UKC

No im not trolling so dont start, im asking a genuine question to which I am uncertain of the answer.

I don't vote when it comes to politics, Ive never understood enough about it to make a decision.

Is there any evidence that us voting in a particular MP makes any difference, is 4 years long enough for a party to make a difference in the long term.
Do MPs ever stick to their promises, do they not have other agendas that we arent aware?
Are those people who voted in a particular party / leader then partly responsible for the outcomes i.e. Thatcher, Blair (Iraq) etc?

Im interested in knowing if Im missing out and what UKCs views are please.

In reply to Pesda potato:

My view is that it would be wrong not to vote as the suffragettes went to a lot of trouble so I could. I also wouldn't want UKIP or BNP or whichever idiots to get in and get ideas so I vote against them.

In reply to Pesda potato:




Parliamentary terms are 5 years, although you could argue that normal service finishes after 4 years in the run-up to an election.


Trying to pin explicit promises to specific MPs isn't really what it's about. Political agendas are about the parties, so although you're voting for the MP in your local constituency, you're really voting for the party which you want to form the next Government. (In most cases - there are cases where a local MP is well-regarded and votes transcend party loyalties.)


Voting for a particular party doesn't make you responsible for the policies of that party. At most, you're demonstrating your support for the overall package of party policies. No-one knew that Blair was going to turn into a war-mongering nutter when he joined Bush in their Middle Eastern excursions, but circumstances changed - the actions of Al-Qaeda were more instrumental in affecting Western responses than anything that happened in the UK.


You're missing out on exercising your right to participate in the democratic processes which go towards making the country what it is. It's up to you to decide whether you think our democratic processes are worth participating in. Doing nothing - not voting - definitely won't achieve anything.

You're also missing out on the opportunity to make sure politicians know they're being listened to. The fewer people vote, the more the politicians will get away with. It's often forgotten that they're there to serve the people, and not the other way round.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Democracy is sham, but it certainly is the least worst system we could have. You could take the view that by not voting, you're kind of saying that you don't care whether you live in a democracy or a dictatorship, thereby metaphorically mooning all those round the world who live under dictatorships.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree. I will force myself to vote for my perceived least worst option.

In reply to Pesda potato:

If you're genuinely ambivalent about the system you live in, how it treats you and others then you're probably right not to vote. The thing is I bet you're not *totally* ambivalent, I bet you do have ideas about the society you'd like to live in, the issues you want to see prioritized so saying 'I don't know enough to decide' is just plain lazy. If you don't know about something then why not do some research and spend a few moments thinking about it.

Yeah, in the grand scheme of things your vote probably (usually) doesn't count for much, and it may ultimately turn out to be counterproductive but if you don't make the effort it counts for *nothing*.

jk

In reply to Pesda potato:

I don't vote either, used to but came to believe my vote does not really count for much. I'm not a great believer in party politics and don't think that having one vote every 5 years can go any way to representing my views on a lot of complicated issues i.e one party does not represent my views on everything.

Most people tell me I have to vote because people fought to get the vote, or they say I should vote for the party I dislike the least, but that seems to be asking the condemned man which way he'd like to die, same result just different method.

I would really like to vote on issues not for a parliament i.e a more involved democracy, though the only way this would come to pass is if MP's voted themselves out of a job so it's not going to happen.

In reply to Pesda potato:

You did indeed ask a genuine and a good question.

Others replied that one vote may not seem to amount to much. (I really understand the sentiment.) That's true until you live/ have lived in a country where no-one gets a vote (I have, in 3 such places, for many years).

In reply to Pesda potato:

Do your history.. People fought and died for the right to vote( as I tell my daughters often enough, women 100 years ago were killed,and went on hunger strikes so they could have the right to vote). Look at people in other countrys who yearn for this simple right.Get off your backside.

If you are below 30 then your vote is even more important, otherwise the younger generation will be ignored by politicians.

In reply to Pesda potato:

I'm quite lucky this time, I will voting for a candidate who I know, like and respect. She is likely to win, represents the party that I believe to be the least worst option and voting for her is, in a close contest, a very definitely a vote against a party that I believe would be singly destructive if they gain more power.

First time I am really able to say that in 18 years of voting in General Elections.

In reply to Pesda potato:


Yes. Generally speaking it is pretty rare for an incoming government to undo the laws put in place by the previous government and on many issues like pensions, cross party consensus is sought to ensure continuity from one government to the next.

Politics is not about black and white facts. Yes politicians lie. Yes politicians change their mind - just like we all do. They are only human.


I think so. I feel voting is one of the few duties we have a citizens of a civil society. We vote with our consequences and have to accept the outcome. Those who do not vote are welcome to complain, but I don't have much time for people who whinge about politics but don't contribute to it.


It is 5 minutes of your life once every 5 years. Yes it does make a difference and yes it is important. You only have to listen / read the news headlines to get a basic idea of where each party stands and there are also good summary sites like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide

In reply to Pesda potato:
then learn?
No it's not really, 10 years would be better, but it could mean 10 years of misery!!

sometimes, of course
those who vote are just as responsible as those who didn't vote at all for somebody else.

In reply to tony:

Tony Blair lost the Beaconsfield constituency election in 82, before he was parachuted into Trimdon. It is thought he lost because thatcher / tories gained lots of ground because of the Falklands War, his advisors are to of allegedly told him "everyone loves a war, especially when we win". So perhaps the seeds we already sown, that and his natural greed.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Does your vote make a difference, probably not if truth is told but if everyone decided that what would happen then.
Its not hard to look at the different policies of the different parties and pick the one that you think might best represent you.

