I write things because I think I've got something that's worth reading. I create websites because the people I make them for have something worth showing off. I talk because, more often than not, I have something worth saying.

I vote because I want the people that work for me to do their job.

In 2005, I voted for Labour - not because I wanted to vote for Labour, but because I knew that tactically, it was my only real choice. Last year, I emplored everyone to abandon tactical voting and use their vote properly, because I – somewhat naively – believed that the party I normally vote for, the Lib Dems, had a real chance at securing some sort of power.

Tactical, Schmactical

Looking back, it was inevitable, really, that in the last push to get votes, the different camps would turn around and employ methods of scaring people into persuading them back into voting tactically. Their weak explanation was simple: there are only two real choices in modern day politics - those of the Conservative and Labour parties.

Thing is, though, I'm neither a Conservative nor a Labour supporter. Sure, I've voted Labour since my I received my first polling card, but I've never really supported the full ideals of either party. I don't think I'm alone either.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is a large portion of the population who support other parties. Some of these people vote for the party they support - which is what I started doing last year. Others succumb to the tactical voting crowd, voting for – in their mind – the lesser of two 'evils'. More worryingly, however, is the remainder who develop a level of apathy to the whole idea, and simply don't vote. Don't get me started on that topic.

Our current voting system - first past the post - encourages and fosters this, meaning that those who represent us at the highest level of politics are elected, in some cases, by the tiniest of majorities. It also gives us outcomes where the parties that run our country often have more of the seats in parliament, but less of the votes of the populace.

First Past the Post and the Alternative Vote

Many celebrities, more articulate than I, have waxed lyrical about the Alternative Vote. Where FPTP forces you to think tactically and vote that way, should you so desire, AV completely wipes out the need for tactical voting, since you can vote with your principles in mind. Both voting methods are explained in the Electoral Commission's video, shown below:

Looking back to the results of the General Election in 2010 for Warwick and Leamington we can see that Chris White of the Conservatives was elected as our member of parliament. The results, sourced from Wikipedia, are shown below:

It has to be assumed that some of the people who voted for Labour did so because they felt that the party they really wanted to vote for had no real chance of winning the election. I expect that, in the case of AV, there will be plenty of UKIP voters who would probably have the Conservatives as their second choice.

It's impossible to know how people would have voted using AV in the last election, because – simply – they didn't. I expect that, with the fear of having 'wasted your vote' lifted from people's shoulders, they would vote with their heart as opposed to voting with someone else's head, and that the results would have been very different.

Would Alan Beddow have triumphed? Would James Plaskitt have retained his seat? Would Chris White have won anyway? I don't know – but I'd like to find out next time.

It's not Rocket Science

There are some who say that it should be one vote for one person – it is. You still only get one vote, it's just that if your first choice is eliminated, your next choice gets your single vote. Some say the system is too complicated. I say the public are cleverer than these people give them credit – if, as these people say, the general populace is incapable of ranking candidates in order, then we are truly screwed.

Others say that they only want to vote for one person – that's fine, just make sure you don't put any numbers higher than 1 on your ballot paper. Today, people are, have and will be voting for representatives of their local and county councils, as well as on the referendum. In the case of local and county council elections, you often have more than one vote. For instance, in Warwick and Leamington, we have 3 votes for the county council and 5 for the local council. It's not rocket science.

Another argument against AV is that it doesn't offer a fair representation. Take a look at the table below:

To FPTP supporters, that's a fair outcome. To AV supporters, it's far less fairer than having a government where the number of seats a party occupies tallies a little better with the number of votes they received during the election.

If seats were put in proportion the number of votes received by the populace, this is how things would look:

AV is a step towards fixing that problem, ensuring that each elected member has the backing of at least 50% of their constituency.

Why I'm voting Yes

However, the biggest reason for me voting yes, is simple. I don't want to have to vote tactically, and I don't want everyone else to vote tactically. I want them to choose how they want to vote, unencumbered by the fear that, because their person doesn't stand a chance means they can't vote for the person they want to.

