Do you vote?

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

[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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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?

Quote:

---

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.

I don't bet on fixed games

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

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!!"