Do you vote?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Despite being a politics student, I've never actually used my right to vote, and I don't plan to in the coming election either.

At the end of the day, all the major parties are made up of career politicians. There are no ideological differences any more, just a few minor differences that you would have to be an expert economist to understand the consequences of.

And even then you can only see that if you wade through all the :daisy: that is being churned out by the leaders during their campaigns. The Chanell 4 stuff they are doing with the alternative look at the elections gave some good insight into things, really highlights how it is all about rhetoric and never substance.

Not that this is all bad for me. IMO, apathy is a sign of a healthy democracy. If you live in a country that is stable enough that the differences between the major parties are nothing but purely symbolic and emotional symbolism based off their histories, then great!

But I'm just going to let the career politicians get on with it, I won't be wasting any of my valuable daytime TV time going to the ballot box for them (on that point, I am very angry that have cancelled some programmes for election stuff :furious3:).

But for the politically-aware orgahs of the Backroom, do you vote?

[LittleGrizzly]

I do, but in all honesty I think I only do so I can legitimately complain without considering myself a hypocrit. I think my voting card or whatever you get sent out hasn't arrived for some reason so maybe I will miss this election...

[Beskar]

If you don't use your right to vote, you cannot legitimately complain about who is in power. Even if you voted for a party who might not win, like the Greens, at least you voted and used your democratic rights, and you can complain.

Let's say only 50% of those who can votem did not vote. The 50% who did not vote cannot complain legitimately, as if they voted, they could have brought any party out there in to power, due to the numbers.

If you thought Labour and Conservative are careerists, why not vote for some one who you thought wasn't one? Why not campaign for someone or even go about creating your own party? Why not even run yourself?

If you got the power to potentionally change a system, and do not use it, then it is your own fault.

[LittleGrizzly]

On the other side of the coin, the reason we have caereer politicians and no change is because a large part of the population thinks like do (albeit mostly at a much lower level) even if only the ones of those who were intrested went out and placed thier votes it would be a start (it could get the ball rolling so to speak)

[Centurion1]

voting is a duty. and beskar is right you cant complain unless you yourself vote.

because people who dont think their vote matters is why such a huge chunk of the population does not vote.

[Myrddraal]

There's also some truth in the idea that not voting is a vote for the extremes. Those who support extremist causes are pretty much certain to vote. By failing to vote, even if it is a protest vote or a vote without thought, you are increasing the power of every other voter in the country. If all those without strong views didn't vote, then the election would be deciding between the BNP and the Green party.

Obviously that would be pretty extreme, but the principal is the same nonetheless.

To answer the question, I will be voting for the first time this election, which will be my second opportunity. I reckon a 50% record isn't so bad :smile:

[Beskar]

Green's getting in would really cause a change in the system, but being honest, the Liberal Democrats getting in will be enough. It will get that ball rolling, and when political reform occurs, things will then get really interesting.

Then again, if you really want to protest vote, get all the non-voters to write "Beskar" on their forms. Would cause a consitutional stir. Possibly to the point I get elected to change the system for the better.

[drone]

I vote. As said before, if you don't vote, you can't complain.

I don't trust the main parties. I don't believe either of them (as a whole) represent the citizenry, they just do what they can to get reelected, or are beholden to special interests. I cope with this by either voting 3rd party (rare), voting anti-incumbent (especially in primaries), or voting for gridlock. It lets me sleep at night. :zzz:

[Cute Wolf]

if you live in a country which, if you not vote those probably corrupt officials.... religious fanatics party alliance will win the election (because their followers will vote them) and impose that silly theocracy system on your country.... it was far better to have some administrators with sticky hands, than having ruled by religious fanatics...

[KukriKhan]

I vote. Guys died to give me the right/duty. Not voting means they struggled and died for naught.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I vote. Guys died to give me the right/duty. Not voting means they struggled and died for naught.

Precisely. :bow:

I recall walking to vote in an election that took place at the same time as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The day was beautifully sunny, and the walk to the polling station gentle and calm. Yet far across the world, young people were being mercilessly murdered simply because they wanted the very same thing I was doing in the peaceful sunshine. That was when I realised what an extraordinary gift had been secured for me by the sacrifice of others - a gift denied to so many.

Even if one goes and writes on the ballot paper "None of the Above" you are still doing honour to those who went before, and those who still struggle. With so many parties available, however powerless, better yet to cast a vote for someone.

