DOCSLIB.ORG

Penny for Your Vote? Counting the Cost of an Unfair Electoral System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Penny for Your Vote? Counting the Cost of an Unfair Electoral System Penny for your vote? Counting the cost of an unfair electoral system Report & Chris Terry Analysis Contents 3 Introduction 4 Background 5 Most valued 7 Least valued 9 Hitting the target 10 Paper candidates 13 Turnout and spending 15 Conclusion 17 Appendix 1 18 Appendix 2 Penny for your vote? Chris Terry Counting the cost of an unfair electoral system 3 Introduction It is a basic principle of democracy that all both of these factors need to be addressed. votes should hold equal value. But in Britain, We need properly and sustainably funded the cash value of an individual’s vote varies political parties incentivised to campaign across wildly depending simply on where they live. the country, not just in a few fiercely contested This report demonstrates for the first time the seats. We need a party funding system that huge differences in the amounts that parties recognises the crucial role that parties play in spend on attracting votes. Through an analysis mobilising voters. And we need an electoral of spending at the 2010 general election, system that values each voter equally no matter we show that British politics has become where they live. the ultimate postcode lottery: in cash terms, voters living in safe seats are hugely undervalued in comparison with those living in marginal seats. OUR KEY FINDINGS: • The amount of money spent on winning a single vote varies between £3.07 and 14p. In other words, some voters are valued 22 times more than others • The amount of money spent by candidates has a direct impact on the likelihood that people will turn out to vote • In 195 seats (30% of the total), no money was spent by any candidate on public meetings • 348 candidates (8.6% of the total) spent no money at all on their campaigns. These included four Conservative candidates, four Labour and 20 Liberal Democrats These findings demonstrate how allvotes are not, after all, created equal. The degree to which votes are valued depends almost entirely on where those votes are found. Parties target their scant resources where they are most likely to have an effect, meaning that voters in safe seats – of any or no allegiance – are effectively ignored, even at election time. This inequality is driven by two factors: the financial constraints and uncertainties afflicting political parties; and Britain’s outdated electoral system. If we are going to redress the imbalance, Penny for your vote? Chris Terry 4 Counting the cost of an unfair electoral system Background 1. Wilks-Heeg, Today’s elections are controlled by parties. It is £1 has the same value for all the parties, and we Stuart and Crone, Stephen Funding common to talk of safe and marginal seats, but can measure their spending across the length Political Parties in the impact of whether a seat is safe or marginal and breadth of Britain. Great Britain: a Pathway to is not just seen in parties’ chances of winning Reform, pp9-10 or losing. It also affects the way those parties By using the Electoral Commission’s data2 http://demo- campaign. A safe seat can be safely ignored, from the 2010 general election, we are able to craticaudituk. files.wordpress. secure in the knowledge that the chances of it expose how money is spent in general election com/2013/06/2010- switching hands are slim. It is only the marginal campaigns in the UK. The report demonstrates party-funding.pdf (2010) seats that attract real attention in terms of how our outdated first-past-the-post voting campaigning activity and resources. system encourages parties to all but ignore 2. See http:// www.elector- great swathes of the electorate when it comes alcommission. The work of modern elections is primarily about to spending money, and how this contributes org.uk/elections/ targeting. This is for the logical reason that to lower turnout and voter disengagement. We election-spending/ party-campaign- parties broadly wish to apply minimal effort for show that the value of your vote depends expenditure. Full maximum gain. Seats are targeted by all parties, almost entirely on where you live. Methodology in Appendix 1. often with ruthless efficiency. And that is partly because parties have strained resources. Targeting does not necessarily imply that parties do not care about voters in safe seats, but more that they cannot spare the resources to spend on them. Where once, in the 1950s, parties had one member for every 11 voters, now it is closer to one for every 100. While there is more money in politics than ever