Jump to content

My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!


Sledge

Recommended Posts

Spoiling your ballot does not "make a point". Staying away from the polling station does not "make a point", nor "send a message".

 

Voting does.

 

Spoiled ballots are simply discarded. No-one looks at them, counts them, notes any "points" being made.

 

If you don't vote then you've given up the only tiny sliver of power you get, and have no right to complain about anything that happens. :waggle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 24.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

the thing is I voted I went out and voted, but there wasnt any point, doncaster north is a l;abour safe seat and the other options I felt I couldnt morally vote for... I wont vote against my principles so what can I do?

 

Ed Miliband - labour part of the blairite machine devious backstabbing and I dont trust hi, plus the labour led government posted bills I fought against with pettiotions, m,arches and peaceful protests including foxhunting which was blatent class warfare that the middle class lapped up without regard to the damage it would do in rural communities and the anti terror bill.

 

sophie brodie - conservative campaigned based on exploiting a tragic incident to gain votes and her campaigning had no substance all buzzwords no real proofs.style without substance and IU am sick of empty promises

 

Edward sanderson- i disagree with lib dem policies on certain things one example being their views on trident so...

 

Pamela Chambers - British National Party it will be a cold day in hell before I tick that box. blinkered policies from a party that attracts and manipulates the disenfranchised.

 

Wayne Crawshaw english democrat yet another single issue party that I can agree with on one issue to a certain extent but but would in my opinion shatter the UK if given power.

 

Liz Andrews - ukip annother party that I see as a single issue party that I dont believe can run this country though the MEP they have is useful in europe, pulling us out of europe now would devestate us based on the powers that Brown signed over, also they define almost their entire manifesto by attacking the EU rather than letting their policies stand for themselves.

 

Bill Rawcliffe Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - the TUSC policies are unworkable based on their local council manifesto, we cannot afford to not cut public spending, yes the current government has the targets and cuts in some cases in the wrong place but... alos from my experience of unions they are more about protecting the union than they are about the jobs. plus they are a party that feeds off the idea of class warfare blaming this 'ruling class' for all the ills of thios country and pittuing the working class against them. class warfare is dangerous and can lead to riots and violent clashes that can tear communities apart.

 

so in the last election who should I have voted for??? I couldnt morally in my mind support any of the factions

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate that you lacked an independent candidate in your area.

 

However, the point of the elections under what passes for Democracy here is that you have to choose from the options given to you. If you choose not to choose, then what have you chosen? You can't even say that you *tried* to stand against something you didn't want or for something you did. You chose to do nothing, not to participate.

 

Actively going to vote and spoiling the ballot is even worse than not voting at all, you've actively wasted time and resources to achieve less than nothing. Why bother? No-one notices these so-called "protests" of spoiled votes - I know people who have worked on polling stations and counting votes afterwards, spoiled ballots are simply thrown away. The only people who notice them are the ones counting them, and they're just local government workers after some extra money, for the most part.

 

Lastly, you need to understand that you're supposed to be voting for the MP you feel is best suited to represent YOUR AREA in Parliament, a person, not a party. You are not voting for who will form a government or be Prime Minister. That's not how the British system works. You're not in America. You were supposed to vote for whichever candidate you think will do the best job FOR YOU and YOUR AREA - no more. But in order to do that, people need to know a lot more about them than what colour ribbon they wear, but no-one seems to bother any more, they just vote for the party.

 

Given that no-one actually seems to know how the system is supposed to work, much less try to operate it that way, the system in the UK is hopelessly broken and will not be fixed without massive electoral reform which will never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need electoral reform and yes you vote to pick someone for the area but, it has to be considered what masters pull their strings. I mean the Whip system means that a mp will vote against whats best for their area if ordered by a 3 line whip.

 

The uk electoral system is horribly flawed and wont change as noone with enough power to change it will ever do it as they have no incentive since the currrent system placed them into power. voting for the person is fine when they are independants nbut all those who ran in donny ran on party lines soley so.... And as for wehy I bother I go hoping that some day there will be someone I can vote for, a man or woman I respect that stands. I f I stop going to vote stop getting involved then I becopme whats wrong with this country. Plus the same day was an election for the local council which I did vote for an independant local candidate who lost to a labour candidate.

