So .... decided who to vote for?

[Stringent]

If you are still stuck

http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/

As a rough guide!

[Spud1]

I decided months ago - personally I think I had all the key facts a while back (crystallised on manifesto day) and I don't care about the various campaigns - they are a complete waste of time and money. As are the TV debates (although admittedly it is a lot of fun to watch Ed dig himself into a hole every time).

The important things to me when it comes to who to vote for are the key policies, the general attitude to the key issues in society, and the perceived impact on the country. All of this can be found by looking at the past 5 years and the manifestos.

The rest of it..all the rubbish spouted on TV or on the doorstep, is purely a marketing exercise/popularity contest, and can be safely ignored imo.

This year I think it's easier than ever to cast a vote as there are some HUGE dividing lines between the major parties. Well leave the details to the other thread, but despite the similarities on the face of it, each of the major parties have huge differences in key areas (europe/welfare/students/tax/immigration) that to me, make it very simple and gives me only a single choice.

I would urge EVERYONE to go and vote however, even if you simply spoil the ballot paper. Regardless of what you think of the major parties and whether you can make a difference or not, by not voting you are really spitting in the face of democracy and risk turning this into something completed different (yes I know the democracy point is debatable but its the best match..) and much scarier. Millions of people have fought and died in our history for our right to vote - I would strongly urge you not to waste it.

Protest votes are just as bad (if not worse!) than not voting, or spoiling a ballot - If you think its bad that last time we got a government that barely a 3rd of the population voted for, imagine how bad it would be if we got a government that NO ONE wanted just because everyone voted for a fringe party in protest.

[DanceswithUnix]

Protest votes are just as bad (if not worse!) than not voting, or spoiling a ballot - If you think its bad that last time we got a government that barely a 3rd of the population voted for, imagine how bad it would be if we got a government that NO ONE wanted just because everyone voted for a fringe party in protest.

I once voted Monster Raving Loony for the simple reason that every single day driving to work I saw the candidate out at the side of the road waving his giant inflatable banana at passers by, tipping his silly hat to them and waving. He was the only candidate that made an effort, so he got my vote. Seems I wasn't the only one that thought that way as I think that election he got more votes than the Labour candidate.

[Smudger]

Still unsure. I know it won't make a difference as Peter Lilley has been MP for this seat since the year dot. In fact, he should be about 143 years old, by all accounts. So it will be a protest vote, who for? Not sure. It'll probably be whoever has the name I like the best.

[Spreadie]

I heard an interesting theory the other day - none of the major parties are really fighting for the win because the severity of cuts required will make the next term toxic for whomever gets in, and they all know it. /tinfoil

On topic - I am still struggling to make a decision. However, if the above theory is even remotely accurate, perhaps the Tory posh boys should get in again.

[opel80uk]

I heard an interesting theory the other day - none of the major parties are really fighting for the win because the severity of cuts required will make the next term toxic for whomever gets in, and they all know it. /tinfoil

On topic - I am still struggling to make a decision. However, if the above theory is even remotely accurate, perhaps the Tory posh boys should get in again.

I certainly think Labour will have felt the last election was a good one to lose given the cuts that were coming whoever won, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tories may feel that way about this one as, certainly at cabinet level, they really don't want to be the party that presided over a referendum vote that took the UK out of Europe. If, and it is of course a huge if, there is a vote to leave and the doom mongers are correct about the negative effects it will have, especially on the economy, then that could make them unelectable for a long time.

[kalniel]

Still unsure. I know it won't make a difference as Peter Lilley has been MP for this seat since the year dot. In fact, he should be about 143 years old, by all accounts. So it will be a protest vote, who for? Not sure. It'll probably be whoever has the name I like the best.

Same constituency and I know what you mean. Interestingly, of the nearly 2000 people who've done the vote for policy survey in said constituency, Labour have the highest percentage (ie if people chose based on policies without knowing which party it was), followed by lib dem, while ukip and cons are at the bottom of the table. I haven't looked how representative people doing the survey are though.

[Bluecube]

SNP all the way. Practically the only decent party in the UK although that's not saying much.

[Zhaoman]

There are others out there but Queen's University made a pretty good quiz, one of the best I've seen:

http://www.whogetsmyvoteuk.com

[Andy3536]

There are others out there but Queen's University made a pretty good quiz, one of the best I've seen:

http://www.whogetsmyvoteuk.com

This does seem a little better, it's actually come out as i expected.
The previous one said i should vote for Greens, this one has Greens at -15.8 I didn't even think it was going to go into negative....
Quite a difference between the 2. Although none of the parties are a 'high match'

[HalloweenJack]

this reminds me of 1992

[RobbieRoy]

The issue is that we have a first past the post system which has meant that we essentially had only two parties to vote for and if you didn't vote for the winning side then your vote is simply not rewarded with representation.

