What is a fairer and more appropriate electoral system for Local Bodies?

While I have never been a fan of this tier and layer of public representation (I prefer the village council for each village on an equitable basis instead), if we must have this tier of elected officials, whose job surely is to satisfy LOCAL needs of people who live in their areas, and NOT DEFENCE OR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, or even NATIONAL HEALTH, EDUCATION OR TRANSPORT POLICY, then why do we need political parties at this tier of government?

They merely mimic, copy, and fool the people into believing “A political party is right for them to choose and they will always make the right decisions, and so at all tiers of elections, it is to that party they should show allegiance and therefore give their vote.” THAT IS SIMPLY UTTER RUBBISH

Village politics is dominated by life in the village, by what is right and wrong in the village, and of those who have taken advantage of their wealth, using the political power, and state officials in their palm, to break the rules, if not laws, which in turn harm the rest of the village, and in turn harm the community which transfers finally into harming the Country.

This could mean in the areas of Environmental Degradation, which usually directly affects local people, who have to live with that tragedy even before it takes a legal course that could last years for justice, if that ever happens.

This means then that it is better for about 4 to 5 GN divisions, to elect a representative for that area ONLY, who the voters believe will satisfy their immediate needs. Anyone could seek election, from the richest to the poorest, but to make it practical, a refundable deposit of Rs50,000 should be placed, (refundable if the votes received exceed say, 15% of the votes cast) so that only those serious about having a chance will put their hat in the ring.

With 15,000 GN divisions, we will have 3,000 elected representatives in Local Government, still too much, but at least manageable, with a people’s representative for each area, whose task it is to represent their interests as the basic requirement.

In this system it is likely that despite the requirement that the principle abode of the candidate MUST be within their electoral area, a wealthy person could throw money around to buy votes. However, he or she should understand that it is an onerous task, as he is responsible for all the people, those who voted for him and those who did not. So unless money is thrown for personal glory, it still has to follow that people will vote for a plan that is being proposed by that local worthy, that is better than the other candidates, if he wins by receiving the most votes.

Remember there are NO preference votes, so under the present system you are voting for the party nominee. So you don’t have ANY say on the individual. In my proposal it is the INDIVIDUAL you are voting for, no one else, NOT party, he may or may not belong to a party, which is NOT relevant in this case. So there is more trust in the person, something which is more important in local government politics, which even present politicians would attest to than the proposed system of lists and names, none of whom are assured of being liked by the people who elect them. This is a fundamental flaw in the proposed system, which my proposal will definitely overrule, being an improvement.

So effectively we will have a Local Authority made up exclusively of independent candidates. One may say that is IMPOSSIBLE to govern, and favors will have to be traded to ensure some form of compromise. Well that is true and SO IT SHOULD. Just think about it horse-trading happens even now in all forms of government and especially local government.

In fact horse trading by independent elected representatives is BETTER because they are trading needs for their community with needs of others, SO I will vote for you to have public toilets in your town, if you allow me to approve a road cleaning plan for mine. In this way there will be NO political infighting and each elected representative can go back home and tell his people he was able to gain this for them. We merely have to equitably distribute limited resources of our community.

After all politics is in any way about compromise, in this case it is compromise on behalf of electors, and AT PRESENT it is about compromise, to get contracts for oneself, while allowing your colleagues the same as long as you both shut up about it, and don’t make a stink about it! WHAT IS BETTER, I ASK YOU THE READER?

It is clearly obvious, that in the spirit of LG Elections, my proposal will ensure, MORE equity for the voter, have fewer local representatives, have a chance of implementation, less chance of corrupt practices, as there will likely be village elders who have a standing in the community being elected, over merely the wealthy, and the wealthy will only join the fray as an altruist rather than a rogue.

I welcome comments from readers, as to why they think it is worse than what is proposed. If there is on balance a consensus that this is a better method, we can immediately replace this Act with my Act as the public will scream for it, and the elected politicians who are still legitimate, that is only Parliament, will have to listen to the people for once. THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE.

For self-interested, Politicians who see their advantage weakened by this proposal, it is ONLY massive public demand that can change their mind. They don’t understand anything complex anyway, this simple system is easy to communicate both to the voter and to the Members of Parliament, who are intellectually highly challenged. SURELY THIS IS THE BEST FOR THE COUNTRY!