Turnout in May 2014 local council elections: 35.7%

Turnout in London Mayoral elections 2012: 31.0%

Turnout in UK Parliamentary elections 2010: 65.1%

(Courtesy of electoralcommission.org)

Turnout in 2013 Australian general election: 93.23% (usually fluctuates between 96% and 93%)

And yet they call us a ‘representative democracy’. From the figures we see above, the government is currently only representative of 65.1% of the public (I personally believe it’s representative of 0% of the public, considering no one voted for a coalition, but that’s another blog…), with local councils being even worse. However this is not wholly their fault, in fact the worst part is it’s technically the fault of the public – officials in power simply capitalise on whatever support they get, and take it as their sovereignty.

It is unfair to compare turnout rates in the UK to turnout rates in Australia, predominantly due to Australia’s system of compulsory voting; if you don’t vote you are asked to give a reason why, and if the reason is deemed insufficient you may be fined up to $170 – quite a good way to whip people into voting. However the most important part of this system of voting is the inclusion of a ‘none of the above’ option. This gives the public who are not enticed by any party standing in the election, or those who are adverse to the concept of sovereign rule completely to express their views without having to spoil their ballots, protest vote, or simply not turn up.

The inclusion of both compulsory voting and the ‘none of the above’ option would increase participation in elections in the UK substantially, and hopefully (as a by-product) increase interest and knowledge in politics. Most importantly, it would make our democracy that we clutch so dearly to work slightly better – no longer would people who hadn’t turned out to vote, yet still insist on critiquing the government because of stories they’ve heard from the media of which they actually have no idea about, be accused by people like me of having invalid arguments because they didn’t actually try to impact the election that put the government they so hate into power in the first place. (Of course, people like me would still accuse them of having little knowledge of the things they are pretending to be experts in, thus their arguments remain invalid, but hopefully having compulsory voting might entice people to actually take an active interest in politics). And governments might actually be able to call themselves sovereign, or accountable, due to the almost total participation of everyone making a decision on what they want.

However, I would take the ‘none of the above’ option slightly further, and treat it as if it were an actual candidate. If the option has the most support in a constituency (in a general election), that constituency would be subject to another election, until a winner other than ‘none of the above’ was found. Hopefully, this would help parties to make better policy and actually try to win people’s opinion with substantiated manifestos, while actually interesting people in politics slightly more; I’m quite certain people would not enjoy continuous compulsory elections due to a consistent ‘none of the above’ victory, so rather than paddling in disillusionment, maybe the public would take an interest – alongside the changing of party policy to better represent their wants and needs, people may actually start to vote rationally.

Of course, this view is very idealistic, and I’m sure in practice there would be far more difficulties in implementing it, or people simply wouldn’t behave in the way I would hope for them to in my head (the beauty of political science is you never can really precisely predict an outcome, and the beauty of that is that no one can ever tell you that your prediction is wrong (until it happens) because, without it actually happening there is no perfect precedent to go on), however in my opinion it would be a step towards a more representative government within our representative democracy, as well as a step towards educating the public on politics and the issues surrounding it.

Throughout the ages, the most hated people have undoubtedly been politicians. From Hitler to Obama, not one of them has gone without hateful cartoons, widespread discontent, and general dislike. This has led me to wonder, what is the perfect politician? What would his/her traits be? What would their life story be? Having studied people’s likes and dislikes of both humans and politicians, I’ve created a list of a few of the main features this ‘perfect politician’ would need (I’m sure I’ve missed out plenty of other massively important traits, but this is at least a foundation).

1) They must be charming, charismatic and interesting

Probably one of the most important features of the perfect politician. By being charming and charismatic, they can pretty much forget about the other important features, as they can hide the majority of their mistakes and short-fallings behind a façade of schmoozing and flirting. I’m pretty sure if Will Smith was a politician, his smooth, charismatic side would be more than enough to hide any public disgrace or political corruption. What I’m basically saying is people like Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are not quite at that standard. Obama’s not doing too badly though, the majority of people outside America seem to believe he’s some kind of charm idol.

2) Alongside charm, being physically attractive

It hasn’t been a major factor, but people generally like and react better to things that are aesthetically pleasing, I believe politicians are no different. For example, Paul Ryan (Mitt Romney's running mate for the 2012 election) and his fan club of crazy young women, it’s no wonder the first suggestion on Google images is this:

 Not to mention the ‘workout’, ‘p90x’, ‘working out’ and ‘body’. People don’t want policies, people want biceps, abs and a jawline (in a male politician, obviously the criteria for a female politician would be far more based around boobs, bums and the likes). Put Jennifer Lawrence/Aniston, or even Lucy Pinder up for election and there would be a landslide.

3) Must be around the pre-middle-aged stage

If a politician is too old, they’re considered ‘out of touch’ by the younger generations, and yet if they’re too young they’re in prime position to be called a ‘career politician’ or simply just be too inexperienced to the older generations. The whole concept of age in politics is a grey area; an area with no clear middle-ground, so I’d suggest the mid-30s as a fair compromise for both.

4) Has worked a job in every single damned sector of employment

Including retail, catering, business, accounting, law, authorities, arts, sport, cleaning, public services, and all the other possible career paths. This would create a politician with no chance of being named a career politician (although they may not be able to keep a job), and one with some form of experience in everyone’s career, maybe even some expertise in one or two. Their empathy would increase tenfold. 

5) Perfect example of social mobility

Their preferable life story would be: Born into low income family on benefits in council housing, somewhere surrounded by different cultures of equally poor families, gaining understanding of everyone’s situation by childhood friendships. Going to a low-achieving secondary school but still achieving highly, gaining at least 3As at A2, and going to a respectable university (but not Oxbridge, all politicians are Oxbridge). Doing well at university and leaving with a masters, and getting a job (in every sector mentioned in the previous point) while leading a middle class life. Becomes a politician and hits the elite life, but still has empathy for all the other classes. Basically they need to have this as their theme tune (just with less explicit language, and less dick-headed-ness):

(for the iPad/iPhone users that can't see this: click here)