Why Britain shouldn't adopt the Alternative Vote.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, the people of Britain get to vote in only their second referendum (and look how great the results of that first one turned out!)

They'll be deciding whether or not to scrap the current voting system – know as "first past the post" and adopt a system of proportional representation instead.

The differences between the two systems are largely in complexity.

In the existing system, candidates stand for election and the one with the most votes wins. All voters have to do is tick the box for their favorite candidate.

So my vote would look like this:

I support Mr. Conservative, so therefore tick his name to place my vote.

With proportional representation – the so-called AV or Alternative Vote – voters write a '1' in the box for their favorite candidate, and then are free to "rank" their alternative choices in order of preference (or not at all.) If their first choice candidate gets knocked out, their second choice votes get tallied and added to the scores of the remaining candidates. If their second choice gets knocked out, their third votes get tallied and so on.

So my vote would look like this:

My first choice would be Mr. Conservative, but if he didn't win I'd pick Ms. Lib Dem next and Ms. Green after that. I wouldn't support either Labor or the BNP with even a 4th or 5th place vote.

The logic behind AV is that it gives more than the two leading parties the opportunity to win by taking into account most people's second or third votes.

For example, in a constituency in which the Labor candidate got the most votes, those who voted for the candidate with the least votes would have their second choices added to the pile instead. Hypothetically, let's say it was the BNP candidate got knocked out – and most of those 'second choice' votes would be for the Conservative candidate, edging him above the Labor candidate with the most votes.

It's slightly complicated and involves an additional step in the voting process (ticking more than one box.) It also stands to significantly redefine which parties eventually get into power.

Which is, in all honesty, the reason the Lib Dems and smaller parties are so keen on it.

Currently, they are vastly outnumbered in parliament and they believe that AV would give them more of a shot at winning seats. Many in the Labor party – realizing that they're basically unelectable for the next decade – also support AV because most Lib Dems would put their second choice vote down as Labor rather than Conservative, and give Labor candidates who would have traditionally lost an election the boost in votes they'd need to win.

Which is why, after carefully considering the system, I don't support it.

Because essentially, it's being touted only by the parties who never win in the first place - so that they can cynically get seats in parliament that they don't deserve. Their motive? Democracy didn't work, so finagling the system might. It's basically a referendum to rig the ballot boxes and I don't think that's right.

I can understand supporters of minority parties who feel frustrated that their candidates never wins – but that's politics.

If your message doesn't appeal to enough people, it might be time to start rethinking it; rather than trying to change the system to get your way regardless.

European Elections are a Total Waste of Time

Today sees the biggest trans-national election in history - during which almost 500 million Europeans will have the chance to elect the 736 members of the European Parliament who will go and represent them in the European Union.

One tricky aspect of the European elections is that they're a TOTAL load of bunk.

The European Parliament is one of the most pathetic, powerless organizations in Democratic history. All major decisions - proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and generally running the EU - are made by the European Commission, the 'executive' of Europe itself, not the European Parliament.

The European Commission runs the EU. There are 27 European Commissioners, one for each country, and none of them are elected. They're selected by their nation's government (removing the voter from the equation entirely.)

The only body to whom the European Commission is accountable is the European Council - made up of the heads of state of all 27 member nations (effectively, the people who selected the European Commission in the first place.)

The European Commission can MAKE laws. They can EXECUTE laws. They can ENFORCE laws. In contrast, the European Parliament - the only body us Euro-plebs are permitted to elect, can do none of these things.

The European Parliament, in contrast to just about every Democratic parliament currently in existence, does not have the power of 'legislative initiative.' They can't make laws - only vote for laws proposed by the European Commission.

The EU Parliamentary Complex in Strasbourg

(...and history has shown that only 15% of such laws failed to pass the Parliamentary process - effectively making them little more than a rubber stamp for the unelected, unaccountable European Commission.)

In fact, the European Parliament's only real power is in being what's described as a 'pan-European soapbox.' They have the ear of the European Union's journalists and that's about it.

As far as actual power goes, the European Parliament is limited to issuing non-binding resolutions and forming committees. They are the ultimate demonstration of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.

They don't even have any real power over the European budget: The (unelected, unaccountable) European Commission controls the 'compulsory spending' and the European Parliament is thrown the 'non compulsory spending' as scraps, which they can bicker over while the real powers in Europe go about their business.

So while it is important for people in Europe to go out and vote today, nobody should kid themselves that it's going to make any difference.

The European Union is run by an unaccountable elite, who make decisions affecting everybody in the EU with a sort of detached, disdainful attitude. They're not subject to the voter's whims because, well, the voters can't be trusted with making decisions of this magnitude!

Just look at Ireland's referendum in 2008; in which normal, everyday voters were allowed to decide on adopting the 'European Constitution.' What happened? The voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.

The European Commissioners were quivering with anger. "Why couldn't the bloody Paddies just rubber stamp the damn Constitution like every other country in Europe had?"

The European Union is ridiculously undemocratic - which means, sadly, that just about every vote cast in the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections will be an entirely wasted one.