In reply to The New NickB:

Your profile says you live in Rochdale, and according to yournextmprochdale all PPCs are male?

In reply to jasonC abroad:

there are parties and people out there who want to slim down the parliaments, reduce the number of MPs, have proportional representation etc.. sounds similar to your view?

In reply to summo:

Pretty much, though I want to vote on issues not for people.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I do live in Rochdale, but I'm actually 100 yards in to the neighbouring constituency!

I would have a real quandary if I lived in the Rochdale constituency.

In reply to The New NickB:

I was wondering if you had become confused after viewing so many images of Mrs Danczuk

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

No thanks, I see enough of Karen in the flesh (so to speak). Can't see the interest myself.

She also doesn't meet the like and respect criteria mentioned above.

In reply to Pesda potato:

On the general issue of not voting, we live in a democracy therefore people have the right not to vote (I think in Australia voting is compulsory?).

But if you chose not to vote I believe you give up the right to criticise the government or anyone else serving in parliament. That really pisses me off when someone chooses not to vote and then starts whingeing about how the country is run.

In reply to The New NickB:



Cracking jubblies though. Credit where it's due.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Would be a real shame if Simon Danczuk lost his seat, he's one of the few politicians who seems committed to actually dealing with the Westminster child abuse scandal.

In reply to Moley:
would it be any different if I voted for a party that wasnt elected and I then complained about how the country is run? Either way my vote/not voting wouldnt have counted for anything

In reply to Pesda potato:


If you have a heart vote labour.

In reply to ByEek:



great link thanks, very useful for a political dumbass like me

In reply to Pesda potato:

Yes it does. E.g the effect UKIP supporters are having on Tory (and Labour) policy.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


And if you have a brain ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Vote UKIP or Plaid

In reply to Pesda potato:
In my area a single vote means nothing people just vote Labour. Its what people do around here regardless of policy labour win. The majority is currently 21,000+ in favour of Labour the last MP only uttered 185 words in the House of Commons since 2010 though he has stood down for this election.

I dont vote on nhs or education grounds etc I have no idea whats best for the NHS or how best to structure schools etc what i do have is professional and personal knowledge of Environmental issues, so i will vote based on that. Unfortunately, no party meets my needs in this regard so Im unsure as to who to vote for!!

In reply to Alan M:



I'm glad you live in a labour majority seat

In reply to Alan M:

I too have a vote that counts for very little, my constituency mp (ken clarke) does sometimes take an interest in his constituency, providing it doesn't interfere with his westminster/ commercial interests. I think a more representative system might make him focus on his day job

In reply to Dave the Rave:

To be fair overall I do vote Labour and have done since I have been old enough to vote.

If i am honest though I think the way people vote around here dilutes debate and closes minds to new ideas. Even though naturally I go Labour I would prefer a tighter contest, there might then be a political will to improve the area. The place is a shit hole, and run down was in 97 when Labour came to power and is still as bad now! I dont see our elected member or their party doing much to fight for the area. Plus he never responded to my email but the conservative, lib dem and independant candidates did.

In reply to Pesda potato:
just voting the same as you always have, surely I'td be better not to vote so that people who vote deliberately make more of an impact?

In reply to Alan M:
Why don't you put yourself forward as an independent candidate as a local councillor, gain some experience, and then campaign to become an MP?
You seem to care about your area, and you might have a good insight as to how things could be achieved.

In reply to Pesda potato:
Yes, if you had voted your vote would have counted for something.

All votes are counted, so they mean something.

In reply to neilh:


Those people fought for the right because the difference between living in an undemocratic system and a democratic one is huge. They had a lot to gain in doing so.

But now that we live in a democracy, and where all the choices in that system are more or less the same, there isn't really much to be gained from voting. There is no fundamental change to be had, be it a vote for UKIP, the greens, lib/lab/con. Moreover, if you strongly object to many elements of all these parties, why must you vote given that this validates them against your wishes?

In reply to Pesda potato: hardly a day goes by when i don't hear comments alike to these threads, i just wish people would engage more. Learn about politics, the economy, health, education, i really do believe that average person can make a difference, but it takes time, and effort. We can't sit back, and just leave to someone else, if you don't engage with politicians at a local or national level then you wont ever make a difference!
We have the most influence at a local level, if you don't like something in your area bend you local councillors ear about it, they all have email, some are on Facebook, and twitter!

In reply to Pesda potato:

If you do not vote then EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT.

Not voting allows the views of rabid maniacs to influence how we live.

The values that make western Europe the richest and most libertarian place in the world have been written down and can be found in the following document.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

Much of that is part of our national law as enacted as follows.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

If you have any interest in living in a prosperous and free country then find a party that promotes those acts, conventions and the values therein and vote for it.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

That doesn't give a good reason to vote.

If you live in anything but a swing-electorate, there is almost no point in voting at all. If a minor party is one you identify with, then there is also no point in voting at all.

My only realistic voting options are to pick the parties I most deplore and choose whoever has the greatest chance of keeping them out, even if it means for voting for another party I hate.

For example, the Greens may represents something akin to what I would like to vote for. But they haven't got a hope in hell. I can't imagine ever wanting to vote for Tories. Lib Dems don't have a chance. So I have to vote Labour for my vote to be meaningful. That is, I get to vote for the party that took us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and completely cocked it all up, that presided over Britain's wholehearted inclusion in an economic crash, and all the shite that Tony Blair has become synonymous for..

I don't consider a requirement that I vote for a rabid war mongering party as exercising a democratic right that people have died for.

In reply to Zoro:


That's what my dad and friends say... who knows what the future will hold. The issue is the independent that normally stands receives little in the way of support I think a couple of hundred votes max.