[Kadagar_AV]

"[The saying] comes from a very ancient democracy, you see... On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted for in more or less approximates the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford, "of course."

"But why?"

""Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."





>>> From the HHGTTG of course.

I don't vote... The two partys that comes most close to my political beliefs are the very right wing one, and the very left wing one. None of these partys agree with me on even half the questions. So whatever established party I vote for, I actually vote against my own beliefs. See the problem?

And no, I don't see the sence in voting for the "lesser evil" as so many people do.

And no, I dont have the time or will to make my own party.

[Cute Wolf]

Sometimes, though... you will found that you must choose the lesser evil solution, because if you don't vote, you'll get worse treatment....

[Furunculus]

There's also some truth in the idea that not voting is a vote for the extremes. Those who support extremist causes are pretty much certain to vote. By failing to vote, even if it is a protest vote or a vote without thought, you are increasing the power of every other voter in the country. If all those without strong views didn't vote, then the election would be deciding between the BNP and the Green party.

on the other hand, some might view it a an unhealthy signal regarding ones character if the only motivation to vote is to vote tactically against something.

it is much healthier to be for something instead.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sometimes, though... you will found that you must choose the lesser evil solution, because if you don't vote, you'll get worse treatment....

I don't agree... Say only 30% voted, and they only voted if they believed in the party. That would give a HUGE incitament for other partys to be formed. Or for the existing partys to change their policies. By voting for "the lesser evil", you make politics become stagnant, and ultimately not representant for the people at large.

I mean, it is bad enough as it is in Sweden with 8 or so partys you can vote for... I shiver when I think of countries with only 2 partys...

I am rather sure, that in a two-party country, most people vote more AGAINST, than FOR a party. IE, I vote X because I am against Y.

[Furunculus]

Britain's system works very well, it has two main parties (Lab/Con).
It has a opportunistic and aggressive reserve party should one of the two main parties become irrelevant (Lib)
It has minor parties that force change in the big-three by encouraging adoption of minor issues (UKIP/Greens/BNP)
It has local parties for people who wear tartan underpants and like to pleasure themselves while watching braveheart (SNP or Plaid Cymru)

[CountArach]

Compulsory voting makes this a remarkably simple question to answer.

However, if it weren't compulsory (I believe it should be, but hypothetically speaking), I would indeed vote. I recall reading somewhere a quote along the lines of "only in the moment when a man casts his ballot is he truly free." That rings somewhat true to me.

[Sigurd]

I vote and have 10 times.

5 Parliment elections and 5 local governmental elections.
I do not support the couch party, which probably is the largest international party.
Even though on these hills not much change if the righ or left runs the country - The governement election system depends on someone getting off their backside and putting that ballot in the box.

And I agree with the others who say you can't complain about how things are if you don't vote.
If someone complains about things related directly to how we are governed, I ask: "Did you vote?" If they say no, I proceed: "Then shut your gegi[sic]."*

*Glaswegian for mouth.

[Meneldil]

I voted everytime I was supposed to, except last year when I was in Canada (for I don't know what election). So far, my only "real" vote was in favor of the European Constitution. With the exception of this one, I haven't voted for any one or any party so far.

I still do the deed to show anyone who cares (ie. none) that I find the political system laughable and that I'd vote for someone if there was someone I'd agree with.

[rory_20_uk]

Britain's system works very well, it has two main parties (Lab/Con).
It has a opportunistic and aggressive reserve party should one of the two main parties become irrelevant (Lib)
It has minor parties that force change in the big-three by encouraging adoption of minor issues (UKIP/Greens/BNP)
It has local parties for people who wear tartan underpants and like to pleasure themselves while watching braveheart (SNP or Plaid Cymru)

We might be seeing the end of Labour as one of the Big 2:

New parliament requires Lib Dems for support. They sign up to Proportional Representation. This massively favours the Lib Dems and miscellaneous, slightly favours Conservatives, and considerably hurts Labour. If the Perception takes hold that Lib Dems is not a "wasted vote" their share could be maintained. Labour, even more than the Conservatives, is an umbrella of differing views, held together by mutual need. If all could gain as much - if not more - from standing separately there could be a true fragmentation.

If voting did become PR I would probably alter my vote to a minor party where at the moment I feel that it is "wasted".

