If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You still don't 'get it' do you? They get elected, the system is what makes it unfair. As I've said before, a PR-STV is the best option.
Of course, had enough people voted for the Lib Dems then it wouldn't have happened.
Your apathy is what got us the war just as much as anyone elses vote.
That certainly is one hell of a special spin you've put on the situation...
I think we should have a system whereby there are seats given out according to local votes, but also overall 'top up' seats given out in proportion to the whole electorate. This would allow the greens etc. to get someone in parliament for once. Even if 4% of the population do vote for them, it's 4% in each constituency so they lose in every constituency, so that 4% are in my opinion not properly represented in parliament.
Hardly.
Look at the system we have in place at the moment. Apathy doesn't being about change, votes do. If you don't like this Govt then you can vote against them - tactical voting if necessary.
The only people with the "moral" right to complain about this Govt are those who voted for someone else. Those who voted for, or abstained, is what got them elected.
Firstly, you're described extremely well how broken the system is. The unhappy truth is that unless you're lucky enough to live in a marginal seat constituency then you might as well not bother. If you do live in one, and the two parties competing for the top spot are ones you whole-heartedly disagree with then you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Now tactical voting may cross your mind - the choice between the lesser of two evils hardly seems like a privilege to me. You might not even agree with the third party running, but you disagree with them the least so you consider putting them down even though you only agree with them on a couple of periphery issues - perhaps in the back of your mind thinking "i've been told by the political proselytisers i've got to vote or shut the fuck up".
You might of course find yourself in a close three-way race between Genghis Khan, Pol Pot and Idi Amin. And if you don't vote for either Pol Pol or Idi Amin and Khan gets in then you've not right to complain when he goes on one of his sprees.
Well if someone wants to write a rant, then they can I guess. No-one is stopping them.
This thread reminded me I need to register to vote in my new house, so thanks thesite :thumb:
Brings me back to the point I made which is another flaw. In 2007 1.07% of the popular vote ticked the green party box on their ballot sheet. Out of 640 contestable seats, according to my maths, 6 should be green party. However, in the first past the post system, 0 are. I mean, look for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPs_elected_in_the_UK_general_election%2C_2005
Since most people vote for the big parties, it's a near certainty that a constituency will end up as one of those. Which kinda limits your options if you disagree with both. Although it has the advantage where the leading parties can actually do what they said, as apposed to complete proportional representation where nearly always an alliance is necessary to form government (hence watered down election promises), the disadvantage is something akin to a tyranny of the majority - whereby, those who vote with their hearts for the party they believe in, will not be represented. Unless you vote tactically, you can't win.
Peanuts compared to the 1992 United States Presidential Election, Ross Perot, an independent got over 19 million votes or 18.9% of the popular votes and recieved NO electoral college votes. Ridiculous.
40% of people just didn;t bother to vote in the last election. All seats are marginal in those circumstances.
Even mine - we have had a Troy sitting in my area for over 100 years. The closest we got to outsting them was about 6,000 votes. More than that abstained.
But you aren;t voting for the lesser of the evils. You are voting to nsure that, in your constituency, the party you don't want to win doesn't. That could mean that you vote Labour because they are second because you don't want the Tory representing you again.
And abstaining would stop that, would it? Of course not, those three would do whatever they wanted regardless.
Let's face it though, that wasn't our choice, was it? What we had was much, much better than that. Still people can't be arsed. But rather than be active they sit back and moan about how they won't vote because no-one listens to them. Well, why should they?
We really don't truly value our votes in this country, we don't value the sacrifices that people made to make sure that we had this right - people have died to make sure that you and I can vote. Around the world people are dying now, so that they can have the same rights. How do we partake in our democracy? Apathy and whining.
Look at the article, only 39% of under 24s voted. So why should politicians bother with what they want, they won't vote anyway. That is one hell of a swing in someone's direction and at the moment, in the system we have, they have no voice.
Sure you can argue that our sytem is porr and I won;t disagree. But it won't change because we abstain, it will change when we vote in a Govt who want it to change.
again another reason to vote, to keep this scum out of our government.
Thank you
I just rang the council and it turns out that I am registered to vote :thumb: The number on the London Elects posters is an 0845 one so I didn't know I could just ring the council on the regular number. I want to vote in the mayor of London one especially, I care much more about that one than the general election although as they happen at the same time (I think) I'd probably vote for both.
Edited to say: I just saw the London Elects advert again and it's actually an 0800 number but I still get charged a lot for those too so that must be why it put me off.
There are not too many people I'd like to give a slap to, but he is one.
Boris for mayor!
Our votes will probably cancel each other out then :chin:
In the next election, I will just vote for the party I agree with and see where it gets us. Absolutely nowhere.
It just so happens, even though I'm in the Parish of Hinckley & Bosworth, for some reason I'm in the constincuency of Charnwood - which means the issues that affect me are not the same as those that affect those who are relatively wealthy landowners etc. Charnwood FYI is countryside with plenty of so called toffs who do like their conservatives with their afternoon tea.
I'm a poor student, go figure. It's a broken system and really my vote doesn't matter because although he technically represents me, it's only because they changed the boundaries for one reason or another. I'm in a different parish and have a different council with different regulations. Fairly confusing.
