LETTER: Voting for a party
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LETTER:
Voting for a party
Sir: The political parties are discussing whom they wish to field in the European elections of 1999.
For the first time, party affiliations will outweigh voter choices. Up to now the winners in parliamentary or local government elections have always owed their position directly to the popular vote. In 1999, this will no longer be true. Voters will not be allowed to vote for individual candidates, but instead will be offered a choice between political parties. The parties will nominate lists of candidates, and will choose those members of the lists who are deemed to be "elected".
The days when an elected member owed a responsibility to all the electors will have finished. In future, queries and complaints will be addressed to regional political offices, which will decide which member of their party in Parliament, if any, should respond. In the past, the fact that Members of Parliament owed their position to the electorate in their constituency meant that they were responsive to democratic pressures. In future, members will owe their position to the party officials who appointed them, and their constituency role will shrink to a matter of public relations.
The different parties will choose different methods of selecting their lists and of putting the lists in order to decide which of their candidates will be deemed to have won once the votes are counted. Some parties are insisting on a one-member, one-vote ballot, all the way through to the numbering of the final lists. The least democratic party will be the Labour Party, which only involves its membership at the nomination stage, and which keeps a leadership monopoly over the determination of the final list, and the vital matter of the order of the names on that list. Only the top names stand any chance of being sent to Parliament.
The new system is wrong not because it is proportional, but because it gives power to the party machines which they should not have, and takes away powers from the voters which they should have. It would be perfectly possible to evolve proportional systems of election in which the link between voters and their representatives remained at least as strong as it has been up to now.
KEN COATES MEP
(Nottinghamshire North and Chesterfield, Independent Labour)
Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments