Contact me

Reform of the Voting System

A discussion paper from the British Government in Exile

To encourage greater participation in the democratic process we need urgent reform of the voting system. The present system, it is argued, has served us well, and depending on our political persuasion and current grasp of power, should either be tinkered with at the edges or be retained in toto. Nonsense, it is outmoded and fundamentally flawed. 'One man - one vote' discourages decent folk from taking part as each of their carefully considered choices is likely to be wiped out by the random or even vindictive selection of some lesser mortal. To put it simply decent folk, like you and I, should have more votes and the unwashed masses less.

Votes, like money, should be earned. At eighteen each person should be issued with one standard vote, plus additional votes for academic, sporting and social attainments, depending on the degree of achievement. Thus the bright eyed young citizen about to go up to Oxbridge will be blessed with a goodly portfolio of voting power, while the mean looking spotty faced youth at the back of the dole queue will be able to fritter away just one vote. On getting a job or on taking up some worthwhile role in the community these lads, and their young ladies too, will be able to add to their vote collections according to their performance. Thus the number of votes a person accumulates will become as important a status symbol as the executive home, the family motor car, the holiday schedule and the choice of restaurants.

Of course what the system giveth, the system can take away, and votes will be deducted according to the scale of the misdemeanor. This will be straightforward in criminal cases, when all votes will be immediately confiscated and progressively reinstated as part of the post-incarceration rehabilitation programme. In civil cases votes will be returned on verification from the successful party that honour has been satisfied.

Thus the solid citizen will over a lifetime be able to build up a block of votes of sufficient size as to make worthwhile their careful consideration of political issues. Their votes will count. The ne'er do well and socially maladjusted on the other hand will be able to continue to squander their derisory allocation in whatever way they please, but fortunately with less and less impact on the overall result.

Luddites and wishy-washy liberals wail in protest at the idea, claiming it places to much power in too few hands. On the contrary it greatly increases democratic choice by taking away the inordinate powers increasingly enjoyed by newspaper proprietors and media 'personalities', in influencing the more moronic members of our society. In future a newspaper that claims it can deliver three million voters to a morally corrupt and mentally enfeebled political party in exchange for vast business favours, will have no more real power than an intellectually reasoned article in a minority publication aimed at a more thinking audience of power voters.

A necessary associated reform will address where the votes can be used. It is natural that power voters will congregate in nice areas where they can share their hard-earned well being with their own kind, while the vote-impoverished masses will huddle together in their ghetto constituencies. It would clearly be ridiculous for the first constituency to be won by a worthy candidate polling say a million votes, while the latter is awarded to some rabble rouser with a mere few thousands of votes. Voters will be allowed to use their votes where they please and to split them how they like. This will be rather like distributing bets on the roulette table, or in the case of the lower orders, recklessly throwing away their last fiver on a rank outsider at the local dog track. In this way decent chaps fighting seats in the rougher areas can be assured of getting a fair crack of the whip, while still giving the dodgier sort of bloke at least a theoretical chance of mustering enough votes from the multitude to infiltrate a constituency way above his natural station.

As we aspire towards an ever more fair and meritocratic society, it will only be natural that not only should we be able to use our votes in whatever way we like, but that we should be able to dispose of them if and when we please. Votes will be classed as tradable instruments, with provision for conditional or unconditional hire or outright sale. Conditional hire will limit the use of the votes to either a particular party or specified constituencies or both, while unconditional hire or outright sale will place no such constraints. An important commercial side effect of the tradable vote will be the need to set up a national Vote Exchange to match buyers with sellers and to strike market-driven prices. This can be made to be much more complex than stock and commodity exchanges, thus bringing in much needed additional revenues to our hard-pressed management consultancies and information technology companies as well as the struggling dealing rooms in our heroic City.

The free trade in votes will raise the issues of both institutional holdings and foreign ownership of votes. To restrict vote ownership to individuals would go against the movement for greater freedom for our Great Companies to conduct their affairs in the best interests of their shareholders, usually other Great Companies. In any case such restriction would inevitably lead to wide spread corruption as the few remaining employees came under increasing pressure to 'vote the company way' or to sell their votes to 'a safe pair of hands'. So institutional holdings must be allowed, giving the added benefit of an even more complex and expensive system of trading.

Similarly there can be no logic in restricting vote ownership to UK citizens and institutions. Indeed as our country moves more and more into foreign ownership it is natural and inevitable that foreigners will have a greater vested interest in our politics than ourselves. Thus they will be more motivated to study the issues very carefully and to use their votes to best effect. Conversely the more well heeled of our own citizens and companies will increasingly hold their assets overseas and well concealed from the UK fiscal system, and hence will have little interest in the nuances of our politics.

An important safeguard should it be felt at any time that undue or undesirable influence is in the hands of institutions or foreigners or both, will be the ability of the government of the day to issue new votes. These could be limited to UK citizens only, and issued in proportion to their existing holdings. An even more attractive alternative would be to raise public money through rights issues or the sale of new votes on the open market. Large revenues could be generated in this manner thus allowing ever more profligate government expenditure without raising additional taxes, and introducing an exciting new index of vote inflation.

The benefits of the reforms are patently obvious. The British Government in Exile will introduce them as soon as, by whatever means, it gains power.

Remember a vote for GOVEX now could mean a thousand in the future.

GOVEX is the Revolutions and Insurrections Division of Charles Forrington and Partners Limited

Copyright 1999 Charles Forrington and Partners Limited