If you don't vote you're an idiot (IMO)

fat daddy

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Spoil your ballot with a large penis, but please, do vote!

no don't ! ...... to spoil a vote you need to make it clear that you do not want ANY of the candidates, your intention must be clear for it to be a spoiled vote.

If you draw a penis they will mark it as a vote for Jeremy

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I'll either not vote or spoil my ballot paper for the hell of it. I'm New Forest West, which after tomorrow night might be the safest Tory seat in UK. The blinkered idiots in the area would vote for a corpse I'd it was wearing a blue rosette. Such is the entrenched belief in Tory policies, irrespective of there impact on the rest of the country.

Labour nor Libs are for me either. Yes I did vote UKIP last time around, but that was in protest and they no longer stand here anyhow. Plus they are more amateurish than Lab or Libs in the area. Greens might just get from me. Will see which way the wind blows tomorrow.

Spoil your ballot with a large penis, but please, do vote!

If you do that, make sure it goes across more than one candidate. If it is within the box, it can be counted as a vote for that candidate.

capt_slog

The only reason I've gone to the polling station in the last few ballots is to wind up those muppets who sit outside and ask for your number. The even bigger muppets are those who stand in a queue to actually GIVE them the number as if they were part of the official process.

Apparently, these supporters check to see who has not voted and sometimes travel to peoples houses (I've been told this by them) to ask them to come and vote. I explained that if they had time to waste, then please come round. At one time, they used to offer lifts to the polling station, sort of "You're being driven there courtesy of the BANANA party, can we count upon your vote?" I don't know if this still happens, perhaps not legal.

veronese68

Capt Slog wrote:

The only reason I've gone to the polling station in the last few ballots is to wind up those muppets who sit outside and ask for your number.

My wife has worked at a polling station on election days for some time. She gets very irritated by a lot of them, they often try it on a bit and she frequently has to remind them of the laws around voting and what they are not allowed to do. I can't remember any examples, but I'm sure I'll have some by tomorrow night.

mrfpb

Oh, and remember when Douglas Carswell annoyed UKIP last time by turning down a Parliamentary grant of £1,000,000.

He was offered that money because UKIP came third in the popular vote. Official parliamentary funding to parties to carry out their work is decided on a combination of seats and vote share. Voting for someone like the Greens, even if they come 4th in your local seat, will still improve their status and funding in Parliament.

imposter2.0

fat daddy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Spoil your ballot with a large penis, but please, do vote!

no don't ! ...... to spoil a vote you need to make it clear that you do not want ANY of the candidates, your intention must be clear for it to be a spoiled vote.

If you draw a penis they will mark it as a vote for Jeremy

Jeremy Hunt?

imposter2.0

Capt Slog wrote:

The only reason I've gone to the polling station in the last few ballots is to wind up those muppets who sit outside and ask for your number. The even bigger muppets are those who stand in a queue to actually GIVE them the number as if they were part of the official process.

Apparently, these supporters check to see who has not voted and sometimes travel to peoples houses (I've been told this by them) to ask them to come and vote. I explained that if they had time to waste, then please come round. At one time, they used to offer lifts to the polling station, sort of "You're being driven there courtesy of the BANANA party, can we count upon your vote?" I don't know if this still happens, perhaps not legal.

Not illegal - the lib dems in my old area used to offer lifts to elderly confirmed lib dem voters if they had mobility/transport problems. Not to say they definitely voted lib dem when they got there, but whatever.

Banksy's offer of a print to anyone who didn't vote tory in his constituency was deemed as illegal by the electoral commission though, as it basically constituted a bribe.

rolf_f

Imposter wrote:

Banksy's offer of a print to anyone who didn't vote tory in his constituency was deemed as illegal by the electoral commission though, as it basically constituted a bribe.

Yes, I can see how that might have given the Tories an unfair advantage.....

meanredspider

ben@31 wrote:

Politicians don't care about those who dont't vote. Why should they? As you're no threat even if they screw you over.

Of course they care. How often do you hear political commentators say that X or Y party is worried about a low turn-out? May was really worried about it at the beginning of this campaign (she's done of great job of messing the whole thing up so that no-one will be complacent). And an overall low turn-out is a really clear signal of voter disengagement.