Some say that AV is a compromise. Sure it's not the system that everyone wants, and it's not a completely representational system – only changes in boundaries can make sure that our population is represented in a fairer fashion – but if this fails, there's very little chance we'll get another shot in the foreseeable future.

The referendum gives us a chance to make sure the people's voice is being heard, and gives them a chance to feel that their choice matters. For me, voting yes means my voice, and the voices of others who feel they're not being listened to, will be heard a little clearer.

People aren't stupid. Let's not treat them that way.

Dear Chris,

Firstly, congratulations on your election to Parliament as the MP for Warwick and Leamington.

I'm guessing your first few days there must be a lot like your first few days at secondary school - learning the new systems and protocols, everything being exciting, disconcerting and humbling in equal measures.

But I'm guessing it's also like going to a school where all the teachers are having a bit of a silent protest. Whilst I'm sure it would have been nice to have hit the ground running and started doing some real, political work, I'm guessing we've dealt ourselves a representative government. It's just a shame that, under the current system, it can't seem to do anything with itself.

I don't know which way the alliance will go - whether the Liberal Democrats will side with your party, or whether they'll choose to become part of a 'progressive alliance' with the Labour party, the independents and the other left-of-centre MPs - and I'm guessing that whilst you've probably been sounded out on it, you know little more than us. 

I also don't know how long an alliance will last, whether it will be long enough to truly pass any electoral or political reform, or whether it will gain widespread support. The last thing I want to see is MPs voting in their party's interests over their constituency's interests, however, especially on matters as important as representation.

It's for these reasons that I'm getting in early, before the campaigns for everyone to contact their MP begins, to ask you to support electoral reform. We've got a real chance to change our voting system to a new one, picked from a selection of those which are successfully used in other parts of the world, in Europe, and even here in the UK. It was a proportional voting system which saw Boris Johnson elected as the Mayor of London, and one which saw the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elected fairly, and represented proportionally by their electorate.

Having looked into systems such as Single Transferrable Vote and the Additional Member System (also known as MMP in New Zealand, where it's used for parliamentary elections), I can't help but think something like this, with a fixed-term parliament, where a prime minister is decided by the party who has the greatest number of seats, would work wonders for this country. 

I think the majority of the country would like to see changes to the constitution which make outcomes like this the norm, in which hung parliaments aren't a problem, but an opportunity to shape policy and law based on the wishes of the country. I expect what we'll likely see is an enhanced Alternative Vote (or AV+) system at first, before a full transition to a full proportional representation system. 

It's about time that we saw all of our elected MPs working together, not simply blocking electoral reform because it goes against the wishes of the party. A first hand demonstration that coalition governments can work in the UK, just as they work in other countries around the world. Think about it: under these systems, David Cameron would be Prime Minister, sitting in number 10 by now, leading a democratic government which represented the wishes of the electorate. Sadly, it's not the case, and we're deadlocked in a process where parties are now battling it out to form alliances and gain a majority in the Commons. 

First Past The Post is a broken system, which only allows for massive disparity between representation and the popular vote. I believe it's time for a change.

When we spoke on the phone, prior to the election, you mentioned that if enough of your constituents were concerned about a particular topic, that you would always try to put your constituents' wishes first - even going so far as to go against the party whip.

I can't speak for the entirety of Warwick and Leamington, but I'm sure all of us would like to see a balanced parliament, full of politicians that actually represent our wishes. With that in mind, when the time comes for parliament to vote on electoral reform, please don't waste your vote by not using it, but actually vote in favour of reform.

 
Sincerely,
Anthony Williams

For what it's worth, I didn't expect to still be writing about politics today. I expected, along with many others, that there would be a hung parliament, but I had also thought, rather naively, that the parties would have had some sort of plan of what to do next. We've still got a Prime Minister, but we don't yet have a new Government.

All of the seats which took part in the election on Thursday night have now declared, with the final 650th seat - which will almost certainly remain tory - being elected in a few weeks' time. Three days have passed since I cast my vote, and the discussions are still ongoing. I had honestly believed that there would have been a pact or anti-Tory coalition, formed under the banner of a 'progressive alliance', which would have campaigned hard and tried for an immediate change to the electoral system.

