UK General Election