before, parties are increasingly reliant on a small and unreliable pool of donors. This has resulted in a spending arms war, but also increased short-term financial difficulties for parties1. These financial pressures, combined with an out-of-date electoral system, create a clear logic in favour of ignoring safe seats and focusing on marginal ones. This report attempts to measure that effect. But what is the best way of measuring the effect of targeting? For the voter, the experience of being targeted involves receiving more leaflets, seeing more door-knocking activists and generally witnessing a superior campaign. In some ways, this is difficult to measure. But it all costs money. In a sense, money is the most objective measure of party campaigning because Penny for your vote? Chris Terry Counting the cost of an unfair electoral system 5 Most valued 3. BBC News, The ten seats which attracted the most amount the BNP, UKIP, the Greens and the Workers ‘Margaret Moran took £53k in false of money per vote cast tell us a lot about the Revolutionary Party, included five independents. MP expenses’ 13 way parties campaign in our outdated electoral One of those was Stephen Rhodes, a former November 2012, http://www.bbc. system. local radio presenter. Another was Esther co.uk/news/uk-eng- land-20309090 The ten most valued seats Constituency Name Rank Total Spend Votes Spending Per Vote Luton South 1 £129,687 42,216 £3.07 Aberconwy 2 £65,450 29,966 £2.18 Barking 3 £97,862 45,184 £2.17 Poplar and Limehouse 4 £99,766 46,533 £2.14 Northampton North 5 £83,437 40,271 £2.07 Hampstead and Kilburn 6 £106,709 52,822 £2.02 Buckingham 7 £96,341 48,335 £1.99 Norwich South 8 £94,665 47,551 £1.99 Brighton, Pavilion 9 £102,949 51,834 £1.99 Bethnal Green and Bow 10 £98,622 50,138 £1.97 These seats were either three-way marginals, Rantzen, the former journalist and television or seats which had been targeted by a third presenter whose campaign spent party or independent, or both. more money, in total, than the Liberal Democrats, coming in at £12.92 per vote. Ranked far and away at number 1 is Luton Labour held the seat. South, where votes cost £3.07 each, 89p more than Aberconwy, their closest competitor. Aberconwy was a tight Labour/Conservative marginal. As Plaid Cymru and the Liberal The seat had been home to the Labour MP Democrats were both within a ten-point swing Margaret Moran, who eventually stood trial as well, it was, just about, a four-way marginal. for her expenses claims with a jury ruling she Oddly, Labour spent only £7,689 in a seat had falsely claimed £53,0003. That drama they held that was at risk. The Conservatives encouraged parties to believe that the seat was spent £23,022 and the Liberal Democrats, in wide open, despite Labour’s 14.5% margin of third, spent £6,991. Fourth-placed Plaid Cymru victory at the previous election. The seat had spent the largest amount in the constituency, at been a Conservative one until 1997, so they £24,368. In the end the Conservatives won the fought hard to regain it. The Liberal Democrats seat with a majority of 11.3%. also poured in substantial sums, spending £21,015 in a seat where the party had come a Barking, Poplar and Limehouse, Brighton decent, but not close, third in 2005. For their Pavilion and Bethnal Green and Bow were all efforts the Liberal Democrats gained a mere seats where Labour was attempting to defend 0.1% of the vote. As well as strong funding from against minor parties: the BNP in Barking, the the big three parties, Luton South also attracted Greens in Brighton Pavilion and Respect in both 12 candidates in total, which in addition to Poplar and Limehouse and Bethnal Green and Penny for your vote? Chris Terry 6 Counting the cost of an unfair electoral system Bow. These seats benefited not only from high spending by the minor parties, but also from large amounts of Labour resources, perhaps demonstrating the party’s concern about being challenged in areas usually thought to be safe Labour. These seats were all held by Labour, except Brighton Pavilion which elected the Green Party’s first MP, Caroline Lucas. Northampton North, Hampstead and Kilburn and Norwich South were all seats which could theoretically have been won by any of the big three, though perhaps Northampton North was a longshot for the Liberal Democrats and Norwich South was more favourable to the Conservatives than their spending suggests. Norwich South was also targeted by the Greens, whose then deputy leader, Adrian Ramsay, ran in the seat. They achieved their second-best result in the UK, receiving 14.9%. Northampton North was gained by the Conservatives, Hampstead and Kilburn was held by Labour with an extremely tight majority of 42 and Norwich South was gained by the Liberal Democrats with another tight majority of 310.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mandatory Data Retention by the Backdoor
