Primaries Sir: Keith Raffan (20 March) is quite correct in
asserting that so far alltalk of electoral reform has been for the benefit of the political parties and their desire for power rather than for the benefit of the elector and democracy. He is also correct in stating that the selection procedures for parliamentary candidates are the least democratic part of our electoral process and are in fact at the heart of the failure of our parliamentary system to respond to majority feeling in the country in recent years. For too long the present system has resulted in the election of party rubber-stamps.
Furthermore, if there ever was substantial support for the Liberal proposal for proportional representation and the single transferable vote, then it is likely to diminish even further as time passes, since this entails larger multi-member constituencies.
I agree with Mr Raffan that the answer lies in a primary system in which a choice of candidates for each party is offered, but why must it be 'closed' as in the United States, requiring that electors must declare and belong to the party of their choice?
It would be simplicity itself to divide the three-week electoral process into two parts: the first would allow the elector to vote for a candidate of his chosen 'colour' from a list of three or four of differing shades within that party: the second would be to elect finally the Member of Parliament from the selections already made, plus independents. There would be nothing to prevent a Tory voter, having taken part in the Tory choice, from switching finally to Labour, should he think that candidate the best of those remaining, and vice versa. Single independent candidates could be added to the final electoral list.
The constituency party could continue to select the (several) candidates and campaigning would not be essential during the first half (or third) of the election period. A brief statement of their views on important issues on the first postal lists would be sufficient. The only extra expenses would be a second posting—the first containing the party lists, the second the final voting paper —and a second polling. A postal ballot would be unnecessary and perhaps undesirable in that the privilege of helping to choose a party candidate should only be afforded to those willing to visit the polls twice. The declaration of 'colour' at the booth on the first occasion would secure the appropriate party ballot paper.
It would concentrate MPs' minds wonderfully towards responding to constituents' wishes if they knew they had to submit themselves for re-selection at each general election. Certainly pressure for this kind of electoral reform will not come from the political parties themselves. So let us air a few ideas and encourage debate outside them before the growing sense of frustration and helplessness drives the country into anarchy.
Sheila Donaldson 2 Lytchet Road, Bromley, Kent
Previous page
