How are you planning to vote?

[RNReindeer]

It'll be interesting, maybe even confirm suspicions, about how representative GD contributors are compared to the whole electorate.

You stupid - are one of them.

You stupid, have failed to realise the semantics of my post.
I suggested it will be interesting to see how representative of the general consensus is compared to the general consensus of GD forum.

I'm only one contributor, you may be many more than one, who knows.

But one thing is for sure, I'm not the general consensus of GD or the general electorate.
However, I suspect that my views are much closer to the general consensus of the electorate than they are to the consensus of GD forum. Thanks to the overt representation of racially and sexist posters on GD forum.

Now if you'll excuse me I do have better things to do than to correct your misunderstandings.

 

[Micilin]

One thing to remember is that :-

Not voting IS voting - for who you Don't want.

Spoiling your paper gets you counted in the list that Doesn't count

The Moron List

The only vote wasted is a vote cast in a way in which you didn’t really want to vote ie: tactically

Nice to see my preferred option is doing well !

I maintain there should be a box marked 'protest' or ' none of the above' so that the lazy or apathetic have no excuse not to vote.

Also then we don't count people who are unable to fill in a ballot paper correctly as being among those making a conscious protest.

Not voting is a lazy cop out , even if no candidate is your ideal one - if you don't have the capacity to vote for the 'least worst' option, then don't complain when the worst option gets elected.

A lot of sacrifice has gone into the gaining and protecting universal suffrage , taking the prerogative from a small group of wealthy landowning males over the age of 21 to a more representative electorate.

Still a bit to go in reforming ' first past the post' for me, but I'm afraid I find it hard to respect anyone who discusses politics and yet won't vote if eligible.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I disagree.

It is not apathy nor laziness (the polling station is across the road); it is total disillusionment.

I do not want the least worst.
Whichever candidate wins will, with few exceptions, have gained only 30 or 40% of the votes.
Were they to have a run-off of the top two so that at least the victor would have more than 50% things may be different.

Apart from that, in this constituency, I can tell you now who will win so there really is NO point voting.

So, not apathy but abstention which seems to be accepted by MPs when they vote therefore acceptable for me.
What would be the point of forcing those who were apathetic - or ignorant - to vote?

 

[Micilin]

I disagree.

It is not apathy nor laziness (the polling station is across the road); it is total disillusionment.

I do not want the least worst.
Whichever candidate wins will, with few exceptions, have gained only 30 or 40% of the votes.
Were they to have a run-off of the top two so that at least the victor would have more than 50% things may be different.

Apart from that, in this constituency, I can tell you now who will win so there really is NO point voting.

So, not apathy but abstention which seems to be accepted by MPs when they vote therefore acceptable for me.
What would be the point of forcing those who were apathetic - or ignorant - to vote?

The first outcome would be that whoever did not vote would come under the 'apathetic or ignorant' label, rather than allowing the non voter the excuse of some kind of principled non participation.

If you don't want to vote for the least worst option - and let's be honest that's really what every voter has to do,(rather than wait for a party that is 100% in line with the individual's best interest to come along) , then for me you have opted out of the debate.

And laziness applies regardless of distance! Laziness of thought, engagement , reponsibility etc. ( speaking generally -I accept you are making what you feel is a principled decision, however misguided!)

Would the 'Protest' box engage you to register a recognised, quantifiable expression of your disillusionment?

The MP situation is not the same at all.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you don't want to vote for the least worst option - and let's be honest that's really what every voter has to do,(rather than wait for a party that is 100% in line with the individual's best interest to come along) , then for me you have opted out of the debate.

I disagree but can still debate.
This is my opinion and I am entitled to it and to voice it.

Would the 'Protest' box engage you to register a recognised, quantifiable expression of your disillusionment?

It would. It would mean I was not a 'spoiled paper' but a genuine protest.

It won't happen though.


However, I must emphasize the fact that only the marginal seats which may change hands actually make any difference.
The rest of us can only increase or decrease the incumbents majority.

Nothing is going to change though as they who make rules rule and they are quite content.

 

[mark vincent]

Just interested to see how folk are intending to vote, and then compare it with the actual result in a few weeks.

I am intending to vote by getting on the bus to my local polling station, how are you intending to vote

 

[JohnD]

I might vote, but since my constituency is a safe seat for one of the major national parties, it will achieve nothing. The majority of the voters will return whatever robotic clone the party selects.

That's one of the problems with the FPTP system.

Unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency, your vote is worthless.

