Go on, get your fat ass out and vote
Comments
-
dhope wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:By a tiny fraction I deem not voting to be more likely to help bring about change.
How?
Non voters outnumbered any other party last time.
What change did it bring about?
When every party that could conceivably get into power does so by being voted for, how is it in the interest of any of them to cater for non voters. Pick the group that advocates STV or PR or whichever you think is closest to achieving some measure of the change you want.
Bah. I'm avoiding social media today for this very reason. I think I have about as little faith in the electorate as I do those being elected :roll:
I actually agree with your reasoning but disagree with the conclusion. Any party that won under the current system would not then instigate change.
Surely as the number of non-voters increases it reduces the legitimacy of our elected govt and increases the chance of change. The increased numbers of paedos and crooks which is partially a result of the electoral system will also help the case for change.
My faith in the UK electorate is very probably lower than your's and I despair of them being asked to make a rational decision about a matter as complex as our membership of the EU.
We had a referendum on PR in 2011 when ironically hardly anybody bothered to vote and the motion was trounced0 -
You seem to be misunderstanding how democracy works. Yes, your individual vote is very unlikely to change anything on it's own (unless you really are in a situation where one vote is all that there is in it!)Surrey Commuter wrote:How is not voting missing the big picture?
However, it's not about individual votes on their own, it's about the cumulative effect of all the votes cast that determines who wins. If individuals "opt out" of voting they're not changing anything - they're just surrendering to the will of the people who do vote. Look again at the graph above, and then think about what might have been different if all those people who didn't vote did - and don't assume that they would be equally spread across the parties as that's something we'll never know. Why? Because they didn't vote! If they had the picture may have been the same, or very different, but we'd only know either way, if they actually voted.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:dhope wrote:
Your input has been counted this time too, proportionally.Surrey Commuter wrote:No vote for me as I continue to wage my war of attrition for proportional representation
well if Dominic Raab's 18,593 gets slashed to a tie then I will hang my head in shame
Well I voted Labour just to keep Raab on his toes. I'm sure he'll get the message.
Actually I did it because it annoyed me slightly that he doesn't live in the constituency.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
Not voting is lazy.
Simple as. Even if you don't want to vote for anyone - spoil the ballot. That way the protest is measured.
Any excuse not to vote otherwise, except for physically not being able to be present at the booth ( and not knowing about it until after the postal ballot closes) is a cop out.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:dhope wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:By a tiny fraction I deem not voting to be more likely to help bring about change.
Surely as the number of non-voters increases it reduces the legitimacy of our elected govt and increases the chance of change. The increased numbers of paedos and crooks which is partially a result of the electoral system will also help the case for change.
And exactly who outside the government is going to instigate that change? If you want to change the system, you vote for a party that intends to do so. If you don't vote nobody knows the reason why, and there is no non-corporeal being or agency that will simply assume non-voters all want a change to the electoral system. The winning party/coalition will just go on implementing the policies they said they would based on the fact that they were democratically elected, and your non-vote is meaningless.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
All you get with very low turn out is increased illegitimacy of governments elected, so their ability to get anything done is reduced - to the point where the government is, in effect, meaningless, and alternative 'black market' (i.e. corrupt) governance occurs.
Basically, take a look at Italy and you'll get the idea.0 -
Seajays wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding how democracy works. Yes, your individual vote is very unlikely to change anything on it's own (unless you really are in a situation where one vote is all that there is in it!)Surrey Commuter wrote:How is not voting missing the big picture?
However, it's not about individual votes on their own, it's about the cumulative effect of all the votes cast that determines who wins. If individuals "opt out" of voting they're not changing anything - they're just surrendering to the will of the people who do vote. Look again at the graph above, and then think about what might have been different if all those people who didn't vote did - and don't assume that they would be equally spread across the parties as that's something we'll never know. Why? Because they didn't vote! If they had the picture may have been the same, or very different, but we'd only know either way, if they actually voted.
That statement is wrong!!!! and is one of my reasons for not voting.