On the other hand how often do you hear anybody talking about the "Penis" (or spoiled ballot) vote? I don't remember one occasion (other than as a footnote by the returning officer sometime after the cheer has gone up from the winner along with the other reasons why some ballots weren't counted). It's nonsense.

And how many of the "vote at all costs" vote in every ballot? PCC? Local council? Respect, at least, on your principles if you do.

rick_chasey

I said it elsewhere: UKIP may have gotten no seats but since they came 3rd in the popular vote there's been a Brexit referendum and the latest Tory party manifesto contains around 60-70% of the important stuff from last election's UKIP manifesto.

Those votes are still counted.

tangled_metal

What right do you have to tell people what to do?

Voting is not obligatory so stop trying to make out there's something wrong with not voting. We have choice here in our democracy that includes the choice not to vote.

Just because you don't exercise your right to vote doesn't mean you can't exercise your freedom of speech to complain about political matters. It's democracy! The free vote is just one part of that.

A few elections ago a newspaper published research into voter power across the country. IIRC a score of 1 meant each vote counted equally. A higher score meant voter power/influence, less = less power. The summary of that was the majority of voters had less power but there were a small proportion of constituencies where each vote score was significantly higher.

Basically the power to change government's rests in the votes of a minority of constituencies. So in many constituencies it's not the most effective method to be heard for many people.

So voting is a choice. Moaning about the government is a right!

PS tactical voting IMHO is a worse crime. If you want to vote then vote for the party you want not against the party you don't. Also, tactical scheming by parties should be outlawed completely. None of this electoral pact business between green party and Labour or ukip and Tories. Where the choice of the electorate is taken away by one party because it'll split the right or left wing vote. If I want to vote green but because Labour have a chance of power the green party withdraw in the hope their voters switch to Labour then I lose my democratic voice.

TL:DR

Get off your high horse, voting or not is a choice not an obligation.

Moaning about politics is part of freedom speech that should not be curtailed because you didn't vote.

There is worse things about politics than not voting such as tactical voting, electoral pacts by parties to not dilute left or right wing votes, electoral fraud, unequal electoral power across the nation, etc., etc..

mr_goo

fat daddy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Spoil your ballot with a large penis, but please, do vote!

no don't ! ...... to spoil a vote you need to make it clear that you do not want ANY of the candidates, your intention must be clear for it to be a spoiled vote.

If you draw a penis they will mark it as a vote for Jeremy

Thank goodness you clarified that. I was gonna use my large penis to vote. Think I'll use the pencil provided now.

chris_bass

just to clarify, i am definitely going to vote and for the party i would like to win, i just don't think it'll make the tiniest bit of difference to the result in my area.

rjsterry

Chris Bass wrote:

just to clarify, i am definitely going to vote and for the party i would like to win, i just don't think it'll make the tiniest bit of difference to the result in my area.

The result is not just who won.

meanredspider

rjsterry wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

just to clarify, i am definitely going to vote and for the party i would like to win, i just don't think it'll make the tiniest bit of difference to the result in my area.

The result is not just who won.

But, with five years between elections, it mostly is (depending upon the scale of the win). A few "lost" votes in a Tory safe seat won't make any difference.

The only reasons that UKIP's agenda has made it into the Tory manifesto is that
1. It's very little time since the last election which was pre-Brexit.
2. The Tories have had to about-turn from anti-Brexit to pro-Brexit

Five years from tomorrow, there won't be much of anybody's agenda still relevant.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

just to clarify, i am definitely going to vote and for the party i would like to win, i just don't think it'll make the tiniest bit of difference to the result in my area.

The result is not just who won.

But, with five years between elections, it mostly is (depending upon the scale of the win). A few "lost" votes in a Tory safe seat won't make any difference.

The only reasons that UKIP's agenda has made it into the Tory manifesto is that
1. It's very little time since the last election which was pre-Brexit.
2. The Tories have had to about-turn from anti-Brexit to pro-Brexit

Five years from tomorrow, there won't be much of anybody's agenda still relevant.

