24 hours to go and 40% still undecided.

[F i F]

Include me in that.

Problem is that each candidate standing, including the sitting independant and seeking re-election MP has at least one, or in the case of BNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens etc many many more than one absolute cast iron deal breaker for me.

On R4 this morning Mary Riddell from the Telegraph summed it up rather well, despite her recent column that a Lib-Lab coalition is our best option, stupid mare. Basically she was saying that a significant proportion of the public is really wanting to vote "None of the Above."

Which is fair comment really even though I don't like her opinions normally. Problem is that by saying "A Plague on All Your Houses" will never be interpreted as "Throw the Whole Lot and The Establishment Up in the air and Start Again."

Decisions Decisions.

[nonuts]

I'd like to see a massive UKIP swing just to point out to the 'establishment' how detached they are from reality and public feeling (or maybe that's just my opinion). The problem I see with that (and voting the way I would like) is that this will most likely just split the vote further which I think will leave us in a right pickle.

Well actually to be honest my vote makes no difference anyway as where I live has been conservative since it was created, so it's probably not even worth the trouble of getting there to vote tomorrow!

[AB]

I got excited before when I heard on the radio that the 3 candidates were going to be in 20 places between them today. Turns out they're not being cut up and distributed.

[speedchick]

With all this talk about a hung parliament (and some of them do need hanging), why don't they just count the actual votes instead of the seats? If two cars pass the line at pretty much the same point, they start splitting the times till they can seperate cars, we know that it's done by seats, but if no one wins enough seats, then they should take into account how many voted for each party, sort of like splitting the times to get a winner? Saves all this faffing about with who wants to be friend with who, and should give a clear winner.

Or is that too simple?

[cs02rm0]

speedchick said:

With all this talk about a hung parliament

Have you not been listening to the BBC? It's called a balanced parliament, only a minority of weirdos call it a hung parliament.

Desperately sad.

[Don]

speedchick said:

With all this talk about a hung parliament (and some of them do need hanging), why don't they just count the actual votes instead of the seats? If two cars pass the line at pretty much the same point, they start splitting the times till they can seperate cars, we know that it's done by seats, but if no one wins enough seats, then they should take into account how many voted for each party, sort of like splitting the times to get a winner? Saves all this faffing about with who wants to be friend with who, and should give a clear winner.

Or is that too simple?

If they did that the Tories would be in power quite possibly with Clegg as the opposition.

But, yes, it is too simple. Without a majority of SEATS you can't get legislation through.

[dilbert]

speedchick said:

With all this talk about a hung parliament (and some of them do need hanging), why don't they just count the actual votes instead of the seats? If two cars pass the line at pretty much the same point, they start splitting the times till they can seperate cars, we know that it's done by seats, but if no one wins enough seats, then they should take into account how many voted for each party, sort of like splitting the times to get a winner? Saves all this faffing about with who wants to be friend with who, and should give a clear winner.

Or is that too simple?

The trouble is that you don't vote for the PM, or the party you want. You vote for your representative in parliament. He's the guy you write to, and he speaks on your behalf.

If you ever visit parliament, you'll realise that often they're not there speaking. On the up side, it's an old boy network, so they will represent you in a way. They just can't say, however, that you're voting for your representative in the old boy network.

The long term solution is a "no party system". Where there is no partly influence in parliament. The hung parliament is not the same, but it is closer. The trouble is that parliament changes all the time. In the same way it would never be an eternal "no party system". It'll never be a an eternal "hung parliament".

If it's always changing, then I think it's better that the electorate get some choice in the party that has power. To that end the short term fix is the Conservatives. They could win, although they may not, and it's not more of the same.

We need the cludge cleaning out of the system. The only hope of that is to vote conservative, and then that they win.

[pacman1]

Nice bit below from Michael Gove, despite being edited from the original (good old Beeb) and lefty Humphries interrupting every answer given! Just listen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_866100...

Edited by pacman1 on Wednesday 5th May 10:08

[F i F]

speedchick said:

With all this talk about a hung parliament (and some of them do need hanging), why don't they just count the actual votes instead of the seats? If two cars pass the line at pretty much the same point, they start splitting the times till they can seperate cars, we know that it's done by seats, but if no one wins enough seats, then they should take into account how many voted for each party, sort of like splitting the times to get a winner? Saves all this faffing about with who wants to be friend with who, and should give a clear winner.

Or is that too simple?

That needs a constitutional change though, but I understand what you mean, like the furthest cleanest in rallying terms. (Politicians furthest cleanest, can see a problem there.)

I think I'm going to have to treat this a different way, stop being negative and looking for deal breakers and looking for something I positively want, which leads me to UKIP. :nervous:

[speedchick]

cs02rm0 said:

speedchick said:

With all this talk about a hung parliament

Have you not been listening to the BBC? It's called a balanced parliament, only a minority of weirdos call it a hung parliament.

Desperately sad.

Is that me that you are calling sad there or the BBC? And for the record, I seem to fall into a lot of minority groups, redhead, lefthanded, don't believe in man made climate change, and now a weirdo

Thanks for the responses chaps, I did think that maybe it was too simple, just seemed like a good idea!

[cs02rm0]

I wasn't quite sure if I was saying I was feeling desperately sad about it, or if I was calling the BBC desperately sad. Seemed appropriate either way, but it wasn't directed at you.