrong. In every Ward in Kingston Upon Thames, voters got the Ward member they voted for.
ERS have got it wrong. In every Ward in Kingston Upon Thames, voters got the Ward member they voted for.
posted by Martin Curtis at 10:16 AM
2 Comments:
Now who's spinning Martin?
The two statements are not mutually contradictory. One party could win a majority of the seats and control of the council by polling 34% of the votes in half the wards, whilst the other wards were won by parties racking up 80% of the vote. The total votes cast for the "majority" party would be well below their opponents.
Yes, but whilst a rolled up number of votes cast creates a useful indicator for us politicians, it is not how we vote. We vote for the person we believe is best in a particular Ward - and retain local accountability as a result.
In terms of representation, the totals across a Council's area means nothing.
An example - in Cambridge City the Conservatives total vote increased by 6%, but we lost our only city Councillor. to me, as a Conservative, that rolled up total is a very positive sign that we are improving, but it means nothing in terms of people elected nor should it because it would detract from individual accountability. And no-one has been swindled - which is what the ERS claim - because they got what they voted for in each Ward.
Where is the Spin in my comment?
Post a Comment
<< Home