 

I voted for candidates I believed in and voteed and campaigned in the local elections supporting those I wished to see represent my area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I dislike cats, that's a good video.

 

It would be nice, however, if people would make such things without expressing a bias and let people make up their minds.

 

Of course, the vast majority of the uninformed masses who actually bother to vote won't have bothered to try to learn about the issues - just as they don't bother to learn about the candidates; many not even knowing how many candidates are even going to be on the ballot paper before they're handed it - and will just go with whatever propaganda they've gleaned from reading The Sun or similar trash during the adverts in The X Factor or whatever. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

my initial thoughts about AV are changing as I watch how the parties discuss it its interesting with the pro side using words like lies to describe those opposed to the concept, I am rereading and wondering is this they way to go or will it lead to more and more 'saafe' 'non threatening' politicians elected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to do regarding the AV vote.

 

I personally believe that FPTP is an unfair, un-democratic system, and I don't want to keep it, but I also don't think AV is much better.

 

I don't want either system, I do want Proportional Representation. If a party receives say 30% of the votes in an election, they should be entitled to 30% of the seats in Parliament...

 

The problem is, if I vote No to AV, and the overall consensus is also no, then the Government's response will be "OK, no one actually wants electoral reform, so we'll stick with FPTP."

 

If I vote yes, and the general consensus is also yes, then we'll get AV, and I personally won't see electoral reform to the system I want...

 

Hows that for democracy eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how they try to make it out to be OK because AV means a cat will win, so if all you care about is that rather than a specific cat winning.

Replace two of the cats with a chicken and a mouse and it exposes why AV is such a poor system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how they try to make it out to be OK because AV means a cat will win, so if all you care about is that rather than a specific cat winning.

Replace two of the cats with a chicken and a mouse and it exposes why AV is such a poor system.

 

Aye, but that would hurt their campaign wouldn't it...

 

That's one of the reasons why I don't like AV. I don't want any party other than my "first choice" to receive my vote. There are certain parties I would never vote for, (i'd rather spoil my ballot than vote for the BNP or UKIP...) so why should I have to rank them in order of preference? Taking my example of BNP and UKIP, I don't prefer either over the other... I would feel morally wrong supporting either of them at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand that argument - it seems to me that everyone would be able to rank the candidates in order of preference from the one they want to win the most to the one they want to win the least.

 

The ultimate winner therefore might not be the one that most people picked as first choice, but it certainly wouldn't be the one that the least people wanted either.

 

How would that be a bad system? How is it worse than the current system? :unsure:

 

If you don't want a given candidate, then you put them last. Or, if the cat-video is accurate, don't rank them at all, then your vote could never be counted in their favour...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand that argument - it seems to me that everyone would be able to rank the candidates in order of preference from the one they want to win the most to the one they want to win the least.

 

The ultimate winner therefore might not be the one that most people picked as first choice, but it certainly wouldn't be the one that the least people wanted either.

 

How would that be a bad system? How is it worse than the current system? :unsure:

 

If you don't want a given candidate, then you put them last. Or, if the cat-video is accurate, don't rank them at all, then your vote could never be counted in their favour...

 

See my previous post explaining how the second least favourite candidate can end up winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That logic is spurious, at best. Clearly, if more people favour a candidate as a second choice then they're not the "least favourite" are they? :waggle:

 

I'll repost to save you having to trawl back a couple of pages:

 

Ok the 2nd to last first choice can end up winning.

Imagine 5 candidates:

 

1. Tory

2. LibDem

3. Labour

4. Bingo Bongo Wibble Splee

5. UKIP

 

People in the area want their candidate to win, they disagree with all the others, it turns out most UKIP voters put BBWS as their second vote, Labour voters put BBWS as their third choice (LibDem being their second), and LibDem voters BBWS as their fourth choice (after Labour and Tory).

The votes are in:

 

Tory comes first, but doesn't get more than 50%, followed by LibDem, Labour, BBWS and UKIP.

So, UKIP are out, their 2nd choices are redistributed, moving BBWS infront of Labour.

