"MPs don't represent their communities; they represent the people who vote".
This was one of many thought provoking comments from the teenagers attending Tuesday's Model Westminster conference, organised in conjunction with the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy.
Is this true and why would it be a problem if it was?
The second part of that question is probably the easiest to answer. Yes, it would be a problem because that's not the way democracy works and there are many people within any given constituency who can't vote (children, the mentally ill) who need their MP's support as much as anyone else. Moreover, if that was the way democracy worked, it would be considered reasonable to demand proof that you had voted before being admitted to MPs' surgeries or requesting their assistance, but it isn't. Constituents only need to prove they live in the right geographical area - if that.
Does it still happen, anyway? To a degree, yes. When I was a campaigner, I was given canvass cards with a special column reserved for 'non-voters'. Once these people were identified, the party would stop contacting them and they would be forgotten. Nobody would knock on their door to see if they had an issue we could help with. No one consulted them for their opinions during election campaigns.
Could you blame us? Political parties have finite resources with which to get their message out. Why use them on those who have no intention of voting for you?
The problem is, this approach doesn't change much once you're elected. When you go door-knocking, you still do so as a representative of your party and you still have finite resources, which means you still sideline constituents who are unlikely to vote for you. Unfortunately, this policy doesn't just freeze out those who won't vote, but also those who can't vote, such as the teenagers I was privileged to work with on Tuesday.
There are several notable exceptions to this rule, though. Stella Creasy, for example, proved phenomenally popular with the youngsters at Model Westminster (of all political persuasions) for the way she uses social media to engage with her entire community. Similarly, Lynne Featherstone is revered by campaigners for being one of the first MPs to take to the internet and engage her constituents through her blog.
The reason they can interact with their entire communities and not just those who vote is because on the internet it costs nothing to communicate with your constituents, except time of course, of which Creasy and Featherstone put in a tremendous amount to make themselves available to their followers. Nevertheless, when asked what they liked most about Creasy's Twitter feed, for example, the teenage conference delegates replied that the personal nature of her posts, often unrelated to her work, made her come across as a regular person and not just another politician.
Try doing that with conventional communications. Somehow I don't think knocking on someone's door to show them a picture of a cat would have quite the same effect as it does online.
When I turned up on Tuesday for a conference on digital democracy, I thought it was going to be one big discussion about electronic voting, but now I think the Speaker's Commission may be on to something. Do MPs only represent those who vote? The good ones don't and anyone with a decent grasp of twitter and a commitment to democracy will fast be on the case of those who do.
This was one of many thought provoking comments from the teenagers attending Tuesday's Model Westminster conference, organised in conjunction with the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy.
Is this true and why would it be a problem if it was?
The second part of that question is probably the easiest to answer. Yes, it would be a problem because that's not the way democracy works and there are many people within any given constituency who can't vote (children, the mentally ill) who need their MP's support as much as anyone else. Moreover, if that was the way democracy worked, it would be considered reasonable to demand proof that you had voted before being admitted to MPs' surgeries or requesting their assistance, but it isn't. Constituents only need to prove they live in the right geographical area - if that.
Does it still happen, anyway? To a degree, yes. When I was a campaigner, I was given canvass cards with a special column reserved for 'non-voters'. Once these people were identified, the party would stop contacting them and they would be forgotten. Nobody would knock on their door to see if they had an issue we could help with. No one consulted them for their opinions during election campaigns.
Could you blame us? Political parties have finite resources with which to get their message out. Why use them on those who have no intention of voting for you?
The problem is, this approach doesn't change much once you're elected. When you go door-knocking, you still do so as a representative of your party and you still have finite resources, which means you still sideline constituents who are unlikely to vote for you. Unfortunately, this policy doesn't just freeze out those who won't vote, but also those who can't vote, such as the teenagers I was privileged to work with on Tuesday.
There are several notable exceptions to this rule, though. Stella Creasy, for example, proved phenomenally popular with the youngsters at Model Westminster (of all political persuasions) for the way she uses social media to engage with her entire community. Similarly, Lynne Featherstone is revered by campaigners for being one of the first MPs to take to the internet and engage her constituents through her blog.
The reason they can interact with their entire communities and not just those who vote is because on the internet it costs nothing to communicate with your constituents, except time of course, of which Creasy and Featherstone put in a tremendous amount to make themselves available to their followers. Nevertheless, when asked what they liked most about Creasy's Twitter feed, for example, the teenage conference delegates replied that the personal nature of her posts, often unrelated to her work, made her come across as a regular person and not just another politician.
Try doing that with conventional communications. Somehow I don't think knocking on someone's door to show them a picture of a cat would have quite the same effect as it does online.
When I turned up on Tuesday for a conference on digital democracy, I thought it was going to be one big discussion about electronic voting, but now I think the Speaker's Commission may be on to something. Do MPs only represent those who vote? The good ones don't and anyone with a decent grasp of twitter and a commitment to democracy will fast be on the case of those who do.
No comments:
Post a Comment