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

mr_goo

I'll vote for any party that can deal with the annual £3.6bn of fraudulent claims on the NHS. Seemingly impossible to stop according to Mrs Goo who attended a meeting today held by bigwigs from NHS.

FocusZing

Ummmm. I fully concede to being an idot, should I still vote tomorrow?

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

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.

Cameron in his 2015 ilk was relatively left for a Tory leader. Pro gay marriage, continued to offer up tax breaks for the poorest. Arguably he was doing that, and campaigning on that to annihilate the lib dem votes and capture them in the 2015 vote, which he did with aplomb, very much at the expense of the Lib Dems. Our votes went to the Tories, not to labour.

Arguably Labour went left with Ed Milliband to capture disaffected left Lib Dem supporters for the same reason.

I don't think what you're saying is necessarily mutually exclusive; the backbenchers who were anti-Europe were much more agitated when UKIP picked up a lot of votes because, for the first time, they felt they had genuine public support for it. Cameron may have felt the need to bow to their pressure because the electorate was also telling him it was a big issue.

I think you're being a bit naive if you think politicians and parties don't spend a lot of time paying attention to why people voted what way. Tactical voting only obscures the true representation of what people think of the manifestos and the parties. The press only look at the winners, sure, but since when did we expect them to be balanced?

meanredspider

To avoid the endless quoting. I'm not naive - quite the opposite - I think it's FAR more sophisticated than looking a ballots cast. And that there are far more forces at play than simple electorate desires.

Lookyhere

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.

If i understand you, then the Tories would adopt Labours policies as far far more voted for them than UKIP.

Parties don' t just look at votes cast, they have focus groups, private polling and of course their own entrenched views, i would argue that UKIP policies in recent years are far more in tune with tory polices than just the EU issue.

I think one forum poster said recently the UK is basically a right wing state, i think he/she is correct, its certainly what i hear at work and in the local.

For me, a libdem MP is far more able to represent my views than a Tory one, ideally a Labour MP would be better but this is rural Cornwall, so i ve have to be realistic.

I believe the LibDems deserted the party because of the University fees issue, Clegg ruined your party, probably for a generation if not more.

tangled_metal

Well I'm a purist with voting. Vote for the party with the politics closest to yours. Anything else feels like cheating to me. You're not voting with your politics or conscience.

It's a choice to vote tactically just like whether to vote at all. There is an honesty about saying I cannot vote because none of the candidates represents me, or my favoured candidate has no chance. I don't agree with that but I accept that because it's based on honesty IMHO. Voting for red when you're views match yellow doesn't have that IMHO.

If that's contradictory so be it.

I guess I'm not as subtle as Rick in my views on this. I just feel it's dishonest. Just like it's dishonest for parties claiming to be national parties to withdraw candidates where their voters divide votes in one spectrum of politics where the opposing sides are close. If it's a Tory vs Labour marginal each ukip or green vote could be a Labour or Tory vote. It's a cynical removal of the voice of ukip or green party supporters.

Of course not a problem because I'm a red or blue voter so removal of the ukip/green candidates.have no effect on my voice.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well I'm a purist with voting. Vote for the party with the politics closest to yours. Anything else feels like cheating to me. You're not voting with your politics or conscience.

It's a choice to vote tactically just like whether to vote at all. There is an honesty about saying I cannot vote because none of the candidates represents me, or my favoured candidate has no chance. I don't agree with that but I accept that because it's based on honesty IMHO. Voting for red when you're views match yellow doesn't have that IMHO.

If that's contradictory so be it.

I guess I'm not as subtle as Rick in my views on this. I just feel it's dishonest. Just like it's dishonest for parties claiming to be national parties to withdraw candidates where their voters divide votes in one spectrum of politics where the opposing sides are close. If it's a Tory vs Labour marginal each ukip or green vote could be a Labour or Tory vote. It's a cynical removal of the voice of ukip or green party supporters.

Of course not a problem because I'm a red or blue voter so removal of the ukip/green candidates.have no effect on my voice.

If we had PR, then you d be spot on but under our present system, there is 2 left of centre parties and one right wing one, in many areas we just have to say that my enemies enemy is my friend - having a party in power (lab or Con) who ve got 38% of the vote (or so) and to dismiss the 62% is what's really very wrong.

meanredspider

ibbo68 wrote:

.Not voting is a vote to the party in power.

Not voting is not voting. I can't now vote in my constituency and either SNP or Lib Dems will win. I maybe wide of the mark but I don't see how me not voting will help the Tories: my MP will be SNP or Lib Dem.

tangled_metal

Mambo you're looking at it from the point if view if chances that your vote will help a party win. Voting shouldn't be based on that IMHO. If you genuinely believed monster raving loony party is closest to your own politics then vote for them.

