Can UKIP’s flirtation with proportional representation be made to work to increase democracy?

There is a lot of talk of proportional representation (PR) following UKIP’s failure to win more than one seat in the general election.  UKIP obtained third place in terms of the number of votes cast but came in at second or third place in the results in each constituency.

Proponents of PR claim that this is inherently unfair and leaves those who voted for UKIP effectively unrepresented.

Those who support the current First Past the Post system (FPTP) currently used in UK elections point out that each constituency votes for an MP to represent them in Parliament and it is only fair that they are represented by the individual or party obtaining the most votes.  They say that PR would lead to continual coalitions of the sort that has led to the devastation of the Liberal Democrats, and power without responsibility as non-constituency MPs are effectively responsible to no-one, being proposed by their parties and appointed in proportion with the percentage of the vote given to their party.

There is a way to address all of these concerns and increase the degree of democratic representation.  It would work like this:

Each person would have two votes. The first vote, as now, would be to choose the candidate they wish to represent them.  The second would be to state whether that person would wield their proxy vote or whether they would retain that for themselves.

If a voter retains his proxy vote then he is given a secure log in and votes of each section of each bill passing through Parliament.

Those who are happy for their choice of representative to vote on their behalf will have allocated their proxy vote to whoever they voted to represent them, but only the candidate with the  most votes actually goes to Parliament and does all of the things an MP does.  The unsuccessful candidates do not go to Parliament but have their own log in and vote their block votes as allocated to them by the voting public.

We have the technology.  Fears of hacking and fraud do not prevent us banking online or doing any of the other online activities that have become part of everyday modern life.

Safeguards would be needed to prevent persecution of the minority.

Most important would be the re-instatement of the real Lords in the House of Lords creating a brake on popular but extreme policies.  Most importantly, the re-introduction of the Monarch’s veto.  The Lords given the power to block bills if 30% vote against them, and bills in the Commons only pass if the combined votes of MPs, those wielding proxy votes and the public amounted to 70% in favour.

In order to cut the reams of already existing restrictive legislation add a sunset clause to each Act passed so that unless it is re-passed in five years time, and every five years thereafter it is automatically repealed.  All Acts passed five years ago to be revisited or automatically repealed, and pass on back through the years, one year back for every two years that pass.

The result would be a democracy where everyone had a say and where ideas had to enter the mainstream majority before they could be enforced on the population as a whole.