~:smoking:

[Andres]

It's compulsory in Belgium, so I vote at each election. I would probably have done the same in all previous elections.

At this moment, I'm very disgusted with Belgian politics, so if there will be elections in June, I'll probably vote invalid by writing something on the paper along the lines of "you are all idiots and a disgrace to my country, each and every single one of you."

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am your perfect law-abiding bourgeois citizen, with petty little conservative ways, who votes every election, on established, moderate parties.


* purrs with contentment *



Pakistani politics are rubbish. Bolivian too. Western politics, on the other hand, are on the whole run by somewhat decent people making somewhat decent decisions.*



*Edit: except Belgian politicians, of course. Barking mad, the lot of them.

[Scienter]

I vote. As said before, if you don't vote, you can't complain.



Yup.

Also, in the past few state and national elections, my area is teetering between partiees and I feel like my vote actually counts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Where did I say I was complaining with the system? :wink:

I am glad we have such a stable system, where the extremist parties are marginalised. But I'm not going to pretend there is any real difference between the average Labour/Tory MP. That's OK with me, I'm happy for either of them to win.


I vote. Guys died to give me the right/duty. Not voting means they struggled and died for naught.

They died for it at a time when the vote really mattered. In the past there were the big class struggles, the epic left-right divide, communism v fascism, the radicals v the establishment etc.

But voting right now isn't important. If the BNP were to go on a metioric rise and threaten to come to power, then my right to vote would be useful. Or if it was a big issue with a referendum like Scottish independence might have.

But it really doesn't make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things whether I get a Labor/Tory MP.

[Beskar]

But it really doesn't make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things whether I get a Labor/Tory MP.

It does, by quite a lot. :laugh4: Because it means who gets in power in the next election, and what they will do with that power is quite significant.

[Viking]

I've only had one chance to vote thus far (the parliamentary election), and I didn't use it, and I will still complain as it is not a given that my choice is a choice in the election.

[Furunculus]

Where did I say I was complaining with the system? :wink:

I am glad we have such a stable system, where the extremist parties are marginalised. But I'm not going to pretend there is any real difference between the average Labour/Tory MP. That's OK with me, I'm happy for either of them to win.

They died for it at a time when the vote really mattered. In the past there were the big class struggles, the epic left-right divide, communism v fascism, the radicals v the establishment etc.

But voting right now isn't important. If the BNP were to go on a metioric rise and threaten to come to power, then my right to vote would be useful. Or if it was a big issue with a referendum like Scottish independence might have.

But it really doesn't make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things whether I get a Labor/Tory MP.


no, now its just a question of whether i will be retiring in a country that more resembles france or hungary, given that we are facing a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040!

[Beskar]

no, now its just a question of whether i will be retiring in a country that more resembles france or hungary, given that we are facing a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040!

That can change pretty quickly though. Most of the problems which would cause that is because of the recession and banking crisis. As the economy picks up, that will go away anyway. What the government needs to do is cut all the "waste" and downsize some of the programmes which simply are not benefitical on the whole. They would also have to start repaying the actual debt.

Also, with some of the nationalisation of the banks, the government has already made a profit in terms of shares. Soon, the government could hypothetically sell those shares and get back a lot of the lost money in the bail-outs.

[Husar]

It's compulsory in Belgium, so I vote at each election. I would probably have done the same in all previous elections.

At this moment, I'm very disgusted with Belgian politics, so if there will be elections in June, I'll probably vote invalid by writing something on the paper along the lines of "you are all idiots and a disgrace to my country, each and every single one of you."

That's pretty harsh, isn't it?
I mean considering that most likely the only person reading this will be someone helping to count the votes...

I have voted once or twice but since then all the votes have been on days I was out of town and I simply keep forgetting to get the papers for a mail vote or how it's called...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course you can complain if you don't vote. The only time you can't complain is if your vote would have been the deciding vote.

You might as well say that you can't complain if you didn't vote, donate, and volunteer for a campaign.

[rory_20_uk]

So then I can complain, no matter what! :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Of course you can complain if you don't vote. The only time you can't complain is if your vote would have been the deciding vote.

You might as well say that you can't complain if you didn't vote, donate, and volunteer for a campaign.

Sasaki, that is the point, because you didn't vote, you got no reason to complain, because your vote could have made the different, and all those others not voting, would have made a difference.