It sounds like people view politics only in terms of winning and losing. Or more accurately about your opponent not winning. If your side can win you vote with your beliefs/conscience. If they've no chance you vote to oppose your least favoured party. If your side can't win you'll go.negative and stop your main opposition.

This to me is too important to play the percentage. IMHO a positive vote with your political beliefs is important. Votes to stop the main opposition against your political beliefs is just negative.

meanredspider

Surely you vote to achieve a result? It isn't a philosophical game but a means by which policy is decided. Surely you therefore vote to most closely achieve the policies you believe in and stop the policies you don't believe in?

Or do you go into a restaurant and order the item on the menu they told you they've run out of because at least you'll have chosen what you wanted - despite going hungry?

tangled_metal

Seriously? Comparing it to ordering in a restaurant?

Your analogy would equate to turning up at the polling station to find out your party has withdrawn their candidate. In that analogy I would spoil the ballot paper.

Look it's my opinion that voting with the party that matches your politics is important. More important than winning or losing. Philosophical game? No game just wondering what is the purpose of voting and democracy? I kind of think it's about giving your politics a voice through putting a cross against your preferred party every opportunity you can get. I'm not only gaming democracy or whatever you want to call tactical voting. It feels more honest to me.

Honesty in politics? Now I know I'm wrong!

Pross

Imagine what could happen if everyone in a safe seat who won't vote because it's pointless actually voted. Presumably they wouldn't vote for the incumbent so if turnout went from less than 50% to 80-90% there'd be every chance of even the safest seat being overturned.

meanredspider

Tangled Metal wrote:

just wondering what is the purpose of voting and democracy?

The purpose is to elect representatives. There's nothing in the democratic model that says it has to be done via party politics. And this is my crude point about the restaurant model. In the same way that that you won't get fed if you choose something on the menu that isn't available, you won't be represented unless you choose someone who at least has a chance of winning and representing you. And, yes, I hear all the arguments about the politicians taking note of your vote for a no-hoper - but that's like ordering something on the menu that isn't available to let the chef know what you wanted to choose. But you still don't get fed (poor analogy, I know - but kinda captures my thought).

I take a pragmatic view of being represented. If I took your model to its logical conclusion, you should just stand yourself - no-one represents your views better than you and, although you may not have a chance of winning, at least you'd showed the others what you believe.

tangled_metal

Now there's an idea. What if every registered voter had their name put on the ballot? Chaos but it might engage ppl.

I think we're going to keep disagreeing on this. I just believe in voting for the party/person you consider best represents you and your interests/politics irrespective of chances of forming a government, controlling council or becoming mayor/police.commissioner. I view anything else, such add tactical voting, to be a form of dishonesty (perhaps a harsh choice of word and not quite right, but you get my point). I also believe there should be no tactical withdrawal of candidates to aid other parties.

Put simply we have our own views and it would be a poorer place if there wasn't this difference.

meanredspider

Absolutely - it's interesting to hear different views on how this should be done and how different people think about it. I'm dissatisfied with the current process - I think it's way out of date.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Mambo you're looking at it from the point if view if chances that your vote will help a party win. Voting shouldn't be based on that IMHO. If you genuinely believed monster raving loony party is closest to your own politics then vote for them.

It sounds like people view politics only in terms of winning and losing. Or more accurately about your opponent not winning. If your side can win you vote with your beliefs/conscience. If they've no chance you vote to oppose your least favoured party. If your side can't win you'll go.negative and stop your main opposition.

This to me is too important to play the percentage. IMHO a positive vote with your political beliefs is important. Votes to stop the main opposition against your political beliefs is just negative.

Part of being in a so called democratic country is to vote how you please?

look at all the people who vote Tory or Labour because thats what they ve always done?

to me, the thing that is wrong, is that people are forced to vote tactically and that we ve a right wing press that can pretty much print what it likes to attempt to alter an election result and get away with it.

even the BBC were at it this morning with their bias, giving the listener the timetable of the new parliament and then stating that when new MPs sit on 19th june, that will also be the day EU negotiations start..... a May/tory line.

those more left leaning have got the cards stacked against them and have to combine forces against the right, just as May has by taking on the extreme policies of ukip.

We ve a tory council in Plymouth that has failed to send out over 1500 postal votes, tory Oliver colville has a majority of 600 ish, Council apologises woo wee, this is voter fraud!!!
Plymouth is very much a student town and people who ask for postal tend to be people who care and their voices now wont be heard, PCC say pop down and vote in person...fcukwits! if they could have done that, they d not need a postal vote in the first place.

