A thought struck me this morning about the way democratic voting happens. Currently I am only aware of the system where each person get to vote for 1 candidate, which is a good start. It does bring problems though. There is 'tactical voting' where people vote for the candidate they think might have a chance of beating a candidate they specifically don't want to win, often instead of voting for the candidate they think is best. This can result in canditates being voted in as the lesser of 2 evils instaed of as the true choice. Then there's the problem of voter apathy. Many people don't vote because they couldn't care less whether Tory or Labour/ Dems or Repubs etc. UNfortunatly this leads to the fanatical voters, the extreme left & right, getting disproportional seats because although they represent a minority that minoroty all turn out to vote.
So here's my idea: give us a choice, either we vote for a candidate or we vote against a specific candidate, effectivly cancelling out one vote in his favour. This way if my politocal preference isn't that the LIM Dems or the Tories get into power but rather that Tony is banished never to be seen again then my vote has a direct impact. If I wasn't keen on voting Tony out then you can be sure I'd save my vote to go against the BNP!
Could this system work?Apart from anything else, imagine the humour of getting a president/PM because he got the lowest negative number of vortes 🙂
Democracy loses, my solution though not without its problems is a party should ouly be in power 2-3 terms max local and national. there are counties similar to were i live have had the same party in power due to the party machines at election time. I have no grind against any party just absolute power corrupts absolutly. Nationaly this happens all to often.