Looking at the votes in my area from 2010 on a 57% turnout. Labour 27,426 (66%). 2nd Lib Dem 6245 (15%). 3rd conservative 3678 (8%). Labour majority up to over 21,000 from 16,000 in 2005.

To be honest it feels like Labour is the only option in this area. Apart from the big 2 and the Lib Dems the choice is limited 2010 election the choice was

Labour
Conservative
Lib Dem
UKIP
BNP
Trade unionist and socialist coalition.

As you can see my vote would only go to 2 of those parties and they both start with L. Even though I do have some conservative tendencies that sees me agreeing with Dave over Ed on several topic areas overall the majority of my core values are served by Labour.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Setting aside party politics for a moment, there's this:

Having to compete to gain power forces those who want it to up their game, and try to earn it, so that someone else doesn't get it instead.

There's still plenty of complacency, corruption and incompetence in every democracy, but generally very much less than in places where politicians can hold on to power without having to bother proving they're worth it.

So it's worth people voting, unless you have a better idea how to achieve this.

In reply to Falung:

If you think Green represents something akin to what you believe, then vote Green! Of course you won't get a Green MP, but the larger the share of the vote that the Greens get, the more the major parties will realise that people care about Green politics.

Democracy works on multiple timescales: this election; next election; 30 years hence. The major parties are not static entities with policies set in stone: Labour, the Liberals, even the Conservatives are all much greener than they were 20 years ago. All the parties, in their current incarnations, have principles: your opinion probably won't change these in the short term, but it can change them in the long term, because all the parties are also interested in power, so they want to make policy that is popular. If their current policies aren't popular for you, vote against them. Your vote gives an indication of what you believe in. If you're not a one-off weirdo you will not be alone, and eventually your vote, together with the vote of others like you, will eventually change the policies of the main parties.

If you want to change things faster, don't just vote: actually get involved. Join a party. Campaign. Tweet. Demonstrate. Riot.

If you want to be ignored forever: do nothing, don't even bother your arse to vote once every 5 years.

In reply to Pesda potato:
If you don't vote then you don't matter politically. Why do you think old people always get perks? It's because they vote in large numbers.

Yes your individual vote isn't going to change anything , but when your vote is one of many then it does have an effect.

It's the same idea behind vegetation's not eating meat, in order to protect animals. The idea being, the less overall demand for meat products the less will be produced. In the opposite sense voting a certain way gives those ideas more sway.

Oh and I agree with the post above, vote for who best represents your view's, regardless of if you think they will win. In time it does make a difference.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I will not vote, until they sort the high level pedophile ring out. And this is not my fault!


Can you explain why my non involvement in the system, has anything to do with people which are nothing to do with me?

In reply to Pesda potato:

Blair made a massive difference. Good and bad. But a huge difference to the UK.

In reply to John Simpson:

I do totally 100% understand and support your view btw.... I'm just not sure it is effective.

The way the UK is though it depends. I didnt vote in Wales, why? The same guy won, I didnt support him.

But had an independent stood then yeah support them if they support your views. How else will it change. We've had many years of low turnouts and that doesnt change anything. The way UK elections work non-voting isn't effective.

I think we need to change our voting system now we are an increasingly mobile society.

But as John says in the main parties are they that different? I think Blair was.. hence why many stepped away. He was actually pretty maverick in his second term, maybe illegally so.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:



I think that depends on the area TBH..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Thank you for your round about support, many so called educated people wouldn't take such an open minded view. Effective in a safe seat like barnsley centre is something which has no definition. Dan Jarvis seems like a good man, in a tongue in cheek view I'm still waiting for the Airborne approach to taking the criminals down though,


Voting is a choice, as is non voting, my democratic right.


The only way it will work is if voter turnout becomes so low, then the system will then have to be changed, as in look guys nobody is interested in you load of corrupt dinosaurs, time to evolve or die


Indeed life moves on!


In my opinion Blair was bent from the start, I never was drawn to the man, but could understand the fascination of the fawning public.

In reply to John Simpson:

But Blair made change. love him or loath him. He did change the UK and the World.

I still think new labour is the future. I've always been unapologetically new labour. i think Ed is a mistake and may lead to a second tory stint but that maybe preferable to bring in new blood. I also think this next government is likely to be an ungovernable coalition of some sort.. even less effective than what we have now.

Maybe non-voting can work, my worry is the extreme right. I'm still disappointed the greens do so badly in the UK, they need to change their stance and come more mainstream and get more people. I dont think they will form a major party but at least be a significant option in a coalition. Right now the nationalist parties in NI, S and W are bigger.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


He's a mover and a shaker that is a fact


Yes the ethos of New labour has it's merits, as does the economic policy of the Tory party. A coalition will always serve the people better.


I understand the extreme right, not that I advocate it in any way. The BNP issue in Barnsley is always bubbling under the surface. Through the randomness of life, I've met several of the local BNP representatives, the most local been quite a sweet lass if you'd believe that, they have a point, just not the full game, so they'll always be there but the overall average just ultimately makes them into a pressure group.

In reply to John Simpson:
True, I can understand the extreme right, I just think its born out of ignorance and misinformation. Often very cleverly put. The best politicians can manipulate people superbly, and that's why Farage has made inroads that the BNP never could.

Blair similarly, Bush did the same after 9/11.. people said he was thick, but for a while 70% of 400 odd million loved him. There's been no president in years with his approval ratings.. I think he was underrated as a politician.

