Skip to main content

To: All 'constitutional reform organisations' (e.g. the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, Bite the Ballot, 38 Degrees, etc.), and all potential electors in the 2015 general election.

RVS (Register-Vote-Spoil)

Leading up to the local and state elections in May 2015, all 'constitutional reform organisations' should urge all potential electors to:

1. Register (to show you care, and to show your determination to engage).

2. Vote (to show you care, and to show your determination to engage).

3. If you identify with a candidate who was 'in with a chance', by all means vote for that candidate. Otherwise, don't walk away or waste your vote. Spoil your vote (to show your disaffection, to show you care, and to show your determination to engage).

With the current lousy voting process (First Past The Post), 'spoiled votes' typically account for less than 0.1% of votes. I want all 'constitutional reform organisations' to join forces to promote RVS for the 2015 elections, and to publicise and claim the uplift in spoiled votes in the 2015 elections as a positive demand for constitutional reform.

Why is this important?

The current campaign to get potential electors to ‘engage with’ politics fails to 'engage with' Russell Brand's insights (and with the frustration of those who care but feel impotent). The problem can be qualified very simply:

1. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not register is because they do not see the point in registering.

2. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not see the point in registering is because they do not see the point in voting.

3. The reason why non-voting potential electors do not see the point in voting is because:

a. They cannot see any options which have a worthwhile chance of promoting their political preferences.

b. There are never any ‘none of the above’ options. How could those who care but feel impotent express their despair, and their frustrated desire for a better process?

c. Our lousy current voting processes would anyway ignore most of their votes. How could those who care but feel impotent make their votes count?

Ideally, of course, all citizens in a liberal democracy would be able to express their political preferences through ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes. However, if the de-facto democratic processes are not ‘fit for purpose’, and those in power have a venal vested interest in maintaining the consequential democratic deficit, citizens have to seek first to change those ‘not fit for purpose’ democratic processes by whatever means (including high-profile ‘focussed outrage’). Where would South Africa be now if Nelson Mandela had played by the rules of apartheid? Where would India be now if Mahatma Ghandi had played by the rules of the British Empire? Where would women’s rights be now if the suffragettes had played by the rules of their menfolk? Where will the UK be in 50 years’ time if the constitutional reform movement urges us to play by the current not ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes?

Those who care but feel impotent despair when they note that nine of the eleven members of the PCRC (Political & Constitutional Reform Committee of the Westminster Parliament) are members of the two dominant ‘covert coalition’ Parties; the very Parties which benefit from the current democratic deficit. They wonder ‘why would turkeys vote for Christmas?’.

Unfortunately, the constitutional reform movement currently puts forward two conflicting messages to potential electors:

1. The constitutional reform movement (rightly) informs us that the vast majority of us will/would be wasting our time and dissipating our democratic energy by registering and voting (because the lousy current voting processes will ignore most of our votes).

2. The constitutional reform movement (wrongly) urges us to register and vote (thereby wasting our time, dissipating our democratic energy, and reinforcing the venal self-serving complacency of those who oppose constitutional reform).

Citizens are not fools. They will not buy the above muddled pair of conflicting messages for long. Brand was/is right in his analysis and insights. However, he failed to provide a constructive alternative. Apathy is not a constructive alternative. Not-voting is not a constructive alternative. Taking over St Paul's cathedral is not a constructive alternative. Citizens need to see a positive and constructive campaign for constitutional reform.

The purpose of this campaign is:

1. To act as a ‘call to arms’ and a ‘civil disobedience challenge’ for the 'focussed outrage' with which to confront those benefiting from the lousy current voting processes (i.e. the current Conservative and Labour Parties), who would otherwise of course simply wring their hands, obfuscate and drag their feet (as they always have done).

2. To convince those in power that resistance to constitutional reform is untenable, and that they had a venal vested interest in ‘embracing’ the campaign for constitutional reform (however reluctantly) before ‘events’ overtook them.

Those who wish to explore the wider context for a campaign for constitutional reform in the UK can find more detail in two working papers:

1. The working paper 'A Campaign for Constitutional Reform in the UK' provides a blueprint for such a campaign.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWMFNOV2tZeEwwTms/view?usp=sharing

2. The working paper 'Optimising Democratic Governance' provides an in-depth exposition of the principles underlying that campaign.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWZTFLMmFMaUREUms/view?usp=sharing

How it will be delivered

In person, to the chairs and chief executives of every constitutional reform organisation (e.g. the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, Bite the Ballot, 38 Degrees, etc.)

Categories

Updates

2015-02-28 17:44:09 +0000

10 signatures reached