And the Scottish results are in …

BBC’s Glenn Campbell tweets: It’s amazing how many ways Edinburgh voters have found to spoil ballots. Knots n crosses. Multiple Xs. Anti-trams abuse. #bbcvote2012 #sc12

I think my “party” is winning. I think if a majority of electors either stay at home or spoil their ballot (like me) then we should have less politicians.
Take my ward (sounds like a hospital). There were three seats … and four candidates. The councillors do nothing. Some won’t even respond to emails just before an election. They seem to think they have some god given right to their seat … and most people just let them get away with it. I might have stood myself if I could have said what I was standing for:

“save Lenzie Moss”

… but the toerags who run Scottish politics won’t allow that, unless you pay £150 to form a party, sign up someone else and then I expect you have to pay money to stand.
Yes and the deposit … what a stupid idea! I’ve always wondered how a get money out of politics party could stand. You are against money, but you can’t stand for election because you don’t believe money should be part of politics – and so shouldn’t condone paying money to stand for election. So how can a “money corrupts politics” party pay money to stand in an election?
I’ve always thought elections should be about support … so you should get say, 100 electors to support your candidacy … not even to pledge to vote … just say “this person is worth the public expense of going on the ballot”. At the very least, the candidates would be forced to talk to 100 of their electors, which would be a vast improvement here as no one I know has seen any of them.
… but I digressed.
Yes, if the majority voting in this ward with three seats decide not to vote, then surely they voted for no-one, so no-one should represent them. This is just simple logic. So, e.g. if there is a 66% turnout, then instead of 3 councillors, we get 2 and save the expense. If there is only a 33% turnout, we get 1. I guess if it is less than 16% turnout then we don’t want any representation. Or to put that the other way, the candidates are so lousy no one wants them as representatives.
It would make elections much more fun. Obviously it might be fairer to start with more potential seats … say double it. That still means that on a 33% turnout (which is typical) we get a 1/6 less councillors swanning about at public expense. And imagine how much better it would be to watch people who know no other candidate has a chance … sweating it out waiting to hear if electors voted for them … or for no one.
Alternatively, we could just chuck the lot out, and pick 15  people entirely at random and ask them to run the council. Somehow, I can’t see them doing a worse job.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to And the Scottish results are in …

  1. neilfutureboy says:

    One could have a system whereby any bill that increases state power/spending be required to be passed by representatives of a majority of voters thus giving the non-voters a veto. But there are decisions that must be made and the people doing so must be selected somehow. So I would always vote even if it is for the BNP or Christ’s lordship.
    I would go for the random selection if they had to take an IQ test and those below 100 were left out.

Comments are closed.