The only problem is, under our current electoral system, even though a Lib-Lab coalition would have more seats than the conservatives, they still wouldn't have an overall majority in the Commons, so regardless of constitutional rights and who gets to seek to form a government first, it's perfectly reasonable that the current round of discussions are taking place without the incumbent ruling party.

To be fair to Nick Clegg, he's stuck to his word and has held discussions with the party which gained the largest share of votes and seats. It's refreshing, after all the expenses nonsense and back room deals that go on in politics, to have a leader of a party show some integrity and actually stick to his word.

"But it's the Conservative party," I hear you cry, "and they're not to be trusted!" Perhaps not, but the simple fact of the matter is that this is the first time in the Liberal Democrats' existence that the party has ever had true power - even if it is just a sliver of it - in it's grasp. No matter what the party believes, the simple fact is that unless it's wishes align with the larger, elected body of MPs, there's little chance of much of the Lib Dem manifesto actually manifesting itself in reality - and I hate to keep repeating myself here - under the current electoral system.

Perhaps in a Lib-Con pact, there's even less chance - but perhaps the Conservatives, desperate to form a government and kick Gordon Brown and the Labour party out of office, may make some concessions. It may be the only way that the Liberal Democrats will have any chance of getting their policies any real chance of getting passed, but there's nothing to stop the larger number of Tory MPs simply voting against any policy tabled by their unlikely bedfellows.

Time for Reform?

It's interesting to note that the only things that the Conservatives have offered any public sentiment in terms of a coalition are the policies in which the two parties are already in agreement. Political reform - not electoral reform - is on the Conservative agenda, but they have no plans of supporting proportional representation in any form.

You've heard David Cameron going on about it all through the election. He, and his party, want a strong, focused government; to hell with watered-down, proportional representation - it doesn't work, and he won't be able to get things done!

Except it does work, and you can get things done - it just needs a change in the way government thinks and works. If the electorate wants a strong, majority government, they'll vote for one. If not, they'll get a mixed parliament that actually represents the wishes of the country.

Here's an illustration of the problem (after 649 of 650 seats declared):

The main problem is disparity in the amount of votes cast and the number of seats won. Just look at the percentage difference between votes and seats. 

But think about it: using a system such as the Additional Member System (or Mixed-Member Proportional voting), as used in Germany, New Zealand and even here at home in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly, David Cameron would now be our Prime Minister, having secured the largest amount of popular support. The only thing that the larger parties are worried about is their influence reflecting (or, as the case may be, not reflecting) actual popular opinion, as opposed to an out-of-balance seats-versus-votes system, such as FPP.

Other systems are available, such as STV and AV, but these do little to change the outcome we've just had unless changes are made to the constituencies. These changes would result in larger, multi-member constituencies, whereby two or even three MPs were elected in a similar ways to how our councils work. The constituencies would either have no overall control or be majority controlled by a party.

As I've said publicly before, those who seek to block electoral reform are surely those who benefit from it.

Taking Time

Nick Clegg is a smart guy, and I'm sure his advisors are no idiots either, so I'm sure they'll be weighing up just how important this is to them. Even while the Conservatives are publicly suggesting that they want a stable coalition government - which is code for not wanting to call another election for another 4-5 years - they could still call for a general election to take place again in the near future.

Without voting reform, we're stuck with the system that got us here in the first place, and whilst "doing what is right for the country" is a noble cause, if the Lib Dems miss this opportunity to force a referendum on selecting a new, more representational method of choosing who runs our country in the future, then it's nost just a missed opportunity for them to be a party with more influence, but a missed opportunity for this country to get a parliament that actually represents it's electorate.

Here's hoping we get a change - a real change - in the way we vote in time for the next election, which is likely to be months, rather than years away.

Ever since Barack Obama's meteoric rise to popularity, every western political party leader has desperately tried to emulate his success, often through attempts to jump on the bandwagon of change.

Real change is needed in Britain: change from the politics of old, from the scandals of Westminster, from the influences of large corporations. I'd like the change that takes place to be one that lasts, one that benefits the entire country, not just the elite class, and certainly not vapid change with no substance or policies to back it up with.