Thus, I live in a safe Tory seat. That is, last election the incumbent got 48% of the total vote and only 68% of the electorate actually voted. So, in the election 52% of all voters got someone they didn't want to represent them, and only 34% of the electorate actually wanted the winner to win.

So, this time round, I'm voting according to the closest match between my beliefs and each party's policies, which come out as the Greens. I know that the candidate won't win but I will be happy with my vote.

IMHO, if enough people similarly vote for the party that most closely matched their own beliefs then it will further demonstrate how out of date and unfit for purpose FPTP is and force a more realistic appraisal of what new system of proportional representation we should replace it with.

[peterb]

The issue is that we have a first past the post system which has meant that we essentially had only two parties to vote for and if you didn't vote for the winning side then your vote is simply not rewarded with representation.

Not strictly true because your MP represents all constituents, regardless of how they voted, or whether they voted at all. They don't know how you personally voted and you have the same access to them regardless of the party they represent.

One of the reasons a good constituency MP will often buck the national trend because of personal popularity. It is one area where the Lib-deems excel, they do engage the electorate at a local level.

The Government is effectively formed by the majority of MPs, in that sense an individual vote is not directly to decide the political persuasion of the Government, although in practice, in most cases it is the party people vote for, not the MP.

[Saracen]

Not strictly true because your MP represents all constituents, regardless of how they voted, or whether they voted at all. They don't know how you personally voted and you have the same access to them regardless of the party they represent.

....

Kinda depends what's meant by "representation".

If I have a problem and want my MP's help, I'm sure I'd get it from a decent MP, regardless of his/her oarty affiliations, and my polutical preferences. In that sense, yes, they reoresent all constituents.

But, in another sense, they don't. As you point out, government is formed by the party/parties selecting, or appointing (by the PM) Ministers. Yes, technically, such appointments are the orerogative if the PM, but ge/she dpesn't operate in a vavuum and rarely dovthey gave the personal authority to completely ignore party bigwigs.

It is perfectly possible for any given MP to win, under FPTP, on 34%, or so, of the constituency electorate, and it's perfectly possibly that much of that electorate oppose that MPs policies and beliefs, but unless that opposition unites behind a single alternate candidate, that fracturing of opposition may lead to an MP that does not represent the views of a majority of his constituents. In that way, for instance, Labour, LD, SNP and Green may all agree on a series of issues, but because they fracture on other things, like Trident, a Tory gets in, perhaps with only a third of constituents agreeing on policy.

Amd, if course, the same argument can be made in reverse, with right-leaning parties split, such as UKIP and Tory, which may let Labour or an LD in.

Then, scale that up and we can easily end up with a government nade up of Ministers selecred from a pool of MPs many or all of whom don't have the support of either the majority of their own constituents, or the electorate as a whole.

So if multiple MPs use their personal and sometimes party values to "represent" constituents, two thirds of whom don't support those values but were two fractured over who best does, that's hardly "representation" when that MP acts as a representatife, not a delegate.

And it weakens even further, in fact a LOT further, when MPs rely on constituent's votes largely being cast on party lines, and the parties are acting in the disgusting and disgracely deceitful manner they pretty much all are at present by repeatedly, over a prolonged period, refusing point blank to tell us, the electorate, what they actually intend to do.

It is, in my opinion, a gross abuse of the democratic process, because one of this bunch of deceitful collection of liars is going, inevitably, to end up winning even if only 1% of the population voted.

By treating us with such disdain and contempt, ALL these self-selving deceivers have, IMHO, lost any and all moral right to govern. But they'll do it anyway, and never mind having lied to and ignored OUR right to know what it is we're voting for.

"Representation" my rear end. It's a conjuring trick designed to give the appearance of democracy, but they're all currently making an absolute mockery of it.

[jim]

As someone who used to live in an area regarded as an ultra-safe seat, it's quite interesting now living in an area with reasonable competition between parties.

Even more interestingly, it's made me realise that in this instance, it's not really important who I want to vote for. When I saw this thread originally, I said "not sure". Now though, I've realised it's pretty simple. There's a realistic chance of two parties winning the seat, and therefore my only choice is between those two - and I know which one's getting my vote. In a PR election, would either of them? Absolutely no chance in hell.

To a large degree, therefore, the debates and so on have been totally pointless - for all but the two parties in my constituency it's totally irrelevant. On the plus side though, I've been able to base my decision on policies - which is probably the right way to do it anyway.

[Saracen]

You know what would be a much closer representation of democracy?

All those websites where you pick policies and it tells you what party best reflects that .... have an election where voters go into a booth, and go through a process like that. Then, have a representative drawn from whomever most closely reflects what his/her constituents believe, and a government drawn from that.

That is .... scrap the party system, and have MPs that do ACTUALLY represent the views of their constituents, not just pay lip-service to it.