Tories advocated the referendum to hold off the UKIP surge.

rjsterry

A few votes shouldn't make any difference. It's quite right that MPs or policies only change with significant support.

UKIP support had been building for years. It wasn't just leading up to June last year.

sniper68

Double post

sniper68

joe2008 wrote:

ibbo68 wrote:

If you don't vote you can't complain about who gets in.
There's really only two parties who have a chance.Not voting is a vote to the party in power.In this case a vote for anyone but Labour is a vote to the Tories(assuming you didn't vote Tory).So if you don't want the Tories in power you have to vote Labour.
So every vote does count!

Not true. We have a Tory in where there has traditionally been a Liberal; Labour is always a very, very poor third, therefore, a Labour vote is a wasted vote. If I want Labour to win the election, I should vote Lib Dem, who have a very good chance of winning here.

When was the last time the Liberaks were in power.Not in my lifetime and I'm nearly 50.
The Lib-dems will struggle for third.....as usual

109 years ago btw.....the last time the Liberals won.

graeme_s-2

meanredspider wrote:

And how many of the "vote at all costs" vote in every ballot? PCC? Local council? Respect, at least, on your principles if you do.

Me!

I've voted in every single election I've been eligible to vote in (including student union elections when I was at Uni) since the day I turned 18.

I missed out on one occasion when, after I moved house my voter registration documents got lost in the post and I didn't realise until polling day.

meanredspider

Graeme_S wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And how many of the "vote at all costs" vote in every ballot? PCC? Local council? Respect, at least, on your principles if you do.

Me!

I've voted in every single election I've been eligible to vote in (including student union elections when I was at Uni) since the day I turned 18.

I missed out on one occasion when, after I moved house my voter registration documents got lost in the post and I didn't realise until polling day.

Total respect to you. I know a lot of people that trot out the "voting obligation" line who do not practice what they preach anything other than selectively. I don't believe it's a line that you can draw selectively.

rjsterry

Ditto. I had my first opportunity when I was only just 18 and living at home (must have been a local election). I made some wavering noises about not knowing who to vote for and got a proper telling off, before I sheepishly stumbled down to the local church hall. I don't think I've missed any local and certainly no general election since, although I will confess to not voting in the National Trust Council elections.

ben@31

Mr Goo wrote:

Yes I did vote UKIP last time around, but that was in protest and they no longer stand here anyhow. Plus they are more amateurish than Lab or Libs in the area.

You could always become a candidate?

rick_chasey

Never missed a vote. Local, MEP, general, referenda, mayor, the lot.

joe2008

ibbo68 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

ibbo68 wrote:

If you don't vote you can't complain about who gets in.
There's really only two parties who have a chance.Not voting is a vote to the party in power.In this case a vote for anyone but Labour is a vote to the Tories(assuming you didn't vote Tory).So if you don't want the Tories in power you have to vote Labour.
So every vote does count!

Not true. We have a Tory in where there has traditionally been a Liberal; Labour is always a very, very poor third, therefore, a Labour vote is a wasted vote. If I want Labour to win the election, I should vote Lib Dem, who have a very good chance of winning here.

When was the last time the Liberaks were in power.Not in my lifetime and I'm nearly 50.
The Lib-dems will struggle for third.....as usual

109 years ago btw.....the last time the Liberals won.

I didn't say anything about Liberals in power, of course they will come third by a mile.

You've completely missed my point.

You said 'a vote for anyone but Labour is a vote for the Tories. So if you don't want the Tories in power you have to vote Labour.'

That's simply not true, if, for instance, a vote for Lib Dem removes the incumbent Tory, that would benefit Labour.

Lookyhere

Tangled Metal wrote:

What right do you have to tell people what to do?


So voting is a choice. Moaning about the government is a right!

PS tactical voting IMHO is a worse crime. If you want to vote then vote for the party you want not against the party you don't. Also, tactical scheming by parties should be outlawed completely. None of this electoral pact business between green party and Labour or ukip and Tories. Where the choice of the electorate is taken away by one party because it'll split the right or left wing vote. If I want to vote green but because Labour have a chance of power the green party withdraw in the hope their voters switch to Labour then I lose my democratic voice.