For the first time that I can remember, the race to be the next governing party is one that really will be contested by three parties. Whatever your opinion of the US-style Leaders' Debates, they certainly catapulted Nick Clegg, and the Liberal Democrats with him, into the public spotlight, and made his party a credible choice in the election. For the first time, in many constituencies, a vote for the Lib Dems won't be a wasted one.

With that in mind, and the fact that we may not have an outright, first-past-the-post winner, I started thinking about what I'd like from our next parliament.

From the Parties

I'd like less scaremongering where parties try to fool us into believing that changes to the way we elect our government would be a bad thing. How would it be fair if a political party came third, in terms of the number of seats it held in Westminster, when it held the largest share of the popular vote? This is one area where our country needs real change - those that would block it are surely those who currently benefit from it.

I'd like the lies on hung parliaments to stop, and for parties to realise that the majority of us aren't scared by the prospect of a hung parliament, or a coalition government. The premise that things won't get done in this outcome is ludicrous - what actually happens is that laws, bills and policies founded on party principles, which may only benefit a disproportionate amount of the electorate, won't be passed as easily as they would have been by a single, majority-holding party. Imagine, if you will, a future where policies and laws are passed which actually reflect the popular opinion of the people who put their government in power!

I'd like more consultancy on big decisions that affect me and the country I live in, so I'd like our government to hold a referendum on anything, such as entry into the Euro, that would have a massive impact on our society.

I'd like a fully-elected House of Lords, purely on the basis that unelected peers are out of touch with, and have no real accountability to the population they are supposed to be serving.

On social and education matters

I'd like our society to have a benefits system that actually benefits our society. I believe that if you can work, and you are offered work, you should work. I think that too many people take a dishonest advantage of the myriad of benefit schemes in place. But I also believe that it's wrong that people actually receive more money in benefits because the tax system penalises low earners.

I'd like a fairer tax system, one which recognises that those who earn more can afford to contribute more to the country by way of tax. Some of the examples used by the party leaders could be slightly exaggerated, but I'm sure there are individuals in the upper echelons of our society who legally avoid paying tax by taking advantage of loopholes in tax law. If I was earning large amounts of money, I would expect to pay large amounts of tax. I don't think it's fair that I should pay less tax just because I'm married.

I'd like an education system that isn't tiered and which benefits everyone. As a parent-to-be, I'd like a system in which my children will have as much of a chance as anyone else's, with prospects of a good education unhampered by where I live or the amount our family earns.

On National Security

I'd like identity cards and the national identity database to be scrapped because I don't believe, for a minute, that a piece of plastic with a photo and a data chip will solve any real problem, especially any which involves national security or immigration.

I'd like our nuclear stockpile to be reduced because I think we should be joining the US and Russia in leading by example, with the noble goal of global nuclear disarmament. I don't necessarily think it should be completely eliminated immediately, but I also don't think that replacing Trident, like-for-like, is the best use of £80-100 billion.

I'd like our armed forces to be better funded because they do a fantastic job. I'm proud of my friends who serve and have served in many of our country's fine military institutions, but I've been genuinely scared for them when they've left for tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd like them to be trained at a sufficiently high level, given the right equipment for the job, and rewarded properly for the work they do.

On a more personal note

I'd like a more technologically-focused and capable government, one which realises that you don't need to spend billions upon billions of pounds to provide good, usable, accessible public services via the internet.

I'd like an MP that actually does something with his vote, because I believe it's hypocritical of MPs to tell us all that we should be out there using our vote - something I believe very strongly in - when they won't use theirs, especially when their constituents have voiced concerns or support for a particular bill or policy.

I'd like to hold my MP accountable for the things they do. If, as so many have in the past, my MP decides to try and scam the expenses system, or commit any other misconduct, then their constituents should have the power to recall them to a by-election.

Decision Time

No single party offers everything that I'd like, and I'm sure my priorities and desires won't align with everyone else in the country. More than anything, however, what I'd like is fairness. I'm not sure that the Conservative party understands what fair actually is. They have some grand ideas for 'Big Society', but when you look at it - along with their contract for change, which fell through our letterbox last night - it all just looks a bit forced.

