Can't be bothered to quote (lazy I guess
)
If you "listen to all the arguments" being put forward and then decide to vote for your "best fit", then fine. I'll not argue with this.
.
I agree that voting for whichever party you always have is dumb.
They are not exercising their ability for selection of government..
but if you do not wish to stand yourself, and there is a party that has 10% policies you agree with compared with other parties that have 0% you agree with, you'd be better off voting for the 10% party (again, IF you choose not to stand yourself).
I think where we are diverging in opinion is quite clear with your product shopping analogy.
You used an analogy where you wouldn't buy something if you didn't like it.
While I understand that stance, that is not the senario.
This is probably a more accurate analogy.....
You are in a supermarket. There are 10 products on offer and while you wouldn't EVER pick those items yourself you are told you will have to leave with one of these ten....or you can climb to the top of the display and get a product that you do like...but it is a lot of effort.(stand yourself).
So the choice is...pick one of the 10 which you dislike the least, make the extra effort to make your own choice...or have one of the 10 allocated to you by someone else.
You are going to end up with a better product if you either pick your own product...or pick one of the 10. Which one of these options you choose I would imagine would depend on how bad the 'best' of the 10 was...or how much effort you would be willing to put it...but that little choice you had would still benefit you more than a random selection.
If you choose to go for the random selection, then you have lost the credibility to complain about things which you could have changed.
If you go for the best of the worst, you can still campaign against them on areas that you disagree, but you'd have that slight head start in making them the party for you.
Lucky for me one of the 10 products is one i would pick anyway