    statewatch monitoring the state and civil liberties in the UK and Europe vol 12 no 6 November-December 2002 Mandatory data retention by the backdoor EU: The majority of member states are adopting mandatory data retention and favour an EU-wide measure UK: Telecommunications surveillance has more than doubled under the Labour government A special analysis on the surveillance of telecommunications by states have, or are planning to, introduce mandatory data Statewatch shows that: i) the authorised surveillance in England, retention (only two member states appear to be resisting this Wales and Scotland has more than doubled since the Labour move). In due course it can be expected that a "harmonising" EU government came to power in 1997; ii) mandatory data retention measure will follow. is so far being introduced at national level in 9 out of 15 EU members states and 10 out of 15 favour a binding EU Framework Terrorism pretext for mandatory data retention Decision; iii) the introduction in the EU of the mandatory Mandatory data retention had been demanded by EU law retention of telecommunications data (ie: keeping details of all enforcement agencies and discussed in the EU working parties phone-calls, mobile phone calls and location, faxes, e-mails and and international fora for several years prior to 11 September internet usage of the whole population of Europe for at least 12 2000. On 20 September 2001 the EU Justice and Home Affairs months) is intended to combat crime in general. Council put it to the top of the agenda as one of the measures to combat terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandering and Malapportionment, Romanian Style
    EEPXXX10.1177/0888325417711222East European Politics and SocietiesGiugăl et al. / Gerrymandering and Malapportionment 711222research-article2017 East European Politics and Societies and Cultures Volume XX Number X Month 201X 1 –21 © 2017 SAGE Publications Gerrymandering and 10.1177/0888325417711222 http://eeps.sagepub.com hosted at Malapportionment, Romanian http://online.sagepub.com Style: The 2008 Electoral System Aurelian Giugăl University of Bucharest Ron Johnston University of Bristol Mihail Chiru Median Research Centre, Bucharest Ionut Ciobanu Independent Researcher Alexandru Gavriș Bucharest University of Economic Studies Varieties of gerrymandering and malapportionment can appear not only in electoral systems where all legislative seats are allocated to plurality winners in single-member districts but also in proportional Single-Member District (SMD)–based electoral sys- tems and in settings where multi-partisan committees draw the district boundaries. This article investigates such a case, in which the main parliamentary parties collaborated in order to minimize the uncertainty regarding intra-party allocation of seats. The 2008 electoral reform in Romania created such opportunities, and both the SMD maps and the electoral results at the parliamentary election held in the same year indicate that the parties collaborated to design a number of safe seats for each of them. We draw on a novel data set that measures the degree to which the newly created SMDs reflect natu- ral or artificial strongholds of concentrated partisan support in otherwise unfavorable political territories, and also assess the malapportionment of these districts. All three types of mechanisms were frequently used, and our logistic regression analyses indi- cate that nomination from the “right” type of SMD was the main factor deciding which of each party’s candidates got elected.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded in February 2011)
    Executive Summary 1 Voter Power under First Past the Post 2 The effect of moving to the Alternative Vote 2 The VPI website 2 1. The AV Referendum in context 3 The referendum options 3 First Past the Post in the 2010 General Election 4 The effects of marginal and safe seats 4 2. The Voter Power Index 6 How the Voter Power Index is calculated 6 Voter Power under FPtP and AV 7 Numbers of marginal and safe constituencies 8 Beyond the referendum 10 Conclusion 11 Appendix 1. Summary of electoral systems 12 Appendix 2. The Voter Power Index: the statistical basis 14 Calculating the VPI for First Past the Post 14 Calculating the VPI for the Alternative Vote 15 Endnotes 18 This report examines the distribution of electoral power amongst voters in the UK and the possible impact of a change in the electoral system. It compares the distribution