Do you vote?

[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.

[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! The system is very broken and as Asia so rightly pointed out there's no one really worthy of me wasting my valuable time.

[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.

[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.

[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!!"

[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.

[Sigurd]

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

...

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?