Modern society is now far too complex to be represented on the basis that any individual Member is truly typical of or has superior abilities to the constituents he or she represents. Indeed, as we shall see in a moment, many of his or her constituents will be far more able across a far wider spectrum of knowledge and experience than is the Member of Parliament. The attempt to continue in work while being elected to the Westminster Parliament can neither simulate a grass root contact, nor be seen as anything other than an unwarrantable distraction which invites a host of conflicts of interest. That such dichotomy is to the obvious personal advantage of the Member in both monetary and career terms is part of the case now to change the system.
12) The representing a party argument is possibly the most serious aspect of a Member of Parliament's inability to represent his or her electorate in a fair and impartial manner. The overtones of class referred to in the historical argument are present very strongly in the party political structures of British politics. Few electors actually belong to political parties and yet the political parties take it upon themselves to devise and present policy programmes which they then claim the electorate has voted for in every detail. It does not take a very exhaustive search of Hansard to find references to "betrayal" of the electorate by those members who have the temerity to "cross the floor of the House" by changing their Party allegiance. But well under five per cent of those voters who actually turn out to vote at elections, are members of these groupings called political parties. And the Honourable Members describe this as democracy? Truly, Parliament has become the place where minorities called Parties are represented.
13) The intellectual fraud argument is built on the claim by governments, constituted of the members of political parties, to be "mandated" on the basis of a manifesto containing hundreds of policy proposals and endorsed as a package by each elector’s single vote. Because the vote is for a candidate this situation would not be repaired by a "proportion representation" system (which anyway is proportionally representing the Parties, not the people). Even worse, elected government will repudiate any sensible and well-supported proposal contained in their losing opponents' manifesto - an important, if negative, breach of any contract to “serve the will of the people”.
12) The representing a party argument is possibly the most serious aspect of a Member of Parliament's inability to represent his or her electorate in a fair and impartial manner. The overtones of class referred to in the historical argument are present very strongly in the party political structures of British politics. Few electors actually belong to political parties and yet the political parties take it upon themselves to devise and present policy programmes which they then claim the electorate has voted for in every detail. It does not take a very exhaustive search of Hansard to find references to "betrayal" of the electorate by those members who have the temerity to "cross the floor of the House" by changing their Party allegiance. But well under five per cent of those voters who actually turn out to vote at elections, are members of these groupings called political parties. And the Honourable Members describe this as democracy? Truly, Parliament has become the place where minorities called Parties are represented.
13) The intellectual fraud argument is built on the claim by governments, constituted of the members of political parties, to be "mandated" on the basis of a manifesto containing hundreds of policy proposals and endorsed as a package by each elector’s single vote. Because the vote is for a candidate this situation would not be repaired by a "proportion representation" system (which anyway is proportionally representing the Parties, not the people). Even worse, elected government will repudiate any sensible and well-