In one election, only around 34% of those who could vote, voted. What does that tell you?

If all those lazy arm-chair politicians actually got around to voting, then we might have a far different government than the one who is elected.

Therefore, using your own example, those who didn't vote cannot complain because they refused the opportunity to attempt to elect something they wanted.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Your donations and volunteering could have made the difference. If you didn't do that you can't complain.

[Husar]

What if I voted for the party in power (or one of them if it's a coalition), can I complain then?

[al Roumi]

What if I voted for the party in power (or one of them if it's a coalition), can I complain then?

Yes, but on different grounds: i.e. they misled you or broke their manifesto's commitments.

[Beskar]

Your donations and volunteering could have made the difference. If you didn't do that you can't complain.

Not really, as it is the voting that matters. So saying "if you can't be bothered to at least vote, then you can't complain". Those are just optional extras.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, as it is the voting that matters. So saying "if you can't be bothered to at least vote, then you can't complain". Those are just optional extras.

That's an arbitrary judgement though.

-edit-

Basically "if you don't vote you can't complain" is just one of the things people say because they think people should vote, and it makes a handy reason. Like "cheating doesn't get you anywhere" as a reason not to cheat on tests.

[rory_20_uk]

[QUOTE=alh_p;2479549]Yes, but on different grounds: i.e. they misled you or broke their manifesto's commitments.[/]

They don't mislead, or break committments. They have had a chance to review the data, and in light of the current geoeconomical and political situation, it just isn't possible at the moment, but will be addressed as soon as some key indicators show that it would again be a good idea (i.e. hell freezing over...)

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

They don't mislead, or break committments. They have had a chance to review the data, and in light of the current geoeconomical and political situation, it just isn't possible at the moment, but will be addressed as soon as some key indicators show that it would again be a good idea (i.e. hell freezing over...)

Have you been in politics? :laugh:

[Beskar]

That's an arbitrary judgement though.

-edit-

Basically "if you don't vote you can't complain" is just one of the things people say because they think people should vote, and it makes a handy reason. Like "cheating doesn't get you anywhere" as a reason not to cheat on tests.

Not really, it is like saying "if you didn't eat your breakfast, then don't complain about others because you are hungry." as in, they actively choose not to do something when they could have easily done it. Therefore, they don't have legitimacy in complaining about others about yourself being hungry as your fault that you are hungry, therefore, there is only yourself to blame.

If you don't vote, it is your fault.

[Furunculus]

That can change pretty quickly though. Most of the problems which would cause that is because of the recession and banking crisis. As the economy picks up, that will go away anyway. What the government needs to do is cut all the "waste" and downsize some of the programmes which simply are not benefitical on the whole. They would also have to start repaying the actual debt.

Also, with some of the nationalisation of the banks, the government has already made a profit in terms of shares. Soon, the government could hypothetically sell those shares and get back a lot of the lost money in the bail-outs.
no, they need to cut Gov't spending as a proportion of GDP, and watch growth accelerate faster as a result.

given thirty years of sensible spending we might JUST get to the point of only having a deficit of 100% of GDP............. if we're lucky!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Your denying and granting legitimacy arbitrarily. But I generally approve of voting and think complaining isn't that useful so I'm not going to keep arguing it.

I do think that you have to be careful about your reasoning when making moralistic statements.

[Beskar]

no, they need to cut Gov't spending as a proportion of GDP, and watch growth accelerate faster as a result.

given thirty years of sensible spending we might JUST get to the point of only having a deficit of 100% of GDP............. if we're lucky!

Cutting government spending alone wouldn't make growth accelerate like that. Cutting government spending where it should be cut, then using the money saved from that, being used to pay off the debt, then that would solve it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Once again, who said this is about complaining? I'm just going to let the politicians do their thing and get on with their careers, I'm just not going to pretend there's any significant difference between the vast majority of them.


no, now its just a question of whether i will be retiring in a country that more resembles france or hungary, given that we are facing a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040!

Do you really trust the Tories that much more to fix it?

None of the parties manifestos ad up. They make grand gestures about how they will fix the economy through cutbacks, and then they don't actually account for where even 1/5 of that will come from. The Lib Dems did a bit better, they say where a 1/4 of it is coming from.

But still, hardly inspiring. But then again, it's all just about rhetoric to get elected, I really doubt any major party would be much different from another when in power.