I'm not comparing Farage to the BNP.. just I think he's riding the anti-immigration wave.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Fear and change was a big part of the rise, plus the protest vote to stick twos up at the system helped the rise of the far right, football thugs got bored of the nationwide tribal system and took their game up to a global level. The immigration policy of New labour was f*cked up, I have nothing against the guy or girl who's willing to travel halfway round the world risking their lives to carve out a better future for themselves and family. What I find quite dangerous hence the rise of the far right: Is old peoples homes in the local community shut down and turned into immigration centres. Where the aforementioned immigrants were shipped into the local community for integration and development of a so called multicultural society, so none of these folk wanted to come to Barnsley or even had ever heard of Barnsley, they were moved here as part of a social experiment


Blair and Bush and 9/11 in the same is getting there all is need now is prosecution for war crimes against humanity. Because which ever way you look at it it was 'their watch' They should have been watching the ball.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Regards the edit, Farage deserves his place in the house of commons, he brings something new to the game.

In reply to tony

No-one knew that Blair was going to turn into a war-mongering nutter when he joined Bush in their Middle Eastern excursions, but circumstances changed - the actions of Al-Qaeda were more instrumental in affecting Western responses than anything that happened in the UK.

The signs were there for trouble , in my views, when you get God fearing religious leaders ( in any country)

In reply to Pesda potato:

there are four types of people I know. I know people who vote for their ideals. I know people who vote because they think they should. I know people who don't like/understand/engage with politics but go to the polling booth and spoil their ballet anyway because they value their right to vote even if they don't want to vote for any of the options available yo them. And finally I know people who don't vote, for a variety of reasons usually boiling down to apathy.

If all the votes count then every vote counts, it's like not giving to charity cause "what difference will a couple of quid make to world hungry?" at least make the effort to go, if you genuinely have no preference between, for eg, the bnp or the green party then spoil your ballot but I suspect that applies to very few people indeed.

In reply to John Simpson:


He hasn't got a place in the House of Commons, the people of Thanet will decide if he has in the future. He has of course already got a job as an MEP, although he does not seem to spend much time doing that.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes I know, when I saw deserves his place, I was implying he deserves to win the seat of Thanet.

In reply to John Simpson:


How?

In reply to dissonance:

Well for a start the big 3 have another angle to deal with.

In reply to John Simpson:

I think you are confusing immigrants with asylum seekers, people who come to this country looking for work can decide where they live, asylum seekers are put where the government wants them, there is a big difference, though probably not to UKIP voters

J

In reply to jasonC abroad:

I don't vote, and asylum seekers are still part of the immigration total.

In reply to John Simpson:


Not sure how a tory spin off party does that?

In reply to John Simpson:

Why vote anyway eh John? After all the Illuminati and shape-shifting lizards have got everything locked down anyway.

Even Farage is just another one of them - introduced to make the sheeple think that there is another choice when actually he'll just zip out of his human skin and and revert to being a lizard like the rest of them. Got to make the matrix-plugged in drones feel as though they actually have a choice haven't we.

Looks like you fell for it too. Jeez you'll be denying chemtrails next.

In reply to dissonance:


Except it isn't. Its attractive to the hard of thinking of traditional Labour voters as well.

In reply to GrahamD:


There's a coherent view in there somewhere trying to get out. Could you possibly rearrange the words or edit the post so that it makes sense?

In reply to dissonance:

Do you not think politics is better for the soap-opera scale torrent of resignations, defections, arrests, convictions, jailings etc that UKIP provides?

In reply to dissonance:

I really don't know why I bother talking to you sometimes, its so simple tory spin of party means fewer tory seats and diversity. As i don't vote because i see it for what it is Tory pressure group sub contracted out to give the voting public the illusion of choice, but such is life

In reply to Rampikino:




Cool are we onto conspiracy theory before morning brew time, what shall we talk about today, the lizards or the higher dimensional beings that control them using a play station controller?

In reply to GrahamD:


true. They try to attract them as well at the lower levels. I was thinking more of the people in charge and the serious funders.

In reply to Pesda potato:

this is ace, glad I started another argument!

In reply to Pesda potato:

Saying that you don't vote because you don't understand is simply a cop out. Politics are very complex, particularly because politiicians lie, mislead and promise the impossible. It is a minefield out there, but having said that, so is life. Do you think the rest of us really understand fully or are really totally convinced? No party will give me everything I want to see. Equally all the parties have policies I detest. Ultimately it boils down, as others have said, to voting for the party which you believe/hope comes closest delivering the best compromise package for you, or by voting to try and ensure that parties with lunatic ideals don't get elected.

One individual chosing not to vote makes no difference, but unfortunately there are thousands like you who may cop out, and that will make a difference, but again as others have said you will lose any moral right to complain about the way the country is run.

So get yourself informed and please vote, as others have said it's a precious right people have given the lives for.

I can't remember who said it, but the was a 20th Century politician (maybe Churchill ?) who once said in Parliament something along the lines of "I will fight his policies with everything I have, but I would risk my life to fight for his right to hold them"

You have made a great start by making your opening post.

In reply to Moley:


Many people wheel out this line, but why? Self-censoring because we are made to feel too worthless to question the political establishment is far more dangerous than not turning out to vote Lib Dem in a safe Tory seat.

In reply to Falung:

Spoil the ballot paper, its your right to do so, but exercise that right.

Politics is also about learning the art of compromise.Pick one party or the candidate which closely matches your ideals/beliefs.Its not difficult.

In reply to Oujmik:

No party has ever ticked all the boxes for me, so I'm mostly a floating voter. Sometimes I vote for a candidate with a strong chance of election, sometimes for the "least worst" with no chance. But in the long run my vote may help a minor party continue to stand, by giving them confidence to carry on, with the knowledge that people do care.

