But who,we shall see.

It is always a problem voting here in BS, its a Conservative stronghold and so my vote gets lost in their inevitable majority. In the past I voted Liberal and once, as a protest vote I voted for Arthur Scargills party The Socialist Labour Party founded by Scargills as an antidote to Tony Blairs New Labour (Mrs Thatchers brainchild).
The politics of Scargills have been continually demonised by the Press. His stand against the closures of the pits was seen as the act of a recalcitrant unionist who refused to accept the need for mine closures. The politics are long and tortuous but in the many things what Scargill said about, not only his own industry but industry in general in this country he has been proved right. Lack of investment and short term perspectives that have plagued this country for years were signalled by Scargill and ridiculed by the largely right wing press.
Thatchers use of the police to break the strikers was criminal. She used the police force like a private army to beat up the miners and the divisions which sprung up as local policemen were used as provocateurs which meant that down, within the families of these men, family members wouldn't speak to other members of the family for years.

Who will I vote for ?
Should it be for local issues or for national ones. Should it be for the candidate or for the policy.
Is it charisma or the nuts and bolts of ideology ?
The polls can't call it and it looks like a hung parliament with an amalgam of political views coming together to cobble an agreement to govern.
In some ways this thinning down of the political dogma is a good thing and, in so far as being representative of a larger batch of "the people" is more democratic.
When I enter the voting booth I will see who is on offer. I will smile as I place my cross and think of the collective power of the people to effect and deny all the rhetoric and the hot wind of people who think so highly of themselves, with a simple cross.
But who. We shall see !!!

Democracy the equitable sharing of power within a society is thought best to operate through a universal franchise, one person one vote.

Each individual has an opportunity to consider the electoral profile of each party by listening and reading each parties manifesto, choosing which they consider would best suit their particular circumstances. Voting for the local candidate who represents that party should, if there are enough similar minded people who also vote for that party, secure a voice in the next parliament.

But here is where it goes wrong. To produce a so called strong government a voting machine capable of making decisions and carrying a specific manifesto forward, a "first past the post" winner takes all system was created.

A new Government will now only represent a 'minority' view.

The combined parties who have lost, polled many more votes than the winner, (excluding  the people who for what ever reason decided not to vote) and represent the majority.
Clearly, the "majority" are now forced to witness policy enactment in Parliament to which they are opposed.

The system creates an enormous feeling of disfranchisement and the society lapses into political apathy.

I would like to suggest a radical solution, one which would draw on the strength of the many. Draw on views which at least would then be heard in parliamentary debate, with the possibility to influence decisions.

1. I propose that when the individual votes are counted, so many for each candidate and collectively, so many for each party, the pool of votes for a party, irrespective of regions and would indicate the strength of support for that parties manifesto and should be registered as a block vote.
The election would illustrate the numbers who had actually voted for a party across the country.
2. Out of the total votes cast, the percentage of the of people who voted for that particular party, irrespective of where in the country, would entitle that party to field so many Parliamentary Seats in Parliament.

3. The candidate chosen to sit for a particular Party, would be a matter for the Party, much as the make up of Government is decided not by the voter but by the Party after the election has been held.

First past the post has created the situation where only in a few marginal seats can individual voters hope to influence the outcome at an election.

True Representative Government with all shades of opinion and ideological make up, ready to debate and more importantly represent the views of all the electorate, is currently not on offer but would, if my proposal were to come into effect.

I suppose to ask the usual incumbents to even consider relinquishing power is the equivalent of whistling at the moon !!

But just imagine,the Vote in Parliament would be a proper reflection of the people Parliament it is supposed to represent. Parliaments function of designing and passing Acts which effect us all and which, at the moment, we feel excluded would be truly democratic and not the farce we see today.