The Wasted Vote
Discussion
We've heard a lot about wasted votes recently, and the Tories are still banging that drum in the wake of the Eastleigh flop.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
randlemarcus said:
AJS- said:
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement
Instinctively agree with most of the post, but this bit isn't helping you win friends 
I had to read it twice to see if he'd gone mad!
imo the problem with the whole system is you either vote for someone with a chance of winning or go with a one trick pony 'protest party' and hope the bigger ones pay attention to their rise. Sometimes there aren't even protest parties available.
Unless you do away with 'parties' and just let people vote on issues, but that would be a total clusterf
k.
As a stupid example, who do you vote for in the US if you were strongly pro-gun control and strongly anti-abortion? You'd have to either hold your nose, protest vote (if a fictional thoushaltnotkill party existed) or not vote at all...
Unless you do away with 'parties' and just let people vote on issues, but that would be a total clusterf
k.As a stupid example, who do you vote for in the US if you were strongly pro-gun control and strongly anti-abortion? You'd have to either hold your nose, protest vote (if a fictional thoushaltnotkill party existed) or not vote at all...
collateral said:
imo the problem with the whole system is you either vote for someone with a chance of winning or go with a one trick pony 'protest party' and hope the bigger ones pay attention to their rise. Sometimes there aren't even protest parties available.
Unless you do away with 'parties' and just let people vote on issues, but that would be a total clusterfk.
As a stupid example, who do you vote for in the US if you were strongly pro-gun control and strongly anti-abortion? You'd have to either hold your nose, protest vote (if a fictional thoushaltnotkill party existed) or not vote at all...
Or vote for yourself. Unless you do away with 'parties' and just let people vote on issues, but that would be a total clusterf
k.As a stupid example, who do you vote for in the US if you were strongly pro-gun control and strongly anti-abortion? You'd have to either hold your nose, protest vote (if a fictional thoushaltnotkill party existed) or not vote at all...
It's not really a protest vote though, certainly not in the case of UKIP. If we have another by-election between now and the general election and the situation was anywhere near that in Eastleigh, UKIP have a real chance of a seat. I think they may be at the point where they'll actually pick up a few in the General Election.
The big question for me is what effect they are going to have on Labour.
The big question for me is what effect they are going to have on Labour.
singlecoil said:
Time they brought in proportional representation.
What? You mean a more democratic system? Never! 
On a serious note, how can we ever expect PR to be brought in when that would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas?
None of the big three are going to seriously consider PR, and even if one would, the others would no doubt try to block it.
Party Politics is a broken system at the moment, with political self preservation more important to these politicians than actually doing what is best for the country.
How do we go about achieving change, if the only people who can affect that change are those that stand to lose most by it?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
singlecoil said:
Time they brought in proportional representation.
What? You mean a more democratic system? Never! On a serious note, how can we ever expect PR to be brought in when that would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas?
None of the big three are going to seriously consider PR, and even if one would, the others would no doubt try to block it.
Party Politics is a broken system at the moment, with political self preservation more important to these politicians than actually doing what is best for the country.
How do we go about achieving change, if the only people who can affect that change are those that stand to lose most by it?
LibDems are all about PR, that's why they forced the Tories to hold the referendum on PR.
vonuber said:
Puggit said:
rrrrrrr....
LibDems are all about PR, that's why they forced the Tories to hold the referendum on PR.
The vote wasn't on PR.LibDems are all about PR, that's why they forced the Tories to hold the referendum on PR.
AJS- said:
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties.
The biggest development by far was the arrival of New Labour with a clear "win" at election. They inherited an economy in very good health from John Major's government. New Labour's legacy is a vast public sector, failures of regulation, more people on benefits and massive borrowings for the country. In comparison with this all other changes are IMO trivial.AJS- said:
We've heard a lot about wasted votes recently, and the Tories are still banging that drum in the wake of the Eastleigh flop.
If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
The only wasted vote is a vote that tries to achieve anything other than electing the person you wish to represent your constituency in parliament.If you accept the premise that the purpose of voting is to collectively decide on the policy then this argument falls down, because limiting yourself to only the three main parties provides no feedback at all as to what is wrong with those main parties. It simply endorses them relative to each other.
Nearly every significant development in British politics in the last 30 years has been driven by the smaller parties. From Scottish devolution to the rise of the green movement and now to the smaller state post EU agenda being pushed by UKIP.
The real wasted vote is the one that unthinkingly endorses Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. That ticks the box of one candidate with the negative intention of keeping the other guy out.
Having said that and speaking as a euro-sceptic tory, I'm happy with short-term losses caused by people voting UKIP as long as it keeps the focus on leaving the EU.
The big problem with UK politics and PR is most of MPs work is casework.
If you no longer had a local MP, how would the casework be spread out. Or would they not bother and just do Westminster stuff.
Or would you want a mixed member PR? where you had a local MP and a regional selection of MPs.
or just pass all the casework to councillors and have them paid enough to cover the time for doing all the casework?
If you no longer had a local MP, how would the casework be spread out. Or would they not bother and just do Westminster stuff.
Or would you want a mixed member PR? where you had a local MP and a regional selection of MPs.
or just pass all the casework to councillors and have them paid enough to cover the time for doing all the casework?
If you use the right system, you can still have local MPs and you can still have working majorities that preclude minority parties holding the balance of power. STV allows all of that, but the politicians won't allow it without hampering it in some way first because it reduces their power. It wouldn't be possible to guarantee a particular candidate gets in by making them stand in a safe seat, because safe seats don't exist in the same way. People would have the freedom to choose from multiple candidates from the same party, and also express their opinion on the other candidates standing.
MPs would not be able to be complacent about their seat, because they would be in competition for it with others from their own party as well as from the other parties.
MPs would not be able to be complacent about their seat, because they would be in competition for it with others from their own party as well as from the other parties.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff