Double-edged Sword of Voter Awareness Websites
I've been browsing a several websites established to help voters make informed choices based on parliamentary candidates' views.
Many sites use email to canvas candidates on questions ranging from "do you support homoeopathy to "should open source software be used in government."
My first thought about this was great, get the voters engaged in politics. Help people make an informed decision on who will represent them in parliament for the next 4-5 years.
Then along come the mass-email campaigns. Email your candidate to find out their thoughts on "the draconian Digital Economy Bill" or abortion policy.
Again I thought great! Get clued up instead of voting blind.
But as such sites and campaigns multiply as the election approaches I've seen the other side. Faced with an upsurge of voter correspondence, sometimes on technically complex issues, the candidates are faced with a difficult choice.
If they spend too much time researching a particular subject they will have less time to respond to other voters in email, on the doorstep, by phone or letter.
Send a duff response and their stupidity could become viral!
Ignoring an email from an irate voter with 1,000 followers on Twitter may also be unwise, and then there's the party templates. Checking a few campaign forums I see posters comparing identical letters from MPs in different constituencies. Not a great impression on the voter.
It's marginally ironic however that some campaigners complaining about MPs using template replies themselves used a template "contact your MP" service to make the initial complaint!
So how would you want your candidate to respond to your email? A few quick words from the heart explaining that he's aware of the problem but would need more time to research? Or do you crave a fully-researched formal letter?
Are you concerned that some candidates could be farming out your query to helpers? Any reply may not be the view of the candidate, just something that looked good and met broad party criteria.
With an average of around 70,000 qualifying voters in each constituency it would take around 15 months if a candidate spent just 10 minutes dealing with each. That's 24 hours a day for 15 months!
Can voter resource websites and campaign "email your candidate" tools do more to avoid duplication? A simple background check on a candidate's website may reveal his or her views on renewable energy, Digital Britain, gay rights etc.
Instead of firing out emails by default can they not first check whether or not there's already some information in the public domain?
I have sympathy for candidates - much more than I do for serving MPs - because many candidates have a day job. They may be on sabbatical in the run up to the big day but they don't have a staffed private office to deal with the correspondence. They have a campaign manager, volunteers and many hours to spend each evening walking the streets. That's not to mention the towers of leaflets to deliver!
I'm not griping about voter engagement, I just feel technology could do a bit more to minimise duplication in this instance.