under the current First Past the Post system (FPtP) with the Alternative Vote system (AV) which will be put before voters in the May 2011 referendum. Our aim is to help voters consider the impact of the choice on offer in the referendum. Our analysis shows that moving from FPtP to AV will mitigate some of the distortions of the current system, but that inequalities and inefficiencies in the distribution of voter power would remain. Our research builds on nef’s 2005 report Spoiled Ballot which developed the first Voter Power Index (VPI).1 The VPI measures the power of voters to change the outcome of the election. Voter power is measured for each constituency and is determined by the chance of it changing hands and the number of voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Unfinished Business the Quest for a Living Wage
    Unfinished Business The Quest for a Living Wage FAIR PLAY – FAIR PAY “We have to accept that inequality is a way of achieving greater opportunity and prosperity” Lord Griffiths – Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs “Let’s finally make the minimum wage a living wage. Let’s tie it to the cost of living so we don't have to wait another 10 years to see it rise.” President Barack Obama “Fair pay means motivated staff who stay working at Barclays longer. Improving people’s standard of living makes business sense.” Karen Pleva – Barclays Chief of Staff (Global Operations) Suite 11 Tulip House, 70 Borough High Street, London SE1 1XF FAIR PLAY – FAIR PAY www.fairpaynetwork.org Produced and written by Deborah Littman, Mark Donne and Barney Wakefield, with the kind support of Unfinished Business: The Quest for a Living Wage. page 3 Fair Pay Network Director Mark Donne Patrons Sian Berry Lord Best Jon Cruddas MP Baroness Helena Kennedy Guy Stallard, Director of International Services, KPMG Europe Polly Toynbee National Steering Committee Chair – Karen Buck MP Treasurer – Alison Garnham (Chief Executive, Child Poverty Action Group) Ben Whittaker (Vice-President Welfare, NUS) Moussa Haddad (Policy and Communications Manager, UK Poverty Programme, Oxfam) Kate Bell (Director of Policy, Gingerbread) Matthew Bolton (London Citizens) Stephen Burke (Chief Executive, Counsel and Care) Don Flynn (Director, Migrants Rights Network) Julie Gibson (UK Coalition against Poverty) Catherine Howarth (Director, Fair Pensions) Dr. Peter Kenway (Director, New Policy Institute) Clare Moody (Political Officer, Unite the Union) Deborah Littman (National Officer, UNISON) Jen McClelland (Appletree Trust) Dr. Catherine Rake (Director, Fawcett Society) Paul Sellers (Policy Officer, TUC) Lisa Johnson (UCU) Beth Lamont (Head of National & Equal Pay Unit, PCS) Steve Bell (Head of Policy, CWU) Alistair Gittins (National Policy Officer, RMT) page 4 Unfinished Business: The Quest for a Living Wage.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration During the Crown Colony Period, 1840-1852
    1 2: Immigration during the Crown Colony period, 1840-1852 Context In 1840 New Zealand became, formally, a part of the British Empire. The small and irregular inflow of British immigrants from the Australian Colonies – the ‘Old New Zealanders’ of the mission stations, whaling stations, timber depots, trader settlements, and small pastoral and agricultural outposts, mostly scattered along the coasts - abruptly gave way to the first of a number of waves of immigrants which flowed in from 1840.1 At least three streams arrived during the period 1840-1852, although ‘Old New Zealanders’ continued to arrive in small numbers during the 1840s. The first consisted of the government officials, merchants, pastoralists, and other independent arrivals, the second of the ‘colonists’ (or land purchasers) and the ‘emigrants’ (or assisted arrivals) of the New Zealand Company and its affiliates, and the third of the imperial soldiers (and some sailors) who began arriving in 1845. New Zealand’s European population grew rapidly, marked by the establishment of urban communities, the colonial capital of Auckland (1840), and the Company settlements of Wellington (1840), Petre (Wanganui, 1840), New Plymouth (1841), Nelson (1842), Otago (1848), and Canterbury (1850). Into Auckland flowed most of the independent and military streams, and into the company settlements those arriving directly from the United Kingdom. Thus A.S.Thomson observed that ‘The northern [Auckland] settlers were chiefly derived from Australia; those in the south from Great Britain. The former,’ he added, ‘were distinguished for colonial wisdom; the latter for education and good home connections …’2 Annexation occurred at a time when emigration from the United Kingdom was rising.