Consider this fact - as sure as the sun will rise in the morning the new MP for Aberavon will be a man who lives in Copenhagen with his two daughters and his wife who is the Prime Minister of Denmark. Now imagine you read about that in a country like Italy or Greece... oh how we would smugly laugh.0 -
Not voting would only work if it was generally understood that those choosing not to vote were doing so as a protest for not having PR. It's not, there are a variety of reasons why people don't vote and therefore the message ("I'm not voting because we don't have PR") is lost.
The reality is in this Country (and unless there was socially recognised movement) no one knows why a person chooses to spoil their paper - it could be that you don't like the parties or that you are an anarchist, protesting for proportional representation or because one day you woke up and realised that you've been shunted into an alternate reality and the only way to get back to your 7th dimension reality is not to vote... the possibilities are endless, the one certainty is that your non-vote is part of the disgruntled quiet.
Want Proportional Representation then help the party that will make that a reality into power.
Your vote is counted. Not voting isn't counted.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:
Stop being a cop out.
MTFU and go to the voting booth - can always spoil you ballot if you don't want to vote for anyone.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:
Not voting isn't counted when it comes to deciding which party will govern your life for the next five years.
FTFY.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Stop being a cop out.
MTFU and go to the voting booth - can always spoil you ballot if you don't want to vote for anyone.
A spoiled vote is counted with the people who couldn't work a pencil
A vote not cast is counted with the people who couldn't be arsed.
Not an easy one to unpick.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Seajays wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Not voting isn't counted when it comes to deciding which party will govern your life for the next five years.
FTFY.
I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Forgive my ignorance, but who is on your ballot paper?TailWindHome wrote:I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is on your ballot paper?TailWindHome wrote:I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'
Northern Ireland parties and some fella who wants to legalise cannabis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/cons ... /N06000006
I stand corrected there's a Conservative candidate this time round.
http://www.niconservatives.com/person/l ... aire-legge
From Norfolk apparently :roll:“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Oh dear, people from Norfolk can be a bit 'special'.TailWindHome wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is on your ballot paper?TailWindHome wrote:I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'
Northern Ireland parties and some fella who wants to legalise cannabis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/cons ... /N06000006
I stand corrected there's a Conservative candidate this time round.
http://www.niconservatives.com/person/l ... aire-legge
From Norfolk apparently :roll:
I really didn't know that. Presumably the main parties don't stand as they have no chance of winning. I was told once that you should vote for the MP that would be best for your local area rather than purely for the party or their leader.
But I understand your frustration.0 -
My area is nailed on Labour (not a problem personally) and the incumbent is leaving having been in since 1992. One of the comments was that we can at least be fairly the guy that's coming in will be decent, i.e. Labour wont want to waste a guaranteed seat on a numpty. He's also a local. So that's good.Veronese68 wrote:I was told once that you should vote for the MP that would be best for your local area rather than purely for the party or their leader.
But I understand your frustration.0 -
Dyrlac wrote:I was 10th in line at 0657 but was well scalped by some guy on a hybrid in baggy shorts (wearing an AFC Wimbledon top) who was 8th. Voted purely for mood affiliation though as Hammond's majority in Wimbers in 2010 was 11,408.
I am Wimbledon too. Hammond is pretty useless and there are I dare say quite a lot of voters who are disaffected by the whole Free School experiment (I certainly am). Judge I don't have a particularly high opinion of and no way will I ever vote Lib Dem ever again. There's also a Kipper who thinks Argentina is going to invade the Falklands again... So not much choice but I still got out and put my X down.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is on your ballot paper?TailWindHome wrote:I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'
Northern Ireland parties and some fella who wants to legalise cannabis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/cons ... /N06000006
I stand corrected there's a Conservative candidate this time round.
http://www.niconservatives.com/person/l ... aire-legge
From Norfolk apparently :roll:
No brainer there. Legalize it!!!0 -
This. Smaller parties know that they aren't going to get anywhere without being a good constituency MPs first. Also my (limited) understanding of NI politics was that at least some of the local parties were loosely affiliated with the major Westminster parties.Veronese68 wrote:
Oh dear, people from Norfolk can be a bit 'special'.TailWindHome wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is on your ballot paper?TailWindHome wrote:I look on the ballot paper and see no mention of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP or UKIP.