But I can't imagine feeling too worthless to question the political establishment, with that attitude one may as well accept a dictatorship.

In reply to Rampikino:

UKIP isn't a Conservative Party Spin off. Its a cross party spin off. Its appeal is much broader than just to tradidional Conservatives.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, it's a right but it is also an empty gesture unless you are voting in a totalitarian state which doesn't, thanks to democracy, apply in the UK

In reply to

I'm the first to admit i was mr apathetic when it came to politics and didn't vote for much of my 20's and 30's

what's changed that is the thought that...

if everyone who didn't vote because their vote wouldn't change anything did vote, then i think it would make a difference. The last GE had a 65.1% turnout. the ScotRef was 84.5% (stats from 2 seconds of google research so they may not be 100% accurate) 40ish% of 65% isn't really a good indication of what 100% of people want is it? it's why PR may make for more balanced government.

during the Scottish ref, i was regularly calling for a "none of the above" option as a means to protest vote for future local / national elections.

my perhaps naive point was if "none of the above" won the election then the rest of the parties would have to actually change their manifestos to suit the people voting for them. but then i've beenaccused of being an unrealistic dreamer

In reply to Pesda potato:

I used to vote. People often argue that you can't complain unless you vote or that you must vote for the best of all the evils or that you should vote because you must "exercise" your hard-won right to do so. I used to accept these arguments. I don't accept them any more and I no longer participate.

If I vote for the "least evil", whether they win or lose, I am declaring that I accept the "mechanism" and accept the outcome of the election itself, that I agree that a democratic vote will select the socially optimal candidate. Even if the outcome differs from my own vote, by participating, I am implicitly agreeing that the outcome is socially optimal because the masses can't be wrong.

I do not accept the mechanism. Democracy has been subverted by party politics and corporate lobbying and, when all is said and done, that doesn't even matter any more because the candidates only differ in meaningless ways.

The entire paradigm must change. Perhaps we should be voting for individual policies, not for people.

In reply to GrahamD:

It pretends to be. However look at those in charge and those who fund it and its a rather different story.

In reply to dissonance:


Agreed. But to dismiss it as only a right wing spin off of the Conservatives is dangerous IMO. It misses what they are appealing to.

In reply to John Simpson:

You tell me, you have all the answers about the new world order and how they are using crystals to control our minds via weetabix or something equally obscure.

In reply to Rampikino:


There you go then, problem solved eat 3 shredded wheat a day, and you'll break free from the mind control and join the growing network of the Truth Movement.

In reply to GrahamD:


I was commenting more on our favourite conspiracy theorists suggestion that they offer something different from the other parties.

In reply to neilh:


I completely agree about compromise, but I disagree that it's not difficult - I'm finding it increasingly difficult to decide. I'm traditionally a Labour voter, but they fail to deliver on some of the issues I'm most interested in, where I find the LibDems and the Greens offer options which I find more attractive. And then I come up against simple electoral arithmetic - my constituency will be a straightforward Labour vs SNP fight, so a Green or LibDem vote won't count for much. So what do I do? I'm not looking for an answer from you, but saying it's not difficult paints a different picture than the ones faced by a lot of voters.

In reply to GrahamD:

They haven't 'appealed' to anyone else yet. It should be emphasised that they are a right of the Tories spin off party... which is obvious if you look at their MPs. Yes they are trying to appeal to a wider audience but it's disingenuous of them, they are what they are.

In reply to tony:
I'm traditionally a Labour voter, but they fail to deliver on some of the issues I'm most interested in, where I find the LibDems and the Greens offer options which I find more attractive. And then I come up against simple electoral arithmetic - my constituency will be a straightforward Labour vs SNP fight, so a Green or LibDem vote won't count for much. voters.

Seems straightforward to me, the others are not in the picture, so you have no choice but to vote Labour and hope that they will deliver on your issues this time. (the only other option is SNP as you said)

In reply to rallymania:


You and me both. I have argued for a NOTA vote, as if there is a big NOTA vote, that proves that people are not apathetic about voting, just apathetic for voting for what is on offer by the parties.
(but they will not like that to be shown, hence no chance of a NOTA vote option )

(Edit 'option' added)

In reply to tony:

LOL.You only make it as difficult as you want it to be imho!

No party can deliver on all the issues you want, in your case sounds like Labour is the best option.

In reply to Xharlie:

Claptrap. You have to have a working government, if you voted on single policies nothing would ever happen.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think that your average Brit. understands the subtlety of meaning behind "None of the Above." I like your idea but I don't think it will work in practice.

In your penultimate post, you tell Tony that things are very straightforwards because "... you have no choice but to vote Labour." This is what I'm on about: Democratic election, as it exists today, is only an illusion. You do not really have a choice or your choice is irrelevant. Participating is merely accepting the illusion.

Democracy is one of the "pills" that we're offered to keep us placid. Surely there can't be anything majorly wrong if we get to choose who's steering the ship? Other pills include bread (ready-meals) and circuses (football - have you ever examined the antics of FIFA?)

In reply to neilh:

My point was that the paradigm must change. Voting for policies instead of people was one possibility and that's a different debate but I stand by my opinion - the mechanism, as it exists today, does not work and must change.

In reply to tony:

I think however safe or marginal a constituency you live in you should always vote for the party that best represents your views, regardless of the predicted outcome. Voting should be a positive action where you offer your genuine support to the party that you honesty think represents what you want for the country.