    [Show full text]
  • Seat Safety and Female (Under)Representation in the U.S. Congress
    Seat safety and female (under)representation in the U.S. Congress Akhil Rajan, Alexander Kustov, Maikol Cerda, Frances Rosenbluth, Ian Shapiro Yale University Draft: May 17, 2021 Abstract Women have made significant strides toward equal representation within the U.S. Congress, but their seat share has mostly increased within the Democratic—but not Republican—Party. We argue that one driver of women’s underrepresentation among Republicans is the proliferation of safe seats. Because safe seats encourage ideological extremism in candidates and because women are stereotyped as more liberal than men, we expect women candidates to outperform men in safer Democratic seats but underperform men in safer Republican seats (relative to more competitive seats). Based on a new dataset linking all candidates for the U.S. House and their districts’ partisan composition since 2000, we show women both enter and win elections in safer Republican (Democratic) seats at relatively lower (higher) rates than men. Our results strikingly suggest that, even conditional on running, a female Republican candidate has an overall better chance of winning in a competitive seat than in a safe Republican seat. Keywords: Congress, Gender, Representation, Inequality, Electoral Competition Word count: 3700 Introduction After a record number of women won election to the United States Congress, many commentators declared 2018 to be the “Year of the Woman.” But the use of a caveat is warranted: if 2018 was the year of the woman, it must have been the year of the Democratic woman. By contrast, Republican women lost a whopping ten seats, their largest decline in the history of the United States House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • A Surveillance Society?
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007–08 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 20 May 2008 HC 58-II [Incorporating HC 508-i–iv, Session 2006–07] Published on 8 June 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.50 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Rt Hon John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton Itchen) Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Mr Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenview2007final:Layout 1
    News in Brief Chapelfield Gardens Tree Unthank Road *UHHQ3DUW\ This autumn sees the 20th If you look at the trunk of the tree Traffic Update Climate Change Action Plan anniversary of the 1987 gale. We you can still see the scar down the At the recent Green Party conference will be hearing many stories of how middle where it split. The tree has now A petition of 900 signatures was Green MEP Caroline Lucas outlined the the gale affected Norfolk, but how grown over the bolts that run through recently submitted to the Norwich party’s plan for comprehensive policies many people know of the effect on the trunk. However, if you stand at the Highways Agency Committee to tackle climate change. The policies WKH PDJQLÀFHQW ODUJH SODQH WUHH LQ bottom of the trunk and look up into the opposing plans to replace a push- include: WKHPLGGOHRI&KDSHOÀHOG*DUGHQV" branches you can still see some ropes button crossing on Unthank Road • Ruling out nuclear power and Anyone familiar with the gardens higher up helping to hold it together E\ *ORXFHVWHU 6WUHHW ZLWK D ]HEUD investing the money in renewable energy will know which tree this is – the large, where it split during the gale. crossing. The councillors on the DQGHQHUJ\HIÀFLHQF\PHDVXUHVLQVWHDG healthy one near the committee listened to the residents • /RFDOLVLQJ WKH HFRQRP\ to kiosk with huge branches and decided to keep the push-button massively reduce the distance goods are that almost reach the crossing. They also heard from several transported, so that wherever possible ground. Who would residents who were concerned about we use goods that are produced locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Women Mps in Westminster Photographs Taken May 21St, June 3Rd, June 4Th, 2008
    “The House of Commons Works of Art Collection documents significant moments in Parliamentary history. We are delighted to have added this unique photographic record of women MPs of today, to mark the 90th anniversary of women first being able to take their seats in this House” – Hugo Swire, Chairman, The Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art. “The day the Carlton Club accepted women” – 90 years after women first got the vote aim to ensure that a more enduring image of On May 21st 2008 over half of all women women's participation in the political process Members of Parliament in Westminster survives. gathered party by party to have group photographs taken to mark the anniversary of Each party gave its permission for the 90 years since women first got the vote (in photographs to be taken. For the Labour February 1918 women over 30 were first Party, Barbara Follett MP, the then Deputy granted the vote). Minister for Women and Equality, and Barbara Keeley MP, who was Chair of the Labour Party Women’s Committee and The four new composite Caroline Adams, who works for the photographs taken party by Parliamentary Labour Party helped ensure that all but 12 of the Labour women party aim to ensure that a attended. more enduring image of For the Conservative women's participation in the Party, The Shadow Leader of the House of political process survives Commons and Shadow Minister for Until now the most often used photographic Women, Theresa May image of women MPs had been the so called MP and the Chairman “Blair Babes” picture taken on 7th May 1997 of the Conservative shortly after 101 Labour women were elected Party, Caroline to Westminster as a result of positive action by Spelman MP, enlisted the Labour Party.
