That will be why we have the same laws as the 1900s, why woman don't have the vote, the social state never came to be, the NHS is but a dream.
Oh wait, that's utter trite, like your tin foil-hatted diatribe.
How do you get a Labour government?
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
That will be why we have the same laws as the 1900s, why woman don't have the vote, the social state never came to be, the NHS is but a dream.
Oh wait, that's utter trite, like your tin foil-hatted diatribe.
Sponsored Links
Please give an example from this millennium, AS.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga
Go educate yourself, plenty of new laws about family, enviroment, employment. You can bang on like an ignorant plonker about banker bonuses and shady deals, as if that represent the whole of UK politics and law.
AS -
I am talking about participating in voting.Surely voter participation is measured by the % of eligible voters who vote?
You seem to have expanded this to talking about participation in politics.
Voting, in itself, in an election is participation. I think we will just have to disagree on this as I can't see how you have to validate your vote in other ways.
If to 'participate' you also have to do the things you mention, then how many of the people who vote properly are worthy of the label? Do you really expect every voter to be actively involved in lobbying , leafleting or 'pushing' people to read your blog ( although I would like to see how you do that last one) etc etc.
While all of that is to be encouraged, NOTA is just a simple suggestion to elimate the excuse of 'they are all the same' or 'there is no point voting' etc . It also would help to stop the likes of that Brand chap to encourage further the idea that opting out of the democratic process is as valid as opting in. (plus the other reasons but done already)
It may be that then we would get more people actively lobbying, leafleting, asking the questions as a result and every election result would be more 'valid' as a result without the sniping from the sidelines based on imaginary stay aways and tehir imaginary motives.
I understand quite well how our system works, which is why I am discussing making a small change to the ballot paper. Where have I given you the impression that I am ignoring the way the current process (of General Election FPP) works?
There is nothing convoluted in it, it's a very simple concept in a similar way that compulsory voting is a simple concept.
Is it that hard to see the consisitency of affecting 'nothing' in one area while at the same time affecting 'something' in another?
Is it really hard to see that it can affect voter turnout positively without necessarily affecting who is elected?
ie you can affect an election without affecting who is elected in a number of ways (such as mobile polling staions or free public transport to polling station)
To make your argument easier for me to understand please bear with me
1. What harmful effect would NOTA have?
2. Is there a better (and/or cheaper?) way to encourage voting within our current FPP format
That might help me change my mind more than the tone of some previous posts.
I am talking about participating in voting.Surely voter participation is measured by the % of eligible voters who vote?
You seem to have expanded this to talking about participation in politics.
Voting, in itself, in an election is participation. I think we will just have to disagree on this as I can't see how you have to validate your vote in other ways.
If to 'participate' you also have to do the things you mention, then how many of the people who vote properly are worthy of the label? Do you really expect every voter to be actively involved in lobbying , leafleting or 'pushing' people to read your blog ( although I would like to see how you do that last one) etc etc.
While all of that is to be encouraged, NOTA is just a simple suggestion to elimate the excuse of 'they are all the same' or 'there is no point voting' etc . It also would help to stop the likes of that Brand chap to encourage further the idea that opting out of the democratic process is as valid as opting in. (plus the other reasons but done already)
It may be that then we would get more people actively lobbying, leafleting, asking the questions as a result and every election result would be more 'valid' as a result without the sniping from the sidelines based on imaginary stay aways and tehir imaginary motives.
I understand quite well how our system works, which is why I am discussing making a small change to the ballot paper. Where have I given you the impression that I am ignoring the way the current process (of General Election FPP) works?
There is nothing convoluted in it, it's a very simple concept in a similar way that compulsory voting is a simple concept.
Is it that hard to see the consisitency of affecting 'nothing' in one area while at the same time affecting 'something' in another?
Is it really hard to see that it can affect voter turnout positively without necessarily affecting who is elected?
ie you can affect an election without affecting who is elected in a number of ways (such as mobile polling staions or free public transport to polling station)
To make your argument easier for me to understand please bear with me
1. What harmful effect would NOTA have?
2. Is there a better (and/or cheaper?) way to encourage voting within our current FPP format
That might help me change my mind more than the tone of some previous posts.
Sponsored Links
Thanks for the link.
Some of the Acts are "tidying" previous legislation, some expanding scope to cover previously-unforeseen circumstances (mobile phones, social media, geographical boundaries - i.e. someone overseas defaming a UK citizen, etc).
Some closing loopholes. Nothing ground-shaking (no NHS-equivalent).
What was the last "ground-shaking" Act to be enacted, that fundamentally changed what it was like to live in GB / UK?
Who cares about voter participation, if 20% stay at home or 20% vote for none, what difference does it make?
Voting for a candidate is participating, voting for nobody is not, there is no “nobody” that gets elected.
How can you validate a vote for nothing, what is there to validate?
Voting for none of the above is opting out, you have a choice of candidates, that is your choice, you are choosing not to vote for any of them, you have opted out.
It encourages laziness, rather than doing something active to influence the choice of candidates if you don’t like those on offer, it validates the position to do nothing but tick a blank box.
It validates the inability for someone to inform themselves of the different candidates and choose “the least worst option” (it’s just childish to say “they are all the same”), that you don’t particularly like them is NOT the same as being able to make an intelligent informed choice as to which of them is the least corrupt/retarded/lazy.
There is ALWAYS a better choice, even if that choice is between being ruled by Hitler or Stalin, it is stupid and childish to throw away that choice.
So you lose your argument and move the goalposts.
We are a rich nation, with equality laws, generally fair justice system, state pensions, healthcare, welfare.
What "ground-shaking" act's do you think are being stopped by the illuminati buisiness men, when we are one of the richest nations, that measured on a global scale has some of the best life quality options available, what fundamental change do you think is lacking?
Could all of the above be put right?
Could it be afforded?
Does any government have the balls to do it?
I doubt the voting population would "vote for christmas", as it were.
You brought Acts of Parliament into it - I was talking about anything that changes how the country actually is, for its population. You brought your own goalposts to the thread.
Could it be afforded?
Does any government have the balls to do it?
I doubt the voting population would "vote for christmas", as it were.
You brought Acts of Parliament into it - I was talking about anything that changes how the country actually is, for its population. You brought your own goalposts to the thread.
Democracy.
Rule of the People.
If NOTA reaches a high-enough proportion of the electorate, and a candidate still gets elected in, does this actually then cease to be "democracy"?
Rule of the People.
If NOTA reaches a high-enough proportion of the electorate, and a candidate still gets elected in, does this actually then cease to be "democracy"?
A referendum on continued membership of the EU would be nice!
But what if voting in it was compulsory and the 'don't knows' won?
Then I guess we keep voting until they did know.
If voting was compulsory then the argument for NOTA would not be the same, as everyone would be voting and they would not be able to use the ' they are all the same' 'it makes no difference' excuses.
We would have no stay at home voters dressing it up as some kind of moral high ground when it is just that they can't be bothered to find out the best/least worst candidate.
My NOTA is merely to remove that kind of excuse for that kind of voter, which seems difficult for some to understand. A reward or penalty are the only other ways, it seems.
And of course some feel that it is not important to encourage people, the young in particular, to vote.
But I do.
Sponsored Links