So get on your hi horse about tactical voting but there is far bigger fish to fry.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

I think we're going to keep disagreeing on this. I just believe in voting for the party/person you consider best represents you and your interests/politics irrespective of chances of forming a government, controlling council or becoming mayor/police.commissioner. I view anything else, such add tactical voting, to be a form of dishonesty (perhaps a harsh choice of word and not quite right, but you get my point). I also believe there should be no tactical withdrawal of candidates to aid other parties.

I wish it was that simple.
I live in a Tory safe seat area - it's been blue for longer than my lifetime - I'll admit that I would usually vote Tory - but not on this occaision. I'm not happy with the manifesto and the way the campaign has been run. Mind you - I can say that about Labour's campaign too.
I think the Tories went into this too complaicant, Labour has been squabbling amongst the ranks and LibDems - well nowhere to be seen (in our area anyway).

Voting is chosing the best of a bad lot IMHO - for me - each party has some good policies, but they fall down when it comes to the key points - Tories want hard brexit, Labour want to give everyone everything for nothing, LibDems - well no idea, UKIP - I wouldn't vote for out of principle, Greens - Renewable energy is the way forward - but we're not there yet...

tangled_metal

If no party suits you then don't vote or spoil your ballot. Our democracy doesn't work, doubt it ever did.

At least those two options are your choice. It's up you what you do.

My choice is to vote the way that you agree with the most. If that is red, green, blue, yellow, purple, or whatever vote with your conscience rather than tactically is my view. I'd also be happy not voting and spoiling the ballot if that was the way my conscience dictated.

Nothing too hard with that surely?

BTW I've yet to find any party that truly represents me. It is an impossibility. Compromise! Perfection in democracy doesn't exist so stop looking for it.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

If no party suits you then don't vote or spoil your ballot. Our democracy doesn't work, doubt it ever did.

Then many of us would never vote - or always spoil our ballots.

I've voted tactically this time - I doubt the candidate will get in, but will receive a greater proportion of the vote this time - might make the other parties take notice ...

Tashman

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.

This is our position entirely

chris_bass

I don't really see the benefit of them releasing the vote splits, if they just announced the winner then i would be blissfully unaware that my vote makes no difference other than making the people counting the votes take a little longer.

I would know the conservatives won last time but I could believe my vote might make a difference this time when in reality the conservatives will win again.

fat daddy

good call .... ban all polls and vote splits and people would stop trying to vot tactically or not bothering etc ... people would vote for who they wanted ..... possibly

joe2008

Tashman 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.

This is our position entirely

Do you live in North Devon?

chris_bass

fat daddy wrote:

good call .... ban all polls and vote splits and people would stop trying to vot tactically or not bothering etc ... people would vote for who they wanted ..... possibly

i'm not really saying it is a workable solution but i know a lot of people who are in my position and have completely lost interest as a result.

rolf_f

fat daddy wrote:

good call .... ban all polls and vote splits and people would stop trying to vot tactically or not bothering etc ... people would vote for who their newspaper told them to vote for......possibly

Fixed that for you.......

Tashman

joe2008 wrote:

Tashman 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.

This is our position entirely

Do you live in North Devon?

Nope, Deepest darkest sussex. A right mixed bag of constituencies in this part of the world. Seats in recent history have been Tory, Labour, Independant, Lib Dem or Green depending where in the county you are. Tory majority of only 1083 in our seat

ben@31

fat daddy wrote:

good call .... ban all polls and vote splits and people would stop trying to vot tactically or not bothering etc ... people would vote for who they wanted ..... possibly

Or change our system to proportional representation, then you will be represented by who you voted for.

Some 331 of 650 MPs elected in 2015 won their seat with less than half of the vote in their constituencies.

Jez mon

ben@31 wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

good call .... ban all polls and vote splits and people would stop trying to vot tactically or not bothering etc ... people would vote for who they wanted ..... possibly

Or change our system to proportional representation, then you will be represented by who you voted for.

Some 331 of 650 MPs elected in 2015 won their seat with less than half of the vote in their constituencies.

We'd also get coalition governments, and they have proven to be unpopular.

ben@31

Earlier in the week, The Guardian had an article on the Glagow East constituency. Where people interviewed said "whats the point in voting"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ing-change

The results for Glasgow East are
SNP - 14,024
Labour - 13,949
Turnout - 55%

The SNP won by only 0.2% of the vote. If only another 76 people could have been bothered.

veronese68

ben@31 wrote:

The SNP won by only 0.2% of the vote. If only another 76 people could have been bothered.

Goldsmith won by 45 votes, Kensington is being recounted again after a break. Rudd nearly lost her seat it was that close. I'm sure there are many other similar ones.