As the local elections hove into the media spotlight this week after the distraction of the royal wedding, I just wonder if its time to revisit the old chestnut of a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper. Maybe it should be named the "I won't vote for any of you, provide me with a candidate who I feel has the policies and personality to properly represent me" option.
Because honestly, with so many people not bothering to vote, the question has to be asked again: why is it that we don't have election candidates that move voters to vote? Is it the party system? Is it their policies? Is it just the wrong type of person being put forward as candidates? Just what would get people to vote?
I doubt very much that a change to the AV system would change things, which is why I'm voting no to AV.
Would a random local resident, plucked from obscurity like a jury member placed on the candidate list as an alternative to those desperate to join local politics motivate people to vote for them?
I do know I don't have the answer and I'm equally sure changing to AV isn't it either. But what would get people more involved in chosing the people that run their lives?
Maybe thats the answer: that they don't understand that these people will run their lives for them, or maybe they just don't care until it adversely affects them in some way. Maybe thats why politicians get away with so much.
Maybe I'm rambling too much today as my sinuses are playing up (thank you Mrs D. for your loving gift of that virus you had last week).
Should Women be Trained to Kill Professionally? - Colonel Richard Kemp set the ladies aflutter by suggesting that they didn’t have the ‘natural killer instinct’ of men and thus shouldn’t be allowed to serv...
1 day ago