The reason is two fold, firstly not bothering to vote if the party you support has no chance of winning. Because part of the reason they have no chance of winning is their level of support is not accurately represented by their vote count, whether they'll win or not it's better if they can show the size of their true support, this will help them become more impotent and have more weight in the future.

And secondly, because I disagree with the idea of tactical voting. i.e. when the results are predicted to be very close between a party you hate and a party you don't support but consider to be the lesser of two evils. As I've said, I think voting should be a positive act of genuine support for the party you most agree with. If you vote for a party you do not support with the goal of keeping out another party you support even less then you are subverting democracy by giving the opponent artificial support for their policies that does not really exist at the expense of possibly costing another party who's genuine support is actually highest from gaining a seat.

In reply to John Simpson:

Ahh yes the so called Truth Movement. A cow shed falls over in Uzbekistan and the Truth Movement cite is as proof that 9/11 must have been down to space lasers.

In reply to Pesda potato:
https://m.facebook.com/ATOSM/photos/pb.259364897425986.-2207520000.14279799...
ATOS Miracles
Votes in 2010 general election:
- 10.7m Tories
- 8.6m Labour
- 6.8m LibDems
- 15.9m NON VOTERS

In reply to Xharlie:

Bollocks. It clearly works. We have wealth, health, peace etc and far more than at any time in history. Obviously its not perfect and no one will every be entirely happy. That's what compromise and living with others entails. No sub- Russell Brand paradigm change will alter that. If you think about voting for every policy for more than about 2 sec you will see it is childishly unworkable and obviously vastly worse than our current system.

In reply to MG:
On the other hand, we have zero-hour contracts, minimum wages far below subsistence levels, an ever increasing rich-poor gap, a rapidly vanishing middle class, a desperately ill National Health service and a perennial war in the Middle-East against a "terr-a-rist" group that derives its inspiration and indignation from a previous episode of the same perennial war in the Middle-East.

You are right, though. There is no practical way to implement a vote-for-policies mechanism but THAT'S ANOTHER DEBATE. In that other debate, if I was supporting vote-for-policies, I might begin my argument by questioning whether the government really needs to hold quite so many policies. Perhaps the government should be leaner?

In reply to Xharlie:

Perhaps the government should be leaner?

If you believe that, you should probably vote Tory - exactly what they are proposing.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


It's FPTP that's subverting democracy, not acting rationally within that system. If I want a certain party in power rather than another, because that's what I believe is best for the country (or for me, or whatever my reasons are) then the rational thing for me to do is to cast my vote in such a way to make that more likely to happen.

If you fail to vote tactically when to do so supports the outcome you're after, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The conniving derailment of electoral reform at the start of this Parliament was one of the most depressing episodes in British politics I've witnessed in my lifetime.

In reply to MG:

I'm just being an antagonist. I might as well roll a die and choose a party according to the pips that appear because every contender offers policies that I like and policies that I don't like, in more or less equal number.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm not convinced FPTP is worse than PR. Whatever system you have, you end up with a compromise set of policies. With FPTP this compromise is hammered out before the election. For example, the Labour party consists of the far left through to Tony Blair types that have agreed to work together. If you vote for them, you know what you are getting, roughly. If lots of people switch their vote, the compromise next time will be different, accordingly as with Blair to Milliband. Likewise with the Tories etc. With a PR system the compromise happens after the election but you still end up with a compromise. However, you don't know the possible shapes of this compromise in advance and you lose the benefit of a local MP. Put another way, I don't think a PR elected government would implement policies so different to those we have under FPTP.

In reply to MG:

Reasonable arguments, but you don't address the fundamental flaw in FPTP: it's a matter of luck whether or not you can rationally vote for what you believe in. Everyone's vote is therefore not equal. How that can be an acceptable form of democracy is simply beyond my imagination.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That is indeed a flaw but if you believe that voting UKIP, say, affects Tory policy ( as it clearly does albeit in a delayed fashion) your vote still counts in a constituency where UKIP may have no chance. Perhaps not as much as someone's vote in a marginal constituency, but this loss is offset by the local representation benefit of FPTP. The Scottish system with a bit of both has a lot going for it but the regional MSPs seem to have rather fewer responsibilities it seems to me, which is odd.

In reply to Xharlie:

As Winston Churchill once said " its not perfect but it works alot better than anything else".

In reply to MG:

If I was a UKIP voter, then no, me being able to possibly, indirectly, and without evidence influence Tory policy while my mate over the road got himelf a UKIP MP, then I'm afraid I would not be remotely satisfied that our votes both counted.

It's a perverted form of democracy. Add to that the dog's breakfast of devolution and what that does idea of representation, and I do have to really remind myself of the strength of the arguments in favour of bothering to vote at all.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I do see your point. However, I do value having local MPs. Having a local advocate can do a lot of good and have a far more direct effect on most people than nebulous government policies. Would you be willing to lose this to a PR system, or would you prefer something more mixed, like Scotland. Completely agree about devolution - an utter and unstable mess.

In reply to MG:

The issue of local representation is interesting. Just because of chance really, I haven't seen the benefit for myself so it's not a compelling factor for me - but I can see that it might be for others. The AMS system I don't know the pros and cons of, but they say it's "fairly representative" whatever that means...it certainly sounds like a genuine attempt to come up with a workable system that has the greatest benefits.

What depresses me is the way in which we were denied a chance to rethink our system by the power-hungry scum who benefit personally from things being just the way they are. It genuinely makes me feel nauseous.

