Feb 232011
 

The referendum on whether we should go for the proposed Alternative Voting system or for the traditional first past the post system is coming up in May, and we are now beginning to see politicians spout all sorts of half-truths on the subject. The key thing to remember during the debates amongst politicians is that their views are slanted by self-interest – they unconsciously (or perhaps consciously) want the political system that gives the best results for themselves, rather than the system that best suits the voters.

So we have to rely on our own minds to decide which voting system is best for us, and not trust the politicians.

The traditional system was first formally put in place nationally in The Representation of The People Act 1832, although the first past the post system had been used in various constituencies for centuries before that. Given the contraints of a medieval country, it is quite a good system – simple to administer, easy to understand, and not especially unrepresentative of the population making up the electorate when the number of electors for each MP was vastly less than today.

Today is quite a different matter. The first past the post system means that everyone who did not vote for the elected MP feels disenfranchised, and those who hold differing views to the majority in a safe constituency are very much excluded from the political process. And it can be a very high proportion of the electorate – in one constituency in last year’s election, the MP who was elected had the support of just 37% of the voters.

So how does the Alternative Voting system work ?

Well each voter lists their candidates in order of preference – 1 for their favourite candidate, 2 for their next favourite candidate, etc. You can even list just 1 preference if you are a first past the post fan, or list every possible candidate in order of preference if you want. If nobody wins 50% of the votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and the next preference from those who voted for him or her are distributed amongst the remaining candidates; this process is repeated until a candidate does get more than 50%. Or presumably there is just one candidate left!

There have even been politicians who claim that the Alternative Voting system is too complex for the voter to understand. Ok, the distribution of votes may be a little tricky for those simpler voters, but ordering your preferred candidates is the important part – and simple enough for the overwhelming majority to understand. Frankly politicians who go around insulting voters should be voted out in the next election!

Is the Alternative Voting system fairer than the first past the vote system ? Well, a bit fairer. Very safe constituencies are likely to carry on being safe constituencies, and minority views are still likely to be under represented (if represented at all!) in Parliament. It certainly is not proportional representation, and doesn’t even come close.

But it does hold several key advantages over the first past the post system :-

  • Firstly, it allows people to vote with the real belief of what candidate should be elected without regard to the likelihood of victory. Those who hold minority views (say perhaps Green party supporters) always have a difficult decision to make under a first past the post system – do they vote for the party they want even though it has no hope of victory ? Or do they vote tactically to vote for the candidate they would dislike the least ? With AV, they get to do both.
  • Secondly it ensures a fairer result in a three-horse race between three candidates. As an example, in a traditionally Tory constituency, it is possible for Labour to slip in, if the Tory vote gets split between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Given the choice a Tory may well wish the Liberal candidate to win if the Tory candidate cannot. Any election system that can return an MP with a minority of the support is flawed.

There are those who do not like the Alternative Voting system because it does not go far enough. It is only a relatively minor improvement to the first past the post system, and there is some inclination to vote against it for that reason. Whilst understandable (and I’m in favour of going further too), it is not the right way to look at it. Whilst we can criticse politicians for not going far enough, or for not giving us a wider choice to choose from, the question to answer here is which voting system do you prefer ? First past the post, or AV ?

Given the choice, I would say that AV is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t go far enough, but we have not been given the choice of saying “something better please”.

So I would say “Yes” – let’s vote for something a little better than the status quo. You are free to make up your own mind, but be wary of listening too closely to the politicians!

Feb 072011
 

Sometimes it seems like breast cancer gets a little too much publicity in comparison to other cancers.; it seems that breast cancer gets 10 mentions in the media to every mention of prostate cancer; not to mention lung cancer which causes more deaths in women than breast cancer.

I’ll be using figures from Cancer Research UK to make the points throughout this posting …

First of all lets get the big figures out of the way. In 2008, breast cancer killed 12,047 women (and 69 men) in comparison to total deaths from cancer of 156,723 – “only” 7%; even excluding cancer deaths for men, breast cancer claimed 16% of all cancer deaths for women.

