I normally have a lot of time for Peter Tatchell. Of course his economic ideas are away with the fairies but he\’s very sound on civil liberty and free speech matters. But this is absurd:
There could be multi-member constituencies representing the different nations and regions that comprise the UK, with alternate/preferential voting (1, 2, 3), and with voters being required to vote for an equal number of male and female candidates to ensure gender parity in the new chamber.
Absurd in two ways.
Firstly, that even if voters do \”have\” to vote for equal numbers of XX and XY (and what about all the other haplotypes, eh? Ten more to go aren\’t there?) it won\’t ensure gender parity. For you couldof course simply give first and second preferences to men and third and fourth to women (in a four member constituency) and there wouldn\’t be gender parity.
The second is the absurdity of insisting that democracy be so curtailed. Either we get to vote for whoever we damn well like in the polling booth, in which case we have at least a claim to be democratic, or we don\’t get to decide for ourselves in which case we simply ain\’t a democracy any more.