Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Who would you vote for?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
We've got a new poll up on the homepage - http://www.thesite.org - asking who you'd vote for the next general election.

Seems as good an opportunity as any to start the pre-election discussions.

So who would you vote for (if you don't mind saying)? How do you think it's going to turn out? What would improve elections?


And as an aside - how would people feel if a debate themed poll came up and we posted about it to start a discussion in p&d? I know we prefer things to be led by the people using the section but it may be a nice way to add extra discussions? Wadda ya' thunk?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My vote is wasted, I'm not in one of the few seats that will change
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    My vote is wasted, I'm not in one of the few seats that will change

    in that grain of thinking though, everyone's vote is wasted

    statistically with a big enough sample size exit polls can predict the outcome to silly accuracy, making the notion of having every single person cast an 'important' vote rather ridiculous.

    nobody said it was perfect, its just better than the alternatives :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This will be the first election I can remember where the different clowns are fighting over how much and how fast they will lower our living standards.
    Devastate not lower ....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    God only knows, probably Labour, maybe Lib-dem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pedro.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    in that grain of thinking though, everyone's vote is wasted

    statistically with a big enough sample size exit polls can predict the outcome to silly accuracy, making the notion of having every single person cast an 'important' vote rather ridiculous.

    nobody said it was perfect, its just better than the alternatives :)
    It's not better than the alternatives though. The alternative is the system they use pretty much everywhere in Western Europe except France, and that would be much better. But we're stuck with the same one that America has, that just puts people off voting. A summery of the last election:

    Votes:
    Labour: 36.91%
    Conservative: 33.86%
    Lib Dems: 23.09%

    Seats:
    Labour: 55.11%
    Conservative: 30.65%
    Lib Dems: 9.6%

    And it's something that's not likely to change as long as the current system favours the big two parties. Under proportional representation, we would've probably had a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government last time. Although of course who knows how things would've changed if people would've actually voted for the party that fits their views best, rather than the least bad of the two parties they thought had a chance of winning. And then they wonder why so many people don't bother.

    A general election is supposed to be about what direction you want the country to go in not the local area, so I don't see why I should be lumped in with people I happen to live near.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I meant democracy btw not FPTP.

    They are pros and cons to PR and FPTP I'm not sure one is absolutely superior to the other or vice versa.

    I like france's system.

    But even in a PR system you have the problem that an individuals vote is essentially meaningless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my seat is an uber safe tory seat, our MP is anti-immmiration, pro death penalty, anti tax and euro sceptic, ie a grass roots tories wet dream so theres no hope of usurping him, i'm hoping my protest vote cant only go to labour or christian democrats as i suspect, id rather vote lib dem
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Green party, although that would be a wasted vote haha. But seriously, if Gordan Brown really cared about the country he'd let someone else lead the Labour party!! I really don't think, if the Torries came into power, they'd be there for long. And as for the Lib Dems... Lets be realistic.

    Bet you're all glad I'm not old enough to vote :-p
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't get it guys. Explain those different systems to me Slooooooooooowly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    I don't get it guys. Explain those different systems to me Slooooooooooowly.

    You mean PR and FPTP? Proportional representation is where the parliaments seats is in proportion to people's votes. First past the post means in each constituency, only one person takes the seat regardless if they win with 40% or 100%.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I favour STV - Single Transferable vote - where you give the oprder of preference for the candidates, so if your favourite doesn't win, your vote goes to your second favourite, until someone does have a majority of the people backing them to some extent.

    This menas you are still choosing a candidate, not a party, and so maintains the understanding that the MP for your constituency is accountable to you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My vote would still be meaningless under STV, because I'm in a very safe seat, but it would be less so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if your vote 'counted' its still meaningless by itself really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    My vote would still be meaningless under STV, because I'm in a very safe seat, but it would be less so.

    Isn't STV a form of PR?

    If so, your vote wouldn't be meaningless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PR is generally taken to mean a party list system, or a hybrid FPTP/list.

    STV is a modification to FPTP, those who don't support the single winner "lose"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Someone once said ...if voting changed anything it would be illegal and theres a lot of truth in that I fear.

    It wasn't an easy decision to come to a couple of years back that I won't be voting again ...ever.
    Ever?
    Well it's very unlikely that anyone is going to come along that I would vote for.
    The choices before me offer me nothing ...no one that I would even consider.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    I favour STV - Single Transferable vote - where you give the oprder of preference for the candidates, so if your favourite doesn't win, your vote goes to your second favourite, until someone does have a majority of the people backing them to some extent.

    This menas you are still choosing a candidate, not a party, and so maintains the understanding that the MP for your constituency is accountable to you.