In reply to Rampikino:



Look at that you've disproved a whole complex situation with a soundbite which has no relevance to anything, what you need to do is alternate the layers of tin foil that you wrap around your head with lambs wool to break the input carrier signal from lizard mind control HQ, it may sting a bit a first but you'll soon start to get better

HTH

In reply to Falung:




If everyone voted for what they believe in then things could be so different. Stop all the second guessing.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Only another month of stage managed visits to a Comprehensives and colleges ,with the Party Leaders attempting to make quiches and dovetail joints.

Yawn.

Another fortnight ,and it will be poor ,none the wiser babies who will be part of the vote winning photo opportunity.

If David Cameron ,Ed ,or that poor Liberal landed at my door ,or workplace ,I would be genuinely impressed,and would no doubt be brainwashed on the spot into voting for them.

As the chances of that happening are slim ,I shall remain detached from all things political,and not even think about bothering my arse voting.

In reply to andymac:

Andy, there's another good reason for voting - besides just having your say in the governance of the country - which I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. Turning up at the polling station is a community act, everyone who goes there, whatever way they vote, is participating in the same event - they're all in it together. Communities are so shrunken from what they once were, even this small act of community genuinely feels good, at least to me. In the independence referendum especially this sense of community was strong - perhaps just because it was an almost universal turn out. Just by being there you know you aren't alone, that there is such a thing as society, that it's bigger than the society you normally interact with, and that it is overwhelmingly benign. I contend that turning up and voting is actually in itself good for you, and good for the community - whatever the result of the election.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Each and everyone's vote counts equally. If you happen to live in a constituency which is, say a safe Tory seat where they have a huge majority and you want to vote for the greens or something then that's fine, your vote for the green party is equal in weight and contributes as much to choosing who wins as someone else's vote for the Tory party.

The reason the Tory voter gets his MP elected and you don't is because they had many more individuals casting individual votes for that candidate than your guy had voting for him. You may feel like your vote is futile knowing you'll never win but that's just life, democracy picks the one who's most popular, if you support someone who isn't popular then then you're not and also shouldn't get your way.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

That's not how it works in FPTP. Just because your individual vote counts the same as every other in your constituency doesn't mean that your vote has equal weight. Only in PR do votes have equal weight.

If you live in a marginal, your vote has an impact on who's in government. In a safe seat it doesn't. I don't understand how you can pretend that that isn't the case.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

but thats not true though there are plenty of people who vote for party x because they always have, their parents did etc, thats got nothing to do with popularity

In reply to Pesda potato:

Well no system can take account of mindless people who don't think before they vote. But often the children of Labour voters will vote Labour and equally so for Tory voters. Not because they have been brained washed but because they are raised in the same culture as there parents and end up with in the same class, lifestyle and views.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Hey - that sounds a lot like religion

Edit (their parents)

In reply to Wicamoi:


So that is all my vote amounts to? The "of course you won't get a green MP" is exactly part of the problem. Be it Green, Labour, UKIP or whoever, the resulting electoral power V the actual vote received is completely out of whack.

Unless we have full-scale voting reform where my vote actually register then it just isn't worthwhile. To vote only helps validate a voting system I deplore.


That is no result of the Greens. That's just a general evolution of human thinking. Do you think they are in any way green enough? Are they actually taking the kind of action needed to reverse the environmental issues facing the planet? Not even close in my opinion.

I suspect your belief in the system is a result of you supporting one of the major parties that does periodically have its turn in being elected. Anyone who doesn't might as well have their vote binned after casting it.


Not a case of not being bothered. I've voted in every other election. I just see the system as broken, and to either 1) vote for something I hate, or 2) vote for something that will receive less of a say in parliament than its proportion of received votes should earn it, is to vote in support of a system I don't support at all.

In reply to Trangia:


And what is wrong with that? What difference does it make if few people vote? Considering we can end up being run by someone who earned far less than half the popular vote, why would it make any difference if a similar proportion didn't vote at all.


I never understand that view. So if, say, the Tories win, and I didn't vote, I can't complain about them...but presumably anyone else who voted can, regardless of who they voted for themselves? That's a bit like saying I can't criticise a football team's victory because I didn't support the opposition.


They gave their lives when voting was a challenge between two parties, where the party with the most votes won. Its not like that any more. If the decision was between having a right to vote out a party and becoming a dictatorship, I would vote. But if all I'm given is a choice between two parties, neither of whom will receive a majority vote, then there is no point.

In reply to Falung:


You are speculating on the result if few people vote. How do you know it will be few? How do you know that if everyone, or at least a very large proportion voted, a result would be any different? If you believe the system is faulted, and I think it probably is, then why not vote and then lobby your MP to initiate change? In the long term if enough people feel that strongly we may get change to the electoral system, but in the meantime we are faced with an imminent hard choice. Someone has got to run the country for the 5 years, and don't you have some opinion as to what format might provide the best of a bad choice? If it's going to be foisted on you anyway why don't you want the opportunity to at least try and influence the outcome even if you consider it a forlone hope? By opting out you remove even that possibility.


We will have to disagree. I believe that you throw away your moral right by opting out


How do you know that you are going to be in the minority by opting out? How do you know that the numbers of those opting out would not have been sufficient to sway the outcome had they voted?

You may not like the choices before you, but as I have said previously, life is like that, full of difficult choices. There is no such thing as a perfect party with perfect policies. Opting out certainly won't influence the outcome.

In reply to Pesda potato:

Not read all the thread so I may be covering old ground but...

1. The more people who vote for 'minority' parties, and the greater share of the vote they get without winning an equivalent number of seats, the less tenable the current FPTP system becomes. This might lead to changes in our electoral process.