I won't vote for Labour in Warwick, because I feel desperately let down by an MP who has told me that he didn't support a bill (or a war) but then didn't vote against it - that's not my idea of 'not supporting' something.

In a last ditch effort to try and influence the outcome, the non-Conservative-aligned press now wants you to employ tactical voting, or "intelligent voting" as it's called. Personally, I don't think there's anything intelligent about voting for someone you don't believe in - especially if the press are suggesting you do so - as this favours a two-horse race, something that, despite the press' constant, desperate claims to the contrary, this election is not.

This time, more so than ever, this election is about voting for who you feel you should, voting for the policies that matter to you. Which is why, tomorrow morning, I'll be voting for Alan Beddow (@AlanBeddow) and the Liberal Democrats (@LibDems).

The party whip was one of the subjects we were talking about on Tuesday evening at our Leamington Multipack meet-up, and something that bothers many people - Richard Cunningham (@rythie) in particular - was that no matter who you vote for, the party whip would still enforce MPs to vote on party-sensitive matters, despite what constituents actually want.

I asked both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates what they thought about this, and Chris White explained when he called, but I only got round to asking Alan in an email last night. He was kind enough to respond earlier today:

As a party we have a more relaxed approach to the party whip than the two old parties. There have been occaisions where our MPs have gone against the party line when the needs of their constituencies have come first. I hope I would do the same, after all you would be the boss.

Emphasis mine. He gets it.

Despite it really only being a two-horse race for me (see Why I won't be voting for James Plaskitt), Warwick and Leamington is really shaping up to be quite the battleground constituency. We've had door knockers for Labour and the Conservatives, I've had email conversations with James Plaskitt and Alan Beddow, and I spoke to Chris White on the phone this evening for a brief chat.

For the Liberal Democrats

Alan Beddow, who has some geek credentials as an IT Project Manager, got in touch on Monday. His email mentioned the Digital Economy Bill specifically, and it was interesting to hear what he had to say on the matter - specifically that Liberal Democrat policy will be to oppose it:

I have also been concerned about the Digital Economy bill and was one of the signatories to an emergency motion at our recent spring conference to debate this issue and we were able to get our policy amended. This was good news as one or two of our Lords and MPs had failed to spot the dangers, and those of us in the IT industry were able to put our case. I am happy to say that after this our party line has been to oppose this bill in its current form.

Alan was also keen to stress what they're planning on doing with regards to cutting waste using IT:

I have taken an active role in this group hosting an event at our party conference last year looking at how we can use IT to deliver better public services at a lower cost to the tax payer. Government IT Projects have had some bad press in recent years and having been involved in some I have a shrewd idea where the issue lies, and its not with the industry.

Having created websites for large companies, bodies in higher education and been involved in the quoting and procurement processes for some government websites in the past, I understand how IT projects can quickly get out of hand, with scope- and feature-creep causing problems when there's not a level head and strong project manager in charge. Even then, they can still spiral out of control.

If the Liberal Democrats get into power - either with a majority or in a coalition government - it will be interesting to see whether or not they can deliver on this - as a geek with the web at my heart, I certainly think it's the right direction to head in.

For the Conservatives

Chris White, a school governor who works in public relations, has no specific geek credentials as far as I can tell, but he does use a Mac, which is no bad thing - but certainly not a solid reason to vote for him. Chris' reply to my email offered nothing in the way of answers to any of my questions, only asking for a telephone number.

I obliged, and shortly after returning from my karate class, he called. For just over five minutes, we discussed listening to constituents, and Chris told me that if people take the time to call and get involved with an issue, then he would certainly make sure that he used his vote in parliament, going so far as to say that if enough of his constituents were supportive of or opposed to a particular topic, he'd suppot them, even if it went against the party line.

What now?

Both Chris and Alan were keen not to dismiss James or the Labour Party, and both spoke about what they would do, rather than attacking policies or practices of the other parties. I didn't get the chance to push Chris on his party's tactics of using very negative billboard advertising in the area - the smiling Gordon Brown posters - but then the Labour party are just as guilty of snide, useless advertising - "building a foundation vs. wearing it" springs to mind.