[caravel]

If you don't vote, it is your fault.
When the 'vote' is a choice between the red, blue and yellow, what then? If I don't want to vote for any of these crooks, then what? Do I "waste" my vote on a minor party?

Also if I do vote for red/yellow/blue and it turns out to be the wrong decision because red/yellow/blue *gasp* lied about their policies - my fault?

:bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nobody can complain unless s/he's ran for an electable office.

People have died for your eligibility to run for office too!!

[Beskar]

But still, hardly inspiring. But then again, it's all just about rhetoric to get elected, I really doubt any major party would be much different from another when in power.

Yet they if they were honest, they wouldn't get elected anyway. The reason they want to be elected is so they can put their policies and ideology in place. But being honest, while the other parties PR it, will mean those other parties will get in with their ideologies, which is what they don't want.

[Beskar]

When the 'vote' is a choice between the red, blue and yellow, what then? If I don't want to vote for any of these crooks, then what? Do I "waste" my vote on a minor party?

You should be voting for the person you want, and not the party. That is the British way. Electoral Reform is undoubtably needed, so voting a party that is behind such reform is a good idea. For "waste" of a vote, no vote is a waste. Vote for who you would at least prefer out of who is running in your area, even if it is the lesser of the evils.



Also if I do vote for red/yellow/blue and it turns out to be the wrong decision because red/yellow/blue *gasp* lied about their policies - my fault?

You can legitimately complain about the party in that example quite easy.

Overall, it is pretty easy to understand.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yet they if they were honest, they wouldn't get elected anyway. The reason they want to be elected is so they can put their policies and ideology in place. But being honest, while the other parties PR it, will mean those other parties will get in with their ideologies, which is what they don't want.

Aye, but I don't think there is an ideological difference in the first place. Just a bit of rhetoric... Cameron wants change, Brown warns against the risks etc...

So, why on earth would I vote if I am happy for the establishment to continue?

[Viking]

Not really, it is like saying "if you didn't eat your breakfast, then don't complain about others because you are hungry." as in, they actively choose not to do something when they could have easily done it. Therefore, they don't have legitimacy in complaining about others about yourself being hungry as your fault that you are hungry, therefore, there is only yourself to blame.

If you don't vote, it is your fault.

But if you haven't been working in the fields for your breakfast, then you can't complain if it isn't any nutritious. I.e. you can't complain if your vote didn't make any difference, otherwise you actually campaigned for your viewpoints and tried to get more people to vote as you did.

"I voted, what else could you possibly ask me to do in order to get my view points through?"

[Beskar]

Aye, but I don't think there is an ideological difference in the first place. Just a bit of rhetoric... Cameron wants change, Brown warns against the risks etc...

So, why on earth would I vote if I am happy for the establishment to continue?

Vote for Liberal Democrats.

Main reason I am voting Lib-dems is because they are going to introduce Electoral Reform, which I think is one of the biggest issues in this country. With 'STV' system in place, amongst other devices including 'RON' (re-open nominations/none of the above), there will no longer be "wasted" votes, and if you were completely unhappy with govenment, you and your friends could keep voting 'RON' untill they keep singing to your tune.

I am a very democratic person, I would like my politicians to reflect that. Unfortunately, no everyone in the country agrees with me, this is where politicians and parties have to juggle. Labour and Conservatives mainly at the moment are simply juggling all the popular issues to get as much support as possible, this is one of the main reasons we need electoral reform, to get parties actually caring about the votes more than they do. We also need to reduce the power of the parties and make it "elect the person", through reforms, you could have 3 different labour candidates standing, one could represent "the left", the "blairites" and "brownites". You could then choose to elect the one you want, to represent your area, not having to pick one just because it is a certain party.

[al Roumi]

For my part, I see voting as doing the minimum an individual can do to express their political will. People can and do complain about anything, especially about things they have no control over -e.g. the weather.

For all the failings of democracy, it does allow you, as a minuscule among the multitude, to add your drop to the ocean. Whether that individual contribution itself ammounts to much is (for me) a seperate issue.

IMO, when you are given any chance to take responsability for yourself or something you hold dear (e.g. that might be worth complaining about), it behoves you to take that opportunity and exercise the extent of your power to affect it. To not do so is wasting that opportunity. The multitude doesn't really care if an individual doesn't vote, but the individual should - for their own self respect.

