?

Log in

No account? Create an account
And locally as well - Her Most Regal Majesty, the Queen of Snark
void where prohibited, except by law
sesquipedality
sesquipedality
And locally as well
I have voted in every* local and national election since I was 18. Never in a UK election has the candidate I have voted for been elected. I have been entitled to vote for half my life and all that time my vote has been worthless. It's long since time that stopped.

http://www.takebackparliament.com/

* modulo the time I accidentally ended up a couple of hundred miles away from my polling station at the time of the election. The person I would have voted for didn't win then either.
13 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
davywavy From: davywavy Date: May 7th, 2010 09:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
I also have never voted for a party which has been elected, but then again that's because I live in a democracy and not enough people agreed with me. Creating campaigns to force others to live by my minority opinion isn't somehting I'd get involved with. I'd rather win the argument of ideas on merit rather tnan join in an 'everyone must have prizes' democracy pressure group.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: May 7th, 2010 10:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
Let me put it a little more clearly then:

Combined votes from the Oxford constituencies:

Lib Dem: 41087
Con: 33633
Lab: 27937

Result: 1 Conservative MP, 1 Labour MP.

Enough people agreed with me. The system doesn't work.
lanfykins From: lanfykins Date: May 8th, 2010 01:29 am (UTC) (Link)
I also have never voted for a party which has been elected, but then again that's because I live in a democracy and not enough people agreed with me.

I'm fairly certain that you understand the system well enough to know that the number of seats the Liberal Democrats normally get in a general election is entirely unrepresentative of their actual support. In this particular election, for example, 23% of the votes has turned into 9% of the seats.

Campaigning for my not-quite-so-minority opinion to actually be taken into account is not the same as campaigning to force others to live by my minority opinion; and I'm pretty sure you know that, too.
undyingking From: undyingking Date: May 8th, 2010 05:58 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'd rather win the argument of ideas on merit

That does probably require one's ideas to actually have some merit. Maybe there's a reason why not enough people agreed with you... ;-)
davywavy From: davywavy Date: May 8th, 2010 07:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
You discern my point exactly. In much the same way that not enough people voted for a party offering electoral reform.
]
The thing is, I know people don't agree with me, I accept it and I get on with my life. Perhaps I ought to start protesting that it isn't fair people don't agree with me...Hmmmn. I spy an idea.
(Deleted comment)
davywavy From: davywavy Date: May 8th, 2010 10:42 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm sure they did, just like they offered a referendum on Europe in their last manifesto. Don't tell me there are still people who vote Labour because they believe what's in the manifesto? I didn't think there was anyone that naive left.
(Deleted comment)
davywavy From: davywavy Date: May 12th, 2010 03:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
Popping back to the Labour 2005 manifesto, I note they offered constitutional reform and (I would read it as) a referendum on electoral reform then as well - so their latest conversion hasn't exactly been Damascene, and they've got form in promising and not delivering.

However, that was a very good answer - rather more intelligent than one usually encounters on the Internet. Care to be friends?
markbanang From: markbanang Date: May 7th, 2010 11:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
The cynical part of me says we'll never have electoral reform.

Despite their 'death-bed conversion', Labour will never really support proportional representation, because the whole electoral system is stacked strongly in their favour, as we saw last night.

The Conservative's meanwhile, will never support proportional representation because they think a 'strong government' is more important than a 'fair government'. They would rather have all or nothing power, to avoid having to actually talk to and negotiate with the other parties.

I think he best option we can hope for is a referendum on PR, where only the Liberal Democrats actually actively campaign for a Yes vote. In reality, even if we do get a referendum, we will probably end up with Labour and Tory actively campaigning against it. Then it's up to the electorate and we will end up with the voting system we deserve.
undyingking From: undyingking Date: May 8th, 2010 05:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
stacked strongly in their favour

If you're thinking here about how Labour tend to win their seats with fewer votes, I don't think that's an indication that it's stacked in their favour (versus the Tories, I mean: it's a given that the whole FPTP model is stacked in the favour of the big parties). It's because in constituencies with more poor and otherwise deprived people, turnout is generally lower, and these also tend to be Labour seats.

Under PR, social groups who are less likely to vote will effectively be under-represented compared with those who do vote. That is, poor and otherwise deprived people will be under-represented compared with well-off, well-educated people. Not a recipe for progressive social justice.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: May 8th, 2010 08:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
Surely that's a good argument for making it illegal not to vote (while still allowing spoilt ballot papers, of course). Probably too paternalistic to fly in this day and age, but really your argument is pro-education, not anti-PR.
undyingking From: undyingking Date: May 10th, 2010 09:20 am (UTC) (Link)
really your argument is pro-education, not anti-PR

Mm, absolutely. But until that education has happened, and voting rates have evened out, I think it would be wrong to make a system change that would have the effect described.

Edited at 2010-05-10 09:20 am (UTC)
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: May 12th, 2010 01:22 am (UTC) (Link)
Hmm, I'm unconvinced by any argument that essentially says "we must save the poor uneducated masses from themselves" as it's coming very close to smacking of paternalism. If lack of education is a problem, we need to educate better, not route around the damage caused by it. People should have the freedom to act in ways that aren't in their own best interest, because we can't set ourselves up as arbiters of what that best interest might be.

Edited at 2010-05-12 01:23 am (UTC)
undyingking From: undyingking Date: May 12th, 2010 08:43 am (UTC) (Link)
So are you opposed to positive discrimination under any circumstances? That's a perfectly reasonable position -- but not one I agree with. My feeling is that social groups who are systemically disadvantaged -- be that women, ethnic minorities, the poor, or whoever -- should be helped to overcome that disadvantage. I don't see that as paternalistic, but as humanistic.

we need to educate better, not route around the damage caused by it

You see, I would say that we need to educate better, and that until we have succeeded in doing so, we need to compensate for that lack. Your formula would be fine in the hands of a beneficent government -- but in the hands of a real-world one, it allows for nothing to be done other than the expression of pious hopes, and for the situation to persist.

I don't think that one can really talk about people's "freedom to act" when circumstances are heavily stacked against them being able to exercise such freedom.

we can't set ourselves up as arbiters

That also seems to me like a potential excuse for complacent inaction. Not that I'm accusing you of that, of course -- but you must be aware that it's just the kind of thing that reactionaries say when they don't want their current entrenched advantages to be threatened.

(But all this is me being a red-blooded socialist, so I would quite understand if you reject it wholesale :-)
13 comments or Leave a comment