I'm going to be mulling it over right up until next Wednesday evening when I'm going to make my decision, but as the image above suggests, I think the Liberal Democrats are just edging out in front at the moment.

This election has caused me to think longer and harder about who I will cast my vote for than any other. Prior to the campaign getting in to full swing, my thoughts were restricted to a choice between the Labour and Conservative parties, with my thoughts on voting for the Liberal Democrats being that it would be a wasted vote (and look how wrong I was there).

I've been bored of our current caretaker PM for a long time, and I never liked the idea that there's someone running the country who I didn't actually vote for - and yes, before you comment, I know that I elected the party, not the prime minister - but my only perceived alternative always bothered me. I'm not really old enough to have experienced, first hand, the impact the last Conservative government had on our country, but my dad has enough vitriolic rhetoric on the subject to go round.

I want to try and make an informed decision, so given my recent interaction with him, I thought I'd scrutinise the MP that's done the job since 1997.

On the Digital Economy Act

James Plaskitt, our incumbent representative in the House of Commons, responded to my earlier email (see If you have a vote, make sure you use it!) asking for clarification on his voting practices that led to the passing of the Digital Economy Act:

I am keenly aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and the campaign that the Open Rights Group has organised is to be commended. The House of Commons spent around 8 hours over two nights debating the Bill. This follows more than three months of scrutiny in the Lords. I watched the whole debate. I did not support the bill.

I'm not entirely confident in the ability of a body of unelected individuals, many of whom are largely unaffected by the bill, to effectively filter what got to the Commons. Perhaps that's just me, but my opinion is that the Lords have nothing to fear, as they aren't voted into or out of power.

As for debate in the commons, 8 hours was nowhere near enough.

What really bothers me is the weasely way in which politicians use phrases, such as James' last one of that particular paragraph. "I did not support the bill." But he didn't vote against it either.

I didn't vote against the Bill because that would have killed it off completely, which I don't agree with. There are important issues raised in the Bill, which need an adequate debate. So voting against the Bill would not allow these issues to be raised, either now or in the next Parliament.

I hope you don't think I ducked out of this vote - I was up until midnight on both nights of the debate! I decided I couldn't support the Bill (the 'main vote' is to decide whether it should proceed), so I voted against my party whip. But I was concerned that if the Bill had been defeated completely, then we would miss out on a chance to debate these issues.

This is an area where I have little knowledge in the process of debate of Bills and Acts, but surely it's better to debate laws before rather than after they've been passed? And, as I've stated before, I couldn't care less whether my MP votes with his party, it's about whether he's representing his constituents' wishes.

In the case of the Digital Economy Act, I feel let down. My MP didn't represent me at that vote, and by abstaining, he wasted my vote.

On the Iraq War

There are tons of great tools on the web that allow you to see what your MP is up to. Gone are the days when the public record was difficult to access, decipher or understand, and I suspect many traditional MPs are quite uncomfortable about having their voting record easily accessible to the public.

James doesn't like these tools either. From an email James sent to me on April 8th:

I would respectfully recommend that you do not rely on such websites. In my experience they are notoriously unreliable at presenting an accurate voting record. Their methodology tends to take an average of YES versus NO votes on any particular issue to produce a conclusion like "Voted Moderately in Favour Of..". This gives no consideration whatsoever to the content of the clauses. Theyworkforyou still says that I voted in favour of the Iraq war. I did not.

Now, in fairness to James, he didn't vote in favour of the war. He wasn't present for the vote on the 'weapons of mass destruction' fiasco. He voted in favour of requiring a second UN security council resolution, voted that the case for war was unproven, and that the case for war was not established. He did, however, also vote in support of the government.

So, technically, James did not vote in favour of the Iraq war, but in what looks like it could be a pattern here, he wasn't present for the vote on the declaration of war. He didn't vote against it either.

Sound familiar?

On other issues

So in the two cases above, I would posit that by not voting, James actually allowed his constituents' wishes to go unvoiced in parliament.