    Yes but that's just as stupid, because it means that people are still voting for someone they don't really want. I know what my opinion is, I know what I want for the country. Why can I not have a person representing my views to parliament, because it doesn't happen to be the views of the majority of people in my area, even though nationwide, people with my view make up a significant number? What you're saying is perfectly sensible for local or council elections, but I don't see why it should be the case for general elections.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree, you're voting for who you want, you're not required to vote for anyone else. It removes the skewing of tactical voting, and increases the ability to support smaller parties, even though they don't get elected - but that they have the support give their view greater legitimacy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So I take it people wouldn't object if we throw up a topic for discussion maybe once every couple of weeks (sorry to go off-topic again ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm going to vote for somebody that isn't going to get in, so its not my fault when it all goes to shit.. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Someone once said ...if voting changed anything it would be illegal and theres a lot of truth in that I fear.

    It wasn't an easy decision to come to a couple of years back that I won't be voting again ...ever.
    Ever?
    Well it's very unlikely that anyone is going to come along that I would vote for.
    The choices before me offer me nothing ...no one that I would even consider.

    ken livingstone said it lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody. Every single option currently on the table has one of two problems.

    The problem with the smaller parties being that they have no chance of victory.

    The problem with the larger parties being that they're utter, utter cunts who have failed this country time and time again. The moment we see new political parties on the scene with a serious chance of being able to run this country, I'll think about voting again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Nobody. Every single option currently on the table has one of two problems.

    The problem with the smaller parties being that they have no chance of victory.

    The problem with the larger parties being that they're utter, utter cunts who have failed this country time and time again. The moment we see new political parties on the scene with a serious chance of being able to run this country, I'll think about voting again.

    on the contrary i think the political landscape reflects some of the negative / positive elements of democracy.

    we may support some of the smaller parties wholeheartedly. but almost certainly not everyone will. smaller parties have the freedom to stick to their guns and not compromise. but because of a lack of compromise and universality, they will never be a 'big' party because not everyone will support them.

    the bigger parties however, compromise much, much more. the proof is in the pudding - there is so little to distinguish between them! half a percent here in one tax and half a percent there in spending... but its because they are trying to get elected, they are presenting the best view of themselves to the majority of people, rather than going after a single issue (like the environment or immigration or whatever).

    in this way they are doomed to be imperfect - because they need to cater to everyone, but i reckon it just comes down to picking the lesser of all the evils. I'm marginally leaning towards labour just because i would rather not have a strong conservative majority (who would be able to put through any laws they saw fit - its good to have a strong opposition!), but i cant really pick between them tbh. I don't think either will massively rape the country, nor will either bring about the next golden age.

    Either that claims either of the extremes is just political posturing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a product isn't very good people stop buying it at some point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a product isn't very good people stop buying it at some point.

    lies tbh ;)

    Business Management soon-to-be Graduate

    It's all about the wrapping. Product only needs to be as good as it needs to be to stop (given %age of) people complaining and meeting all health & safety standards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    we may support some of the smaller parties wholeheartedly. but almost certainly not everyone will. smaller parties have the freedom to stick to their guns and not compromise. but because of a lack of compromise and universality, they will never be a 'big' party because not everyone will support them.

    the bigger parties however, compromise much, much more. the proof is in the pudding - there is so little to distinguish between them! half a percent here in one tax and half a percent there in spending... but its because they are trying to get elected, they are presenting the best view of themselves to the majority of people, rather than going after a single issue (like the environment or immigration or whatever).

    Yes, but they will almost always be involved in a coalition government, so compromise is inevitable. But at least at the election stage, you know that your vote is actually going to count for something because you've got someone who broadly represents your views voting on these issue in parliament, rather than someone who just represents the majority of people where you happen to live.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    noo idea
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but they will almost always be involved in a coalition government, so compromise is inevitable. But at least at the election stage, you know that your vote is actually going to count for something because you've got someone who broadly represents your views voting on these issue in parliament, rather than someone who just represents the majority of people where you happen to live.

    I agree, but it was again more a critique of democracy in general rather than specifically comparing fptp to pr which is pretty complex. I advocated a top up system years ago where it would be fptp for a number of seats (say 300) and then a further 200 would be made up of the proportional representation of the whole country. So you would have more impact in your own constituency and a lesser impact over the whole country, rather than having your vote diluted by 60m other votes.

    This was a long time ago though and I've not really thought about it since. But really I was making a critique of democracy in how 'big' things whether its the single parties of two party / FPTP systems or even just the coalitions in PR are forced to compromise on pretty much everything (so pretty much everyone has a reason to hate them, too).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    conversation_-_churchill_u1lf.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.