[Furunculus]

Vote for Liberal Democrats.

Main reason I am voting Lib-dems is because they are going to introduce Electoral Reform, which I think is one of the biggest issues in this country. With 'STV' system in place, amongst other devices including 'RON' (re-open nominations/none of the above), there will no longer be "wasted" votes, and if you were completely unhappy with govenment, you and your friends could keep voting 'RON' untill they keep singing to your tune.

I am a very democratic person, I would like my politicians to reflect that. Unfortunately, no everyone in the country agrees with me, this is where politicians and parties have to juggle. Labour and Conservatives mainly at the moment are simply juggling all the popular issues to get as much support as possible, this is one of the main reasons we need electoral reform, to get parties actually caring about the votes more than they do. We also need to reduce the power of the parties and make it "elect the person", through reforms, you could have 3 different labour candidates standing, one could represent "the left", the "blairites" and "brownites". You could then choose to elect the one you want, to represent your area, not having to pick one just because it is a certain party.
there are no wasted votes.

a lib-dem vote ensures that there is always a viable pretender to the mainstream crown.

a vote for a minor party is an act of leverage designed to shift the position of a major party.

FPTP rocks in that it delivers decisive coalition free victories most often.

[Beskar]

FPTP rocks in that it delivers decisive coalition free victories most often.

I think it rocks for different reasons, namely that you elect a person to represent you, opposed to electing a party. As such, we should remove the focus away from parties and back to the individuals.

If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister has to be an elected MP, right? Why has no one tried to challenge him on his home-turf and uproot him that way?


a lib-dem vote ensures that there is always a viable pretender to the mainstream crown.

a vote for a minor party is an act of leverage designed to shift the position of a major party.

Also this. There are no such things as Wasted votes, and I am glad we agree on this, Furunculus.

[Strike For The South]

I don't bet on fixed games

[Reenk Roink]

Never have and probably never will! :2thumbsup: The system is very broken and as Asia so rightly pointed out there's no one really worthy of me wasting my valuable time.

[Myrddraal]

FPTP rocks in that it delivers decisive coalition free victories most often.

True, and this is a strength of our current system, but so does the STV doesn't it? I'm no expert, but from what I've understood, the STV also delivers a clear winner, but that candidate better reflects the will of his constituents.

To be honest though, I'm not convinced that the STV would have much effect on our elections. The main weakness with the current system is the discrepancy between the popular vote and voting power in the commons. Replacing our current system with STV wouldn't address that, so I figure the results would be pretty much the same as with the simple FPTP system.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's compulsory in Belgium, so I vote at each election. I would probably have done the same in all previous elections.

At this moment, I'm very disgusted with Belgian politics, so if there will be elections in June, I'll probably vote invalid by writing something on the paper along the lines of "you are all idiots and a disgrace to my country, each and every single one of you."

Well, Belgium is quite unique here. There is a compulsory voting system but no election for Belgium's parliament is in fact in accordance with their own constitution. Or so Belgium's constitutional court ruled, anyway. So no matter whether (dutiful but disgusted citizen Andres) or not (conscientious objector [?] Andres) you vote; you do have a solid basis to complain about the outcome.

[Beskar]

True, and this is a strength of our current system, but so does the STV doesn't it? I'm no expert, but from what I've understood, the STV also delivers a clear winner, but that candidate better reflects the will of his constituents.

To be honest though, I'm not convinced that the STV would have much effect on our elections. The main weakness with the current system is the discrepancy between the popular vote and voting power in the commons. Replacing our current system with STV wouldn't address that, so I figure the results would be pretty much the same as with the simple FPTP system.

STV will have a big effect in our elections, for a start, it removes tactical voting, so all the smaller parties will have an increase in seats. STV also works within the FPTP system. Tactical voting will remain so what, akin to "I will vote for Green, as I support them, but if they do not get in, I will settle for party X so the evil tories don't get in". So a lot of the smaller parties will have a big increase in first priority votes and come to a stage where we have a more representative house.