But I'll vote for the greens (if there even is a greens candidate) and chuckle at the pointlessness of it all, just so then I have the right to moan about stephen 'upper middle class' dorrell. (He got 24,000 votes, the labour candidate 15,000 - an increase since they included the suburbs of Leicester which is labour [poor people, basically - some of the most underfunded schools etc. in the entire UK] in his constituency). P.s., I don't like labour either, they just love to 'spend spend spend' until the economy implodes.
Most certainly. There is no way on God's green earth I would be voting for him.
I will simply vote to try get rid of him.
By the way - I am a car owner and a driver (total petrolhead), living in the congestion charge zone. This may give you some angle of my take on this.
Your argument is people should vote against the party they don't want in rather than vote for the people they do want in. And that's a patently broken, fucked system. Unless you strongly agree with a party/candidate that's likely to get in, then you're advocating voting for the lesser of the available evils.
I'm not making an argument for abstention. I'm arguing the whole system is fucked and that people aren't necessarily apathetic, just disillusioned. I find the idea of putting my name next to a candidate i don't actually agree with - and may in fact downright disagree with - in the hope of outing someone i disagree with more, odious. That, to me at least, seem like the epitome of a wasted vote - you've said nothing about what you want, only about what you don't want.
No, of course it wasn't our choice, but when you make the issue polemic it illustrates vividly the point i'm trying to make. You're advocating voting for one despot to keep another out.
The appeal to emotion of "people died for out right to vote" doesn't wash. It proves nothing about the system that the sacrifice was made for. Sure i appreciate i have the right to vote, but i'd rather use my democratic right to change the system, rather than abandon my sense of right and wrong for a system which might be better than what others have, but is far from perfect.
I'd argue right alongside you that a person who couldn't be arsed to vote needs to, but i don't see how telling someone they've got to get out and vote for someone they disagree with, is a particularly mobilising prospect.
No. My argument in the current system is that there is more than one way to vote for the party you want as Govt. That could be voting for their nearest rivals when you know that your party cannot win your seat.
We live in a party system where the paryt with the most seats wins, so why not do something to deny the people you most hate a seat?
But at least you are saying something. A voice in dissent is better than no voice at all. And yes, I agree that the current system is odious. So how do you propose that it is changed without using your vote?
Aren't you saying the same as me there. Using the system we have to get the result which you want?
I've never seen a party saying they're going to change the way the voting system works as an election promise, nor a candidate saying they'll bring it up. My experience with MPs is that they're cordial enough, but say that everything is not down to them. I said that Microsoft was abusing it's monopoly position in one area and how was my MEP going to defend me against abuse. The MEP said he believed it was better for the free market to sort things out for themselves. Politely, of course, but completely dismissive.
As it turned out, wasn't long before the European courts sued Microsoft for exactly the same thing. I asked my MP what were his plans to combat rife anti social behaviour in the area. He didn't know the area, of course because he lives in another parish, so he sent a local PC round to explain what they were doing. Didn't even acknowledge my letter, just got a phone call from the police saying they would like to come for a meeting.
That's the two times something has happened from my correspondence, what I would call direct action - lobbying - vs. the numerous times I've asked them about things. MPs are supposed to be accountable but they're not. Because even if they mess up, in my case people have always voted tory round here and will continue to do so.
I cant vote for a candidate advocating a proportional representation system (or a top up pro. representation system on top of FPTP seats which I believe is the best way), I can't lobby my MP or MEP to take it up in government, I'm not allowed to lobby any other MP because they're only allowed legally to correspond officially with their own constituents (unless I ask the education minister an education question).
It's a shame I must bring out Marxist theories of power distribution, but it does seem that those who are in power have the power to bring about systems of power that best suit their own needs. Yes, they want to make it fair for everyone but I still see the UK as very much a society of proles who are still unlikely to attain power that is kept within the ruling class circles. Even when an MP breaks through to parliament through the votes, it's not long before they are brought into the political party and through vast wealth afforded to them by their position, become a ruler rather than a person.
Sorry if it sounds like paranoid conspiracy but I can't help feel it's wrong to have the most powerful people in the country continuously passing that power to their chums in these powerful circles. It's like in primary school when the popular kids wouldn't let the unpopular kids play with them.
If I could make a difference with my vote, I would, but as it stands I may as well go in and spoil my ballot paper, that will do as good as actually voting for someone I want.
If there's a candidate with whom i agree and who represents my opinions then the only way i can vote that candidate in - someone i actually want - is to put my name against them. A vote for anyone else isn't a vote for the party/candidate i want in, it's a vote against the party i don't want in. A system that forces me to make such a decision is a broken one.
If there's a party that voices supports for proportional representation, as the Lib Dem's tend to from time-to-time, then you vote for them - providing they don't happen to hold a whole bunch of unsavoury views on other matters.
You sign up to a campaign that advocates such a system: http://www.makevotescount.org.uk/
You write to your MP and demand they push your views to the relevant parties: www.writetothem.com
My whole point is that i can't use the system. The Lib Dem's simply aren't going to get in. The system facilitates them not doing so! And if the Lib Dem's, a fully enabled political party can't get in, then there's no fucking hope of anyone else who holds my views getting in.
Sorry if i come off as all pious and full of righteous indignation - this topic just gets my blood up
quite if the man says I will he bloody well should do it or bugga off and leave the job to a more competent person
I like this but ...here lies the road to anarchy.