Labour are then out, their 3rd choices are redistributed, moving BBWS in front of LibDems.

LibDems are out, their 4th choices are redistributed moving BBWS into first place.

 

Well done. You now have a joke candidate for an MP. Very few people wanted the BBWS candidate as their MP, as demonstrated by the first vote count, but they've won anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example is fatally flawed - when Labour are eliminated, their votes would go to their SECOND choice, LibDems who are still in the running, not their THIRD choice. BBWS.

 

Also, how likely is it that all the people who have the same first choice would also have the same second choice>

 

Using one flawed, unlikely example to say that a system should not be adopted is just the kind of propaganda that the various "campaigns" are attempting - I'd like to think we're above such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example is fatally flawed - when Labour are eliminated, their votes would go to their SECOND choice, LibDems, not their THIRD choice. BBWS.

 

Also, how likely is it that all the people who have the same first choice would also have the same second choice>

 

Using one unlikely example to say that a system should not be adopted is just the kind of propaganda that the various "campaigns" are attempting - I'd like to think we're above such things.

 

That's not how the Beeb have been reporting how it works.

Even if it is, all it would take would be for people to say "I only want my first candidate, so I'm going to put Monster Raving Loonie as 2nd, then BBWS as 3rd"

 

You cannot deny that such an outcome is possible.

After all, there's already been an elected monkey mayor with the slogan "Free bananas for schoolchildren"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the biggest problem is that no-one actually seems to know how the proposed system actually works.

 

It makes sense to me that if a candidate is eliminated, then their votes (first choices) are reallocated according to the second choice and any extra votes from previously eliminated candidates would go to their next choice (third or more) depending on which round of elimination we're talking about.

 

Any other explanation is illogical, surely - just because one candidate has been eliminated and their votes gone to the second choice, doesn't mean that the NEXT candidate to be eliminated has their votes sent to the THIRD choice - why would it? :unsure:

 

Certainly - any outcome is possible. But it's just as likely - if not more so - that the people in an area would all decide to "protest vote" for some "joke" candidate under FPTP: as you point out has already happened.

 

Surely under any realistic scenario, AV would make it LESS likely that a "joke" candidate or unpopular choice would be elected?

 

Either way, Vote for or against the proposal as you choose - I already cast MY vote by post before this debate even started...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a country where people voted a guy in a monkey outfit as their mayor, anything is possible. Incidently, he was voted in using AV not FPTP.

If one area has a high no vote against AV, they're more likely to treat the first time AV general election as a FPTP and vote for joke candidates with their 2nd and 3rd preferences (or students using FB to organise voting) specifically to try and get joke candidates into parliment as a protest.

The other question that the pro-AV groups fail to answer is how is it fair that someone should have more votes than I have?

 

If the largest group of voters in my area want Candidate A, but other groups don't care if they get Candidate B or C, then why should they have 2 votes when Candidate A supporters only get 1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a *suitcasey* weekend.

 

Almost got into a crash Saturday - some fool was poking out of a neighborhood street ready to turn, must not have seen me because he pulled right out to turn left across my line of way. Mind you he pulled out while I was going 40MPH and less than 250ft from him; had to honk at the fool, brake and swerve to avoid t-boning him. I look in the mirror - he does almost the exact same *suitcase* to the car behind me.

 

Then, three hours later, I was parked in a shopping area trying to take a short nap in my car. Some old lady parks next to me in a Scion xB (I hate that boxy piece of ######), SLAMS HER DOOR INTO MY SIDE. I scream out "what the *fruitcage*" at her (at this point I awoke from my nap) - she sees me inside my car, stares at me for two seconds, then WALKS OFF. Jesus if I didn't have to leave that moment I would have ranted into that lady; luckily the damage to my door wasn't severe.

 

Couple that with my ongoing woman problems and ongoing finals...jesus I'm ready to tear my hair out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take the "tire iron" from the "trunk" of your car and put through all the windows of hers. Then drive away.

 

It happened in America so more likely '12 guage' and 'fire it at her' then drive away.

 

However this wouldn't be the best situation, so yeah number plate and a trip to the police / DMV would be better.

 

'FireKnife'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.