[Sigurd]

You vote on the smaller issues.
In 2001 we (my wife and I) voted for the Christian people's party not because we are Christians, but because they promised a few benefits for smaller families with low income. I was a student at the time and so was my wife. We had just been blessed with a baby girl and the benefits would mean I could continue with my studies while my wife was at home with the baby.
The Christian people's party got the prime-minister and we got our benefits. I am voting Right on the local elections, because they promise that there will not be property tax in my area as long as they rule. Luckily many votes with me and Right governs my county and keeps that property tax out of my budget.

If I had voted for the sofa party back in 2001 and the benefits didn't go through, would I be entitled to complain? Well I could, but then someone would ask: "Well, did you vote for them?" I say no - and they say: "Then shut your gobber!!"

[Furunculus]

I think it rocks for different reasons, namely that you elect a person to represent you, opposed to electing a party. As such, we should remove the focus away from parties and back to the individuals.

If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister has to be an elected MP, right? Why has no one tried to challenge him on his home-turf and uproot him that way?

Also this. There are no such things as Wasted votes, and I am glad we agree on this, Furunculus.

we should indeed reduce the power of the whips.

i guess its because local constituents are impressed by the prestige of having a prime minister represent them, so challenging their majority is very difficult, and i believe we have had prime-ministers that did not sit in the commons.

absolutely, i love-bomb the Lib-Dems precisely because they are the point-five party in our politics, without a serious replacement the incumbents can be unrepresentaive as they please without fear of the voter, but i find little i like about lib-dems policies.

[woad&fangs]

I've voted in 2 out of 3 possible elections. I did not vote in the last fall election because I did not know any of the candidates or issues in my new town. I believe that an uneducated vote is worse than no vote at all. The spring election was silly. It was a rainy day on a college campus so the county board position only had 150 total votes cast out of a possible 2,000 or so eligible voters. I'm convinced that politics at the local level is more about name recognition and actually GETTING PEOPLE TO VOTE than actual issues.

[jabarto]

Only in presidential elections, though I'm under no illusions that voting is anything more than a feel-good thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You vote on the smaller issues.
In 2001 we (my wife and I) voted for the Christian people's party not because we are Christians, but because they promised a few benefits for smaller families with low income. I was a student at the time and so was my wife. We had just been blessed with a baby girl and the benefits would mean I could continue with my studies while my wife was at home with the baby.
The Christian people's party got the prime-minister and we got our benefits. I am voting Right on the local elections, because they promise that there will not be property tax in my area as long as they rule. Luckily many votes with me and Right governs my county and keeps that property tax out of my budget.

If I had voted for the sofa party back in 2001 and the benefits didn't go through, would I be entitled to complain? Well I could, but then someone would ask: "Well, did you vote for them?" I say no - and they say: "Then shut your gobber!!"

We call that voting your pocketbook here -- and it is a time honored tradition.

[rory_20_uk]

We call that voting your pocketbook here -- and it is a time honored tradition.

OLne of the best arguments against democracy: selfishly voting for whichever party offers the biggest bribe.

Next 5 years "Better Schools!"
After that "Free uni Places!"
Then "Reduced tax on second homes!"
And finally "Better healthcare; no handouts for parents or Uni placements!"

We pretend to wonder why we're in a mess, then we see most peple vote for money for themselves now.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Though there are many reasons for having good health care and education, even free university which are nothing to do with "bribes". It is to do with having a healthy and educated workforce, which would also improve the economy itself.

[Sigurd]

We call that voting your pocketbook here -- and it is a time honored tradition.

:laugh4:...

I bet there are very few who vote based on pure ideology.
You vote based on interests. If you want better conditions for your family, you vote for those parties that promises most in that regard.

You vote for 4 year periods anyways, why shouldn't you vote based on what would serve you best in the next 4 years?

[Beskar]

:laugh4:...
I bet there are very few who vote based on pure ideology.

Stop picking on me. :cry:

[Furunculus]

and me.

[LittleGrizzly]

The only practical decision on my voting is whether to use it tactically or not, outside of that ideaology all the way!!*

*obviously even with the best policy's in the world some minor competence is also required...

[CountArach]

We have a British election thread for discussion like this.

I agree CA, so I moved them over there.

[rory_20_uk]

Though there are many reasons for having good health care and education, even free university which are nothing to do with "bribes". It is to do with having a healthy and educated workforce, which would also improve the economy itself.

That's a good reason, and one I agree with. Stunts like handing out a £100 winter fuel allowance for the elderly for one year - the election year - are bribesat the most flagrant.

~:smoking: