How do you get a Labour government?

[JBR]

Can anyone think of a better mechanism for rewarding those that value the democratic process, imperfect though it is?

Yes. Make everybody's vote count: introduce proportional representation.

Merits or otherwise of PR aside, how does it reward the act of casting a vote?

How does it differentiate between the apathetic, the incompetent and the 'protester'?

It would reward me. I live in a constituency that has an apparent majority of Limp Dem voters. My Conservative vote (UKIP next time), therefore, has not effectively counted.

I'd like to think that my vote actually counts.

I agree, though, that PR would make no difference to the apathetic, incompetent and protester.

 

[joe-90]

Oh Joe, that old chestnut again. PR still doesn't guarantee anything. (apart from more expenses cheats and hypocrites)

Did you vote for it? Yes or no? Will you tell us? (he won't )

 

[joe-90]

Voting UKIP ensures a Labour victory. Vote UKIP - get Labour.

 

[jockscott]

Apparently, in a poll conducted this week , UKIP are in the lead at the moment. (if polls are to be believed)

PS, I did vote in the 2011 referendum on AV and I did vote against the proposal.

 

[joe-90]

Well stop moaning that your vote is useless then. A vote for UKIP is a vote for the Labour party.

 

[jockscott]

Sadly Joe, in politics a vote for the Labour Party, is a vote for the Labour Party, as is a vote for the Tories , a vote for the Tories. However,,, at election time, votes for other parties can affect the way an individual party, plan their government, or even plan the next election manifesto.
Let's say that come the next General election, Labour win, but UKIP come a close second. You can bet your bottom dollar, that Labour will be affected by the fact that UKIP managed to run a close second. The Tories and Limp Dems, will look at where they went wrong, and plan their next election strategy. Europe will be number one item on the agenda for all parties.

 

[joe-90]

The way it works is that if discontented Tory voters switch to UKIP, then the number of votes for the Tories will be down and Labour will get in.
So if people like JBR decide to teach the Tories a lesson, then in effect they are voting for Labour. Naturally when the election comes around they'll realise this and vote Tory. JBR will NOT vote UKIP.

 

[AronSearle]

The NOTA option would remove the supposition that is often made about a vote for a minority party or independent being merely a protest , not a 'real' vote 'for' them. NOTA would help ensure that such votes were valued as highly as every other vote, and also reduce support for extremist views being falsely inflated.

That is not how our democratic system works, a vote for "nothing" can't be as valuable as a vote for "something", 1 is always greater than 0.

As I said, somebody gets voted for, and they get to be an MP with the powers that brings, if they only get 10% of the vote, or even 1%, they still have all those powers, there is no "nobody" that get's in if 99% vote NOTA.

You don't like the options, then you do something to change them beforehand. What do you honestly think will hapen if people vote NOTA, the election came and went and somebody still won, woopydoo you achieved sod all, let's say 100% vote NOTA, well then you have a re-vote, which might, *might* then change the options, but that's about as likely to happen as everyone winning the lottery in the same week.

It achieves nothing, it changes nothing, its just stupid and churlish.

You don't like the options, then you do something to change them beforehand, voting NOTA is just a lazy option rather than actually participating in the system.

Once the election is at hand then you have the candidates to vote for and no others, What seperates men from animals (and young children) is the ability to understand and make a choices.

 

[EddieM]

its just stupid and churlish.

Perhaps we should rename it the AronSearle option.

 

[AronSearle]

its just stupid and churlish.

Perhaps we should rename it the AronSearle option.

Your post is actually quite funny, probably not for the reason you think it is though

 

[JBR]

The NOTA option would remove the supposition that is often made about a vote for a minority party or independent being merely a protest , not a 'real' vote 'for' them. NOTA would help ensure that such votes were valued as highly as every other vote, and also reduce support for extremist views being falsely inflated.

That is not how our democratic system works...

I don't recall typing those words.

 

[jockscott]

Joe, if enough disaffected voters vote for UKIP (and believe me, it's not just Tory voters who are disaffected), then there's every chance UKIP could be quite well represented in the next government. Remember too, we already have a coalition government. Could be the next government will too, be formed by a coalition of UKIP and another party. So, as you see, UKIP could possibly hold the balance of power.

 

[Micilin]

That is not how our democratic system works, a vote for "nothing" can't be as valuable as a vote for "something", 1 is always greater than 0..........
............


It achieves nothing, it changes nothing, its just stupid and churlish.

You don't like the options, then you do something to change them beforehand, voting NOTA is just a lazy option rather than actually participating in the system.
.

Not voting is the lazy option , and it is often excused by the person pretending they are protesting.

NOTA would be participating.

I think you miss the point about its purpose - a 99% for NOTA would not affect the outcome of the election, as the 1% of votes for a candidate would still get them elected. The democratic process would be retained but would be a truer reflection of voter support than the Current system.

The point is to remove people's excuses and get then involved, and the whoever wins is a real winner and lazy non voters are seen as just that. There is no mythical silent majority, the vote is a truer reflection of intentions and validates the winner.

 

[AronSearle]

NOTA would be participating.

Participating is petitioning potential candidates and asking them hard questions, pestering them why they think X, why they did X. It is standing up as a candidate yourself, or directly supporting someone you think would make a good candidate, it is putting flyers through boxes saying why someone should or shouldn’t vote for X, directly trying to influence the choices at the election. It is writing to newspapers or starting your own blog and pushing people to read it.

Voting NOTA is not participating.

I think you miss the point about its purpose - a 99% for NOTA would not affect the outcome of the election.

Right, so it does nothing, you then try to come up with some convoluted crap about how it does something.

If it doesn’t affect the election, then it doesn’t affect whoever gets elected.

Whether a bunch of whining ninnies stand on the by-lines saying "you don't have lots of votes" means nothing, cus they are still an MP and still get to vote in parliament. You seem to either be ignorant of how our parliament works, or simply ignore it for the sake of convenience.

 

[Brigadier]

Our "democratic" system is that Whitehall CS and big business basically runs the show on a status quo basis, while the politicians (most of them, anyway) take the plaudits / brickbats, and say whatever they think will get them another term at the trough.
Anyone who really tries to change anything fundamental (unless it has cross-party support) will either get moved sideways, lose their seat, be on the opposition benches........
In other countries, they have car "accidents", or get "assassinated".........