LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWho decides which party most 'closely' matches their choices - or are the choices taken directly from manifestos? What about minor parties with views which might not make it on?Originally Posted by Saracen
Yep, made up my mind
Nah, still undecided
Never mind deciding who, I haven't decided if
I've decided all right .... to not vote
Who decides which party most 'closely' matches their choices - or are the choices taken directly from manifestos? What about minor parties with views which might not make it on?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
The votes do.
If the ballot consisted of, on a given topic, each party's stated policy, the voter is picking from stated policies. The voter has to pick from which stated policy most accurately reflects their preference. The rest is adding up numbers.
Besides, I said it would be a "much closer representation of democracy", not that I had worked out all the detail or even that it was practical. Just that it was a closer representation of democracy than the pre-loaded conjuring trick currently masquerading as a democratic process.
It is an interesting concept, tricky to do though in a non ideal world.
Deep down I am quite left wing, so stating what I believe on a form would likely end up as a vote for Labour when in reality I consider them a bunch of lying weasels with a worthless manifesto. So I would find myself giving tactical opinions.
How about they line up a series of punchbags in the form of the party leaders, the ones that get punched the least get voted in. Kind of a "proportion of beating voting". I think that is more of an honest representation of how voting currently works as a negative popularity contest.
That might work, if election manifestos became legally enforceable documents.
This is the first time I am completely unsure.
Labour appear to penalise pensioners so I think of my parents, UKIP I like for wanting to come out of Europe but their other policies and attitudes I am against and conservatives seem to always make you poorer and go back on their promises.
The Green party is a waste of a vote at a general election and as for the lib Dems, just no.
They got into bed with the conservatives even though their policies are almost at the opposite end of each other. I have a problem with anyone who puts power before their own beliefs. Also each council they run seems to really struggle financially and therefore cost us more.
This could be the lowest turn out ever. There really are no good choices. Its more of a case of who isn't the worst than who is the best.
In my local area none of the people standing come even close to representing my world view. We've got
- ex-Army colonel
- owner of an oil company
- Christian priest
- a bloke who as far as I can tell is a mouthy know it all from the local pub
- a guy who hasn't bothered to fill in his bio on his party's website
- an Oxford graduate lawyer
So all in all, it makes me wonder why I'd even bother to vote.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
That actually sounds like a plot line from an episode of Midsummer Murders!
Lucio (05-05-2015)
Well, at least something would get done. If it's in your best interests is another question.
Meh, he's only been the MP around those parts since 1983. A mere flash in the pan, comparitively!
I was still in short trousers in 1983, that's a lifetime ago to me!
He was ancient then, and looks the same now. I don't want to start any vicious rumours*, but he's either Highlander or Nosferatu.
*OK then, I do...
Naah, we all know Gerald Kaufman's this parliament's only Vampire (seriously, he's represented his area of Manchester (two different constituencies, but similar geographic make-up) since 1970 - remarkable longevity). Lilley must have made some Faustian pact (which would explain how he's ended up with a poncy Southern constituency
As for voting this time around? I'm really not sure. The General will go Kaufman; only once has Labour not taken at least 50% of the vote in this constituency, and that was when Winston Churchill (not that one, but his grandson) stood in a 1967 by-election. The sorting of the parties behind him might be interesting - since the 90's the seat has been increasingly Liberal-second, so it could be interesting to see how far that support drops off. The minor parties have never really made much impression on the seat.
OTOH we've also got local elections this time around, but I haven't got any idea who's standing or what their proposals are for local government: the big downside of having a simultaneous general and local election (also it tends to throw the local results as the turnout will be a lot higher than for a normal local election). So I've got the - perhaps bigger - question of not only do I bother voting, but if so who do I support in the locals? Greens are always tempting, but I've encountered what happens when Greens get any sniff of power and their decision-making was highly unimpressive. And without any decent campaign materials (seriously, what's with that? When I did this back in 1997 I put some stonking campaign leaflets together - have candidates become just as apathetic as the voters nowadays?) there's really no sensible way to choose between local candidates.
They all want you to read their manifesto but none of them can answer a damn thing about it or talk about it directly, so none of them give you a reason to read it, vote for them or vote at all.
They fail to demonstrate 'how' they are going to achieve something and 'when' they expect to achieve it by. All I've mainly heard is 'we are going to do something' without any substance or quote figures the public cant validate by any means possible.
They all manage to say what the other parties will or wont do. So maybe if you want to know about the Conservatives you should actually listen to Clegg and Milliband and vice versa.
The QT special last week wasted a lot of time with past issues and the 2 main leaders responses seemed scripted so a wasted opportunity for all. As Ed demonstrated rather well by never answering one of the audience members questions. Clegg seemed a lot less scripted as I don't think he feels that bothered or under as much pressure.
I also have a misguided belief is that whoever is in charge is just a face puppeteered by some higher elite.
I think its fair to say I'm very unlikely to vote.
It's true, there's a massive problem with a lack of accountability. It's like choosing a lawyer, accountant, doctor, bodyguard and teacher for a long term contract with no guarantees and no recourse in case of misrepresentation (and all we can say is, "Well they're politicians", or, "That's how it is".)
There needs to be some sort of real accountability in place, or perhaps some sort of capacity for a vote of 'No Confidence' - something to force the politicians to be more faithfully representative and true to their word. Instead, more and more, it feels like we have to vote for career politicians who speak a lot but say very little, and who might just well do whatever they please, even unannounced, or fail to even try do what they promised.
No accountability - no democracy.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
A true and proper electorate-initiated recall procedure would help a lot, along the lines Zak Goldsmith has been pushing for.
Although among MPs, the notion seems about as welcome as enhanced henhouse access to foxes is among henhouse residents. I wonder why?
I still haven't decided who to vote for, will wait and see how i feel on the day. and then may choose not to even bother go and vote
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