Saddam Hussein was a really, really bad person but, whilst I can't speak for the whole of Warwick and Leamington, I expect the majority of the conurbation was opposed to the war. And, likewise, I think if enough of my neighbours actually knew what the Digital Economy Act entitled the government and media corporations to do to them, I think they'd be opposed to that too.

James Harrison has created an excellent website called Politics Posters, which encourages local candidates to come and talk to you based on the voting history of the constituency's last MP. For instance, if you live in the Warwick and Leamington constituency, you can download James Plaskitt's voting history as a poster.

Based on this, James voted:

• Moderately against a transparent Parliament
• Very strongly for introducing ID cards
• Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals
• Strongly for introducing student top-up fees
• Very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
• Moderately for the Iraq war
• Very strongly for replacing Trident
• Moderately against laws to stop climate change

Oh dear indeed.

In conclusion

I don't know what the other prospective parliamentary candidates would do differently, but I do know what James has done in the past. I suspect digging into each of the items above on the Public Whip website would reveal that he either did vote as suggested or abstained. I'd like my MP to do things differently, so I'll be voting for someone other than James Plaskitt on May 6th.

If you live in the Warwick and Leamington constituency, I'd urge you to do the same.

The right to vote is important, and if you have a vote, you should use it - it's no good complaining about the state of the UK if you didn't bother to try and shape its future. The wife and I will be casting our votes fairly early on May 6th - if it's a nice morning, we'll probably walk to the polling station, which is a 5 minute walk from our house - and I'd urge you all to do the same.

The recent passing of the Digital Economy Act has really annoyed me in this regard. Many of us used our vote at the last general election to put MPs in power that would make sure our voice was heard, but 410 406 MPs - four hundred and ten six - didn't bother using their vote, and didn't bother making the voices of thousands of concerned consitutents heard.

My local MP at the time, James Plaskitt, with whom I had a lengthy email discussion regarding the act, was one of these didn't use his vote. Many of these politicians will spin the fact that they did not vote into a claim that they did not support the bill, but whilst technically not voting against the bill can be classed as not supporting it, in this particular case I disagree.

Because my MP did not vote against the bill, I feel that my voice wasn't heard. So I've emailed him:

Hi James,

I wasn't sure if your parliament.uk email address would still be working, so I've emailed you at jamesplaskitt.com instead.

I've been reading through a lot of communications with the local parliamentary candidates, and I'm still - as yet - undecided as to who I'll be casting my vote for.

Everyone always talks about how important it is for us to use our vote - that if we want to make sure our voice is heard, that we need to use it. I'd say this is one of the most important things about democracy - actually using your vote and ensuring your opinion is counted.

Would you agree?

This is why the past few weeks have disturbed me a little - I've just been reading back through a few emails between us, regarding the Digital Economy Act, and one thing sticks out at me. Despite my email and our conversation, you didn't use your vote in the case of the Digital Economy Act. Not supporting the act and not voting against it are two entirely different things, yet many incumbent MPs have tried to suggest that they are one and the same.

I don't understand the intricacies of party politics - I'm guessing that by not voting, you wouldn't get in trouble with the party; by voting against the bill, perhaps you'd have potentially got into some trouble. Personally, I don't care about party politics or whether my MP gets in trouble with his party for actually acting for his constituents - I'd like an MP who listens to his local people - particularly those who take the time to get in touch - and acts upon their concerns.

One of your door knockers came round to see us last Thursday - and I mentioned that the Digital Economy Act is a point of great concern to me. I want to know what you and the Labour party are going to do about it. It's broken, and it desperately needs repealing and sorting out properly. As far as I can tell, the only party who have publicly pledged to do anything about that is the Liberal Democrats.

I'd love to get your thoughts on why you didn't use your voice... MY voice in parliament.

He's busy on the 27th of April, as are the other parliamentary candidates, so they can't join us at our Multipack event. But I'll let you know what he says if and when he responds.

Correction

I incorrectly suggested that 410 MPs didn't bother voting. It's actually 406, as the boundary changes which have taken place now weren't in place at the time of the Digital Economy Bill vote. It's still an appallingly high number.