Improvements to the blunt instrument of Democracy

Here we are, 2 years away from the next General Election in the UK (unless the Lib Dems break the coalition early).  You can feel the attention of the political parties switching from government & opposition to getting (re)elected.  I can feel my frustration rising at the ineptitude and energy-sapping effect of the whole process.

There are a million articles on this whole subject, and I have read a few good ones - why should I add another one?  Partly it's cathartic for me, so it matters little if no-one is reading. 

However I also want to start a campaign for offering solutions rather than just erudite critiques and analyses of the problem.  It doesn't matter that I am no expert on government or political parties, it doesn't matter that my solutions are undoubtedly flawed and lacking in detail.  I am the common man, and I want government in my name.  The more of us who propose solutions, no matter how sketchy or oddball, the more we are contributing to the democratic process and stimulating the right kind of debate.

Government in my name is perhaps the biggest challenge for democracy, because a system of 2, 3 or even 4 major parties ensures that a very sizeable minority did not vote for the government policies in any given government.  This is compounded by governments wilfully failing to adhere to their election manifestos.  Of course government of any colour is a matter of flexibility and compromise, because no country is immune from external economic factors and unexpected events.  They should however stick to their principles.

Before my constructive inputs, let me comment on my frustrations in the political sphere that pertains in Aug 2013.  

• the Conservatives have just hired Jim Messina, an American re-election strategist who worked in both Obama (democrat!) campaigns, and he will stay in the USA and report to both Australian Lynton Crosby (Election Advisor, and co-founder of CTF Partners referred to as a lobbying firm and accused of working for 'big tobacco'), and Grant Shapps (Party Co-Chairman, user of alter egos and founder of PrintHouse Corporation and HowToCorp, accused of plagiarising web content and false testimonials) - so we can believe everything we're going to be told there then
• the Lib Dems are trapped on the underside of the coalition - we hear little about the good they have done, and much about their failures - they will disappear almost with trace unless they are far more assertive in publicising their positive activities and explaining the necessary compromises
• Labour are doing exactly what I am struggling against, they criticise without having credible alternatives - many people, including within their party, are saying they don't know what they stand for now
• the minority parties get almost no coverage in the press - I have no idea what they are thinking and achieving
• the press in any case, even those with the best intentions, acts as a filter - as a common man I don't have the time or expertise to root out the facts behind the issues they choose to publicise, let alone the issues they ignore

Here are my solutions:
1. enforce manifestos to have a common framework of headings under which the party defines their track record, their view of the challenges and their policies for managing and improving the situation nationally - then the electorate can effectively compare credibility, understanding and intention
2. individual candidates must then produce more detail within this manifesto framework, both consistent with the national approach and relevant to their area - then the electorate can compare the local view in the national context
3. a single non-commercial website, managed say by the electoral commission, should allow an equal amount of space to every party and each candidate, or independent, to hold the manifesto information at no cost - then we have a single version of the truth both before and after the election
3. move to proportional representation - then we have a better mix of representation, with more people having cast some kind of vote (2nd or even 3rd choice) for elected representatives (and until then, vote on the basis of your local candidates rather than the national party)
4. severely restrict spending on election campaigns, and also the methods of raising money, using a fixed amount per candidate that is inversely proportional to the number of candidates in the party, which has the effect of supporting minority parties whose voices are so often drowned out - then we have a slightly less uneven playing field
5. monthly live debates on TV between the leaders of all parties to address questions raised by the public (only those public who voted in the last election) - running throughout the life of the parliament, with only the last 3 months devoted to electioneering
6. allow for an electorate to remove their representative

... there's more, this will do for a start.