2. If you are in a group who tend not to vote the politicians of the day will not care about you when making policy decisions. See for example the protection given to pensioners (who tend to vote) by the coalition government compared with the raw deal given to young people (who tend not to vote)

For anyone who feels they don't have enough information or knowledge to vote I can recommend the book None Of The Above by Rick Edwards, which is a bit of a UK politics for dummies and is very well written and researched.

In reply to Trangia:

Life is indeed full of shitty choices. But my choice here is to vote for a party that is lucky to get 5% of the vote. I'm happy to go out and vote for it on those terms - if it weren't for the fact that even if it got 20% of the vote it would unlikely get more than a few percent of the seats in parliament.

So, given a party that is the antithesis to my beliefs has a high likelihood of being voted in, I am better off NOT voting for the party I most agree with and instead voting for the party that is most likely to win against the party I hate. How is that democracy? This just makes it less likely that my chosen party will never receive the support it deserves, and a party I don't like gets my vote of validation.

Its a great system for those who support Labour or Tory - their supporters not only get their chosen party returned to power every few years but they also get to hoover up the votes of all those who support neither party but have no choice but to vote for them all the same.

To be clear I utterly despise Labour and Conservatives. Like all parties, both have some polices I somewhat agree with. But they also hold views that I utterly hate. I'd rather vote UKIP or Greens than I would Lab/Con. I agree, no such thing as a perfect party. But if I was to rank mine from 1 being "most hated" to 10 being "most loved", my choices are between the ones that score 1 or 2. Opting out says more and does more than validating either.

In reply to r0b:


I wish that was the case.

But people overwhelmingly rejected a proportional system. Worse, it seems very few have got their heads around just what coalition politics is and will reject any compromise. The experience of the Lib Dems is a perfect example of this. They have done their job, hugely moderating Tory policies. Their reward will be annihilation at this years general election.

Likewise, if voting for minority parties leaves the worst option in power, there is an increasing likelihood of people giving up on them and returning to vote for the major parties.

In reply to Falung:


Really? That's really interesting - which policies for Lab and Con are you particularly against? It's interesting that you would go beyond them in the two opposite directions (Green or UKIP) as alternatives. I'm normally a Labour voter but would vote Conservative before I voted UKIP if you see what I mean, a bit like French socialist voters voting for the UMP to keep the FN and Le Penn out.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think the problem here is that you think you're voting for which government you'd like in power. You're actually voting for which MP you'd like to represent your constituency at Westminster. How those MP's choose to group together in order to form a government is largely up to them, they join parties to give you an idea of who' side they are on, but in these times of coalitions you're likely to get all sorts (including MP's from minor parties) in the government.

Which brings me onto one of the big problems with PR based systems. It's all very well saying they give minor parties more say but it also gives quite radical / extremist parties a much bigger influence in government.

For example right now UKIP are polling around 15%, as it stands they might only get a few MP's, under PR they would make up about 95 MP's and would be by far the third largest party. Making a Conservative / UKIP coalition or pack the most obvious choice for the next government.

In reply to TobyA:

I'm not going to list the main policy point of interest here, as I imagine to many it will sound silly to be basing my voting direction around it. But it is something akin to abortion rights, or perhaps capital punishment, female clergy or fox hunting, in terms of being a polarising domestic issue that I feel strongly about - enough to make my entire vote contingent on it. Neither Lab or Con are willing to go near it, have backtracked in the past, and I find both to be utterly despicable as a result. Similarly, voting reform, Trident and militaristic attitudes to foreign policy feature strongly in my decision.

It is ironic that parties so at odds with each other, ie. Green, Lib Dem and UKIP (not to mention a few other minors), not to mention with policies I also deplore, therefore become my preferred choices. But that is more a measure of how let down I am by the big two parties. This should also make clear that I'm not against compromise. I'd be making huge compromises by voting for these small parties and certainly not getting what I want in a large number of policy areas. But at least I wouldn't be compromising on some core beliefs. Partially too, my view is that not much changes in the electoral cycle. In France the National Front can receive a large proportion of the vote but ultimately their extreme views become moderated. So I'm not scared of UKIP's Europe policy (I don't want us out of Europe at all, but I think Europe might just be better off without the UK, demanding special treatment all the time), or attitude to foreigners, and actually find the demonisation of UKIP or Lib Dems to be pretty offensive.

It is strange imho that the likes of Farage get labelled as opportunists, whereas Cameron or Milliband are seem to be labelled as principled. For all Farage's flaws and backtracks, he strikes me as someone far more willing to go out on a limb and give an honest opinion than the hugely diluted palid sound-bites we get from the main parties.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
In your mind UKIP are extremist, but to 15% of the population they are worth voting for. Are you saying you know better than that 15% and that their votes should be disregarded? What about small parties that happen to fit within your sensibilities - should they also be ignored? Surely a bigger problem is that FPTP gives far too strong a say to parties which so few voted for?

Also, depending on the type of PR system, there may be thresholds that need to be met before a party can have representation.

In reply to Falung:
I don't think UKIP are extremists, I was just using them as an example as they are a party that a lot of PR supporters probably wouldn't like to see in government. Small parties are great but the coming and going fads of minor parties shouldn't result in 5 years of governments made of of a mishmash of all manor of pressure groups.

I agree it's unfortunate that the majority party in power may have a relatively small percentage of the vote but it's a larger percentage than any other party has got.

The problem with PR is it would never result in a majority government, fine you'd get a fair proportion of MP's representing your part of choice but you've no idea what kind of party they may or may not be part of in power or in opposition.

You'd have maybe 6 or 7 parties with votes spread much more evenly among them and who forms the actual government would just be anyone's guess. plus the constant bickering and rival ideas of whoever does form the government would result in weak and directionless rule.