The first 2 sentences seem to be at odds with your main paragraph

I am voting tactically, as its the only plausible way to try and make sure the Tory candidate doesn't win, i don't see why anyone should object, at least i have thought about my choice, unlike millions of others who vote the way they do because that is what they have always done and do not consider the alternatives.

kingstongraham

Lookyhere wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

What right do you have to tell people what to do?


So voting is a choice. Moaning about the government is a right!

PS tactical voting IMHO is a worse crime. If you want to vote then vote for the party you want not against the party you don't. Also, tactical scheming by parties should be outlawed completely. None of this electoral pact business between green party and Labour or ukip and Tories. Where the choice of the electorate is taken away by one party because it'll split the right or left wing vote. If I want to vote green but because Labour have a chance of power the green party withdraw in the hope their voters switch to Labour then I lose my democratic voice.

The first 2 sentences seem to be at odds with your main paragraph

I am voting tactically, as its the only plausible way to try and make sure the Tory candidate doesn't win, i don't see why anyone should object, at least i have thought about my choice, unlike millions of others who vote the way they do because that is what they have always done and do not consider the alternatives.

I don't see an issue with it either, given our voting system. If I rank the candidates from 1 to 5 in order of my preference for them to win, but numbers 1 and 2 have absolutely no hope, why should I not vote for my 3rd most preferred, if it is the best chance to prevent my 5th most preferred winning?

Given our voting system.

kingstongraham

Makes it easy for me too, as we have a two horse race, and one of them is Zac Goldsmith.

rick_chasey

Lookyhere wrote:

I am voting tactically, as its the only plausible way to try and make sure the Tory candidate doesn't win, i don't see why anyone should object, at least i have thought about my choice, unlike millions of others who vote the way they do because that is what they have always done and do not consider the alternatives.

The critique of tactical voting, if you want to hear it, is it gives a false level of support for policies and manifestos, and the expense of other manifestos, that are more popular than the vote would suggest.

I'll keep giving the example, but it's incredibly relevant. UKIP got no seats, but both big parties tried to pander to what they thought were the reasons why they picked up votes.

Had all those voters continued to vote tactically and not vote UKIP to keep one or t'other out, neither party would have felt compelled to take up those types of policies.

It ultimately forced the Tories to go for a referendum, and, as Aaron Banks (the c*nt) keeps bragging on twitter, the Tories have incorporated all their main policies in their most recent manifesto.

That simply would not have happened if every UKIP voter voted tactically.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

I am voting tactically, as its the only plausible way to try and make sure the Tory candidate doesn't win, i don't see why anyone should object, at least i have thought about my choice, unlike millions of others who vote the way they do because that is what they have always done and do not consider the alternatives.

The critique of tactical voting, if you want to hear it, is it gives a false level of support for policies and manifestos, and the expense of other manifestos, that are more popular than the vote would suggest.

I'll keep giving the example, but it's incredibly relevant. UKIP got no seats, but both big parties tried to pander to what they thought were the reasons why they picked up votes.

Had all those voters continued to vote tactically and not vote UKIP to keep one or t'other out, neither party would have felt compelled to take up those types of policies.

It ultimately forced the Tories to go for a referendum, and, as Aaron Banks (the c*nt) keeps bragging on twitter, the Tories have incorporated all their main policies in their most recent manifesto.

That simply would not have happened if every UKIP voter voted tactically.

I think I understand what you are saying but I think (if I've understood correctly) that your thinking is muddled.

The Tories offered a referendum in their last manifesto to appease the Tory backbenchers in their decades-old Europe disharmony. UKIP did well because there are pressures on immigration and Europe. Then the referendum happened and we voted Brexit. The Tories have now adopted Brexit and Brexit thinking NOT because UKIP did well in the last election but because they NEED to be seen to be pro-Brexit (anti-Europe and anti-immigration). That, by default, means wanting similar things to UKIP. The Tories don't need to be fighting UKIP because they have imploded all on their own.

By your logic, for years parties would have been adopting Lim Dem policies but they haven't. Quite the opposite.