Explain to me how my vote 'counts'
Northern Ireland parties and some fella who wants to legalise cannabis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/cons ... /N06000006
I stand corrected there's a Conservative candidate this time round.
http://www.niconservatives.com/person/l ... aire-legge
From Norfolk apparently :roll:
I really didn't know that. Presumably the main parties don't stand as they have no chance of winning. I was told once that you should vote for the MP that would be best for your local area rather than purely for the party or their leader.
But I understand your frustration.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Asprilla wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:dhope wrote:
Your input has been counted this time too, proportionally.Surrey Commuter wrote:No vote for me as I continue to wage my war of attrition for proportional representation
well if Dominic Raab's 18,593 gets slashed to a tie then I will hang my head in shame
Well I voted Labour just to keep Raab on his toes. I'm sure he'll get the message.
Actually I did it because it annoyed me slightly that he doesn't live in the constituency.
I see he got my message loud and clear, as his majority went from 18k to 28k.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
Asprilla wrote:Asprilla wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:dhope wrote:
Your input has been counted this time too, proportionally.Surrey Commuter wrote:No vote for me as I continue to wage my war of attrition for proportional representation
well if Dominic Raab's 18,593 gets slashed to a tie then I will hang my head in shame
Well I voted Labour just to keep Raab on his toes. I'm sure he'll get the message.
Actually I did it because it annoyed me slightly that he doesn't live in the constituency.
I see he got my message loud and clear, as his majority went from 18k to 28k.
Always good to confirm that my wasted vote was not wasted.
A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.0 -
You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?Surrey Commuter wrote:A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?Surrey Commuter wrote:A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.
I would say that any increase in turnout is a very good day for democracy. In my constituency we had 75%, that's really not bad at all.0 -
I thought turnout overall was about the same as 2010? About 65%0
-
-
UndercoverElephant wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?Surrey Commuter wrote:A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.
I would say that any increase in turnout is a very good day for democracy. In my constituency we had 75%, that's really not bad at all.
But if you believe our current electoral system to be borderline feudal and not very democratic then dwindling turnout is a potential driver for change. As it is the anomaly that 1 million people voted Green and are represented by 1 MP could be a far more powerful driver.0 -
FTFYSurrey Commuter wrote:The lower the turnout the more democratic it is! Dictatorship is democracy! Freedom is slavery! War is peace! Ignorance is strength!0 -
Oh yes, low turnout has been a big driver for change lots of times. Why lets see there was that time when, er, and then there was that other occasions when... er, help me out here?Surrey Commuter wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?Surrey Commuter wrote:A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.
I would say that any increase in turnout is a very good day for democracy. In my constituency we had 75%, that's really not bad at all.
But if you believe our current electoral system to be borderline feudal and not very democratic then dwindling turnout is a potential driver for change. As it is the anomaly that 1 million people voted Green and are represented by 1 MP could be a far more powerful driver.
Has Manc33 got a new username?
If you want to change things vote, petition, protest, riot. Apathy is not going to change anything.0 -
TimothyW wrote:
Oh yes, low turnout has been a big driver for change lots of times. Why lets see there was that time when, er, and then there was that other occasions when... er, help me out here?Surrey Commuter wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?Surrey Commuter wrote:A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.
I would say that any increase in turnout is a very good day for democracy. In my constituency we had 75%, that's really not bad at all.
But if you believe our current electoral system to be borderline feudal and not very democratic then dwindling turnout is a potential driver for change. As it is the anomaly that 1 million people voted Green and are represented by 1 MP could be a far more powerful driver.
Has Manc33 got a new username?
If you want to change things vote, petition, protest, riot. Apathy is not going to change anything.
Apathy = lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.
ie: you have a lack of interest or concern for electoral reform whereas I am very moved and excited by it0