 

[Micilin]

If you don't want to vote for the least worst option - and let's be honest that's really what every voter has to do,(rather than wait for a party that is 100% in line with the individual's best interest to come along) , then for me you have opted out of the debate.

I disagree but can still debate.
This is my opinion and I am entitled to it and to voice it.

Would the 'Protest' box engage you to register a recognised, quantifiable expression of your disillusionment?

It would. It would mean I was not a 'spoiled paper' but a genuine protest.

It won't happen though.


However, I must emphasize the fact that only the marginal seats which may change hands actually make any difference.
The rest of us can only increase or decrease the incumbents majority.

Nothing is going to change though as they who make rules rule and they are quite content.

So a 'Protest ' box would engage you, good. That's partly why I suggest the idea.

You are of course entitled to debate ! But if you don't vote, then nobody of consequence needs to engage with you, much less take any notice of your opinion.

Agree on FPTP system rendering many votes useless in terms of affecting a seat, but it is much better to register a % of dissatisfaction! rather than allow the incumbent a figure closer to 100% approval.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You are of course entitled to debate ! But if you don't vote, then nobody of consequence needs to engage with you, much less take any notice of your opinion.

...but they will.

Agree on FPTP system rendering many votes useless in terms of affecting a seat, but it is much better to register a % of dissatisfaction

There is no way of registering dissatisfaction.
We are merely branded lazy and apathetic.

 

[Doug99]

Apart from that, in this constituency, I can tell you now who will win so there really is NO point voting.

And that is where the problem lies. In Wales for example there is a strong Labour heartland irrespective of how the party performs during their term. Communities vote Labour because it is a culture thing. But when the turnout is analysed, its generally a miserly 50/60%, and often 30% during local elections. If the apathetic 40% had a change of mind set and turned out, their vote CAN make a difference.

 

[Micilin]

You are of course entitled to debate ! But if you don't vote, then nobody of consequence needs to engage with you, much less take any notice of your opinion.

...but they will.

Agree on FPTP system rendering many votes useless in terms of affecting a seat, but it is much better to register a % of dissatisfaction

There is no way of registering dissatisfaction.
We are merely branded lazy and apathetic.

You would rather that the incumbent has a 100% majority and uses this a s a mandate,than let them know ,say,30% of his electorate are unhappy?

Why would a politician care about you if you say you won't vote for anyone?

 

[JohnD]

If the choices on offer are all unappealing, I can't in conscience vote for any of them, because my vote will be interpreted as approval and support

Choose one:

Stalin
Hitler
Ghengis Kahn
Pol Pot

 

[AronSearle]

A protest box, spoiling your paper, or not bothering all achieve exactly the same thing.

If everyone but 1 person does the above, and that person votes for the loony party, then the loony party wins.

People who think we need a protest vote are just displaying ignorance of how the system works. You vote for a representative, if you can't pick someone you just display an inability to work with an imperfect system, and analyse your least worst choice.

There is no perfect system, there will never be perfect choices.

Also, once an MP is voted into power, he still has to generally act sane, people will protest or force another vote if he goes round being generally stupid. You can still create pressure groups to force MP's to act for or against something. And MP's are often shifted out of power before their term.

In fact not voting only causes MP's to focus on the few remaining core of swing voters, further contributing to the 'they are all the same' syndrome.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You would rather that the incumbent has a 100% majority and uses this a s a mandate,than let them know ,say,30% of his electorate are unhappy?

Well, it's more likely to be that 60 or 70% will be unhappy but in any case he will use a majority of one as a mandate.

Why would a politician care about you if you say you won't vote for anyone?

Because it is their duty to represent all of their constituents to the best of their ability regardless of how they voted.

In any case, wouldn't the ones who did not vote seem more deserving than those who actually voted against?

 

[AronSearle]

If the choices on offer are all unappealing, I can't in conscience vote for any of them, because my vote will be interpreted as approval and support

Choose one:

Stalin
Hitler
Ghengis Kahn
Pol Pot

Genghis khan mostly killed foreigners, trusted his generals to run the army, left a successful empire, and united factions.

The other three killed as many of their own people as they did the 'enemy', tried disastrously to meddle in military matters (Hitler's meddling lost the war, and Stalin meddling resulted in hundreds of thousands of army deaths), they ruined the economy of their countries, and left no worthwhile legacy.

Apart from the reductio ad absurdumof your argument making it invalid, and the ignorance you display of the power of individual MP's (you know you vote for MP's and not dictators, right?), it was still easy to pick the least worst option.

Try harder.