Lung cancer is the one that claims the most lives – 22% of all cancer deaths are from lung cancer, but we can ignore them because it’s the fault of those smokers. Although according to the Wikipedia article on lung cancer between 10-15% of all deaths from lung cancer are from non-smokers – probably all passive smokers.

After the two big cancers, we get prostate cancer which claimed the lives of 10,168 men, or 6,5% of all cancer deaths – not much behind the levels of breast cancer And just for those who aren’t paying attention, no there were no deaths amongst women from prostate cancer.

Including all deaths from gender specific cancers (and I’ll cheat and include the breast cancer figures for both men and women), male specific cancers account for 6.65% of all cancer deaths, and female specific cancers count for 12.5% of all cancer deaths. That is quite a significant difference, and significantly more than the figure of 7% for breast cancer deaths amongst women.

If you look at cancer as a whole, 52% of all cancer deaths were men, and 48% women. It’s relatively even despite the increased risk women run of dying from a female specific cancer. Of all non gender specific cancers, men had a higher number of deaths in 22 out of 27 different cancer categories.

So let us have a look at the figures from the media. Specifically counting the search results from the BBC News website :-

Search Phrase Number of results Percentage of mentions Percentage of deaths
“Cancer” 14401 100% 100%
“Breast Cancer” 2206 15% 7%
“Prostate cancer” 606 4.2% 6.5%
“Lung Cancer” 758 5.2% 22%
“Rectal Cancer” 40 2.7% 10.4%

I think it’s more than obvious that breast cancer gets a little more attention than the others. That’s not to say it gets too much attention – it’s the others that get too little.

Jan 282011
 

This is a general waffle in relation to the Jasmin Revolution (although the Wikipedia article concentrates on the Tunisian revolution, this phrase is beginning to be used more generally) – no news here.

We often hear that no government can survive without the consent of the people, but what does that mean ? In this case it means that a significant proportion of the people are sufficiently angry with their government to risk violence, arrest, and even death to demonstrate their need for a change. The governments involved can try a variety of tactics to deal with the protestors but their first reaction – violent repression – will only make the protestors more demanding. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of punishing protestors, violence can work if the protestors are a small enough minority, but at a certain point it becomes self-defeating.

If a government offers change, it needs to do so before it resorts to violence – the government wants to offer as little change as possible, and violence means the protestors are more demanding of change. Indeed the government needs to offer just a little more change than it wants to. Offering too little change such as President Mubarak appears to have done, does little to stem the anger of the people.

What makes people annoyed enough with the government to take to the streets ? There are a whole variety of reasons not limited to :-

  • The absence or perceived absence of a say in the composition of the government. Or in other words the lack of a genuinely democratic government. That is not to say that merely having some form of democracy means that a government is immune to this effect as even in a democratic society, there can be those who believe they have no say in their government. For example the UK democratic system can be subject to this effect as people in “safe” constituencies will often believe that they have no say in their government if they do not vote for the party that always wins.
  • A belief that their government does not act in the best interest of the people. This includes but is not limited to the perceived level of corruption within the government or society.
  • Injustice where the people are subject to arbitrary arrest and punishment for “crimes” that most would regard as completely normal activities.
  • A lack of personal freedom (closely associated above) including but not limited to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the freedom to go about one’s daily business without undue interference from the government.
  • How old a government is. People can put up with a bad government for a year, or even five, but sooner or later it becomes unpalatable. In fact that even applies to a good government – if it stays in power too long, not only will it be subject to strains that make it a bad government, but even if it avoids those it will be condemned simply because people want change from time to time.
  • The economy. If the economy is poor enough that people are suffering, or income inequalities reach the point where the difference between rich and poor becomes excessive, that is in itself a source of grievance.

Dictatorships are more subject to this kind of problem than democracies, but democracies are not immune.

It is perhaps unfortunate that mass protests usually descend into violence. However it is perhaps inevitable particularly when the forces of control are also violent. There are those who claim that the violence by protestors is somehow caused by “dark forces”. Nothing could be further from the truth – the violence is merely an expression of the level of anger felt. President Mubarak’s “dark forces” cannot instigate these level of protests and when they are underway have no way of controlling them.