    [Show full text]
  • On Parliamentary Representation)
    House of Commons Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Session 2008–09 Volume II Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 April 2009 HC 167 -II Published on 27 May 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) The Conference secretariat will be able to make individual submissions available in large print or Braille on request. The Conference secretariat can be contacted on 020 7219 0654 or [email protected] On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish a new committee, to be chaired by the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Michael Martin MP and known as the Speaker's Conference. The Conference has been asked to: "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large". It may also agree to consider other associated matters. The Speaker's Conference has until the end of the Parliament to conduct its inquiries. Current membership Miss Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Vice-Chairman) Ms Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North & Stoke Newington) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Mr David Blunkett MP (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton & Honiton) Mr Ronnie Campbell MP (Labour, Blyth Valley) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) Mr Parmjit Dhanda MP (Labour, Gloucester) Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, St Ives) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist, South Antrim) David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith & The Border) Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) Mr Khalid Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham Perry Barr) Anne Main MP (Conservative, St Albans) Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire) Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour, Conwy) Publications The Reports and evidence of the Conference are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Elections
    10 Democracy and Elections Key Terms Boundaries Commission (p. 406) A body that recommends changes to election boundaries. By-election (p. 422) A district-level election held between general elections. Campaign Finance regulations (p. 409) Laws that govern political fundraising and/or spending. Disclosure (p. 411) Revealing otherwise private information, such as campaign expenses. Election Platform (p. 414) A list of political pledges announced before or during an election campaign. Gerrymandering (p. 406) The purposeful manipulation of electoral districts to maximize one party’s chances of winning. GOTV (p. 420) Efforts to mobilize supporters to vote, such as telephone reminders. Government Subsidy (p. 410) Public funds used to support an individual, group, or cause. Incumbent (p. 421) An elected official who currently represents an electoral district. Leader’s tour (p. 414) A visit of various electoral districts by the party leader and an entourage of staffers and journalists. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) System (p. 404) An electoral system that combines geographic and partisan representation by providing extra seats to parties whose share of seats is lower than their share of the popular vote. Party Nomination (p. 420) An internal contest to decide who should represent a party locally in an upcoming election. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Permanent Campaign (p. 413) The practice of electioneering outside of an election period, especially by leveraging government resources. Plebiscite (p. 422) A citizen vote held to inform a decision by a representative body. Political Contribution (p. 410) Donations to a political candidate, group, or cause. Recall (p. 423) Legislated process by which electors of a given district may petition for a by-election.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, 2021 On the block! An occasional column in which people are given the opportunity to present their views on contemporary issues and debates Trust and political life: the need to transform our democracy Keith Popple, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, London South Bank University A former Editor of the Community Development Journal, Keith is author of a number of key articles and texts including Analysing Community Work Its Theory and Practice published by the Open University Press. He can be contacted on [email protected] One of the major concerns of contemporary public life centres on how much we can trust our politicians and the public institutions and services that they, with civil servants and political aides, are responsible for. This of course is not a new concern as, ever since we have had a system of representative parliamentary democracy, we have needed to trust our elected representatives and those they appoint, to undertake good governance on our behalf. However, in more recent years trust in UK national politicians and political life has been put under considerable stress. A 2011 Europe- wide Guardian/ICM opinion poll found that only 12% of those polled in the UK said they trusted politicians to ‘act with honesty and integrity’. Further, 66% stated they did not trust the UK government ‘to deal with the country’s problems’ (Glover, 2011). Political trust is central to democratic rule, and any decline in this can reduce the quality and stability of our democracy. Importantly, a reduction of trust in government and confidence in political institutions can damage the vitality of our democracy.
    [Show full text]