It is likely that these accusations are themselves enough to cause the protests to continue.

Jan 132011
 

Sarah Palin has recently made a speech on the recent shooting spree in Arizona where a congressperson was shot (and probably targeted by the shooter) in relation to the media noise about the aggressive and combative attitudes in US politics at the moment. In it she claimed the media was launching a ‘blood libel‘ against the right-wing in US politics in its criticism of the political debate.

Whether or not she has a point to make, the use of the phrase ‘blood libel’ here is grossly inaccurate and an example of exactly what the media is talking about. Blood libel is the phrase used to describe the hysterical accusations of anti-semites accusing Jews of sacrificing Christian children and draining the blood for some religious purposes – if it hadn’t been used as the excuse for slaughtering Jews throughout history, it would be ridiculous. I am hardly an expert on the US media, but I find it extremely unlikely that anyone from the US media is likely to hunt down any right-wingers, kill them, and drink their blood.

Sarah Palin’s remarks are merely a hysterical over-reaction to a perceived attack on the right-wing. To be fair I should point out that apparently others have used the phrase in US politics recently. Which just goes to show that US politics is little over-heated. Interestingly a conservative commentator has pointed out that the use of this phrase is an indication that Sarah Palin just isn’t of presidential material – presumably presidents are expected to behave and talk in a slightly more dignified fashion.

Did the US media attack the right-wing ?

The US media did comment after the shootings that there is a considerable level of aggression in US politics today, and used an example showing certain US congressional areas targeted with rifle cross-hairs which was published by the right-wing. This could be said to be unfairly criticising the right-wing except that the reason that example was used was that the congressperson who was shot (Gabrielle Giffords) had previously complained about that very publication in which she was targeted.

Personally I don’t believe the right-wing was specifically targeted in the various suggestions that US politics can be a little aggressive. There is a lot to be said for lowering the temperature in US politics – opposition, criticism, discussion and debate are all a part of politics and essential in any healthy democracy. But there’s no need to go too far, and throwing around inappropriate phrases like “blood libel” is certainly an example of that.

I have no doubt that there are Democrats who go too far too.

We have no way of knowing how much the current atmosphere in US politics had an effect on the shooter, and will probably never know. After all he is clearly a deranged individual and he probably doesn’t know himself. The naysayers who claim it had no effect have no way of knowing that. If it did have an effect, it does not make those making inflammatory comments responsible for these shootings – not even to the extent of inciting murder.

But the current state of US politics could have an effect on deranged individuals even if it did not in this case. As such it is worth considering whether toning it down is worthwhile. Say “she’s an idiot” rather than “she’s a traitor”, say “he should be fired” rather than “he should be put in the chair and the switch thrown”. It doesn’t ruin the debate and it might just save someone’s life – isn’t that worth it ?

Dec 122010
 

A certain Pastor Jones already notorious as the idiot who threatened to burn copies of the Koran on the date of the 911 attacks is rumoured to be invited to speak at some sort of English Defence League event. Well it appears he has found his appropriate level – the gutter amongst his far right hate friends. Of course the issue of whether he should be allowed to visit the UK has been raised, and the Home Secretary is said to be considering the issue.

Pastor Jones has allegedly said that prohibiting him from visiting the UK would be “incorrect and unfair”, and even “unconstitutional”. Well I’d perhaps agree with the unfair bit, but whoever said life was supposed to be fair? As for “incorrect” and “unconstitutional”, well Pastor Jones needs to read the Wikipedia article on the UK to educate himself on the fact that the UK is not part of the US so the US constitution doesn’t apply over here, and as for “incorrect” … who knows what he means ?

On a legal level, the Home Secretary certainly has the right to prohibit aliens (which is what the Pastor Jones is if he were in the UK) from visiting within certain constraints. So it is “correct” on that level.

Of course the meanest thing to do would be to allow him to visit and then throw him into prison for incitement to religious hatred – ignoring the fact that his threat to burn the Koran would count as that, just his presence in the UK could count as incitement to religious hatred. And given his history, it seems likely that what he says is likely to count to.

Of course Pastor Jones isn’t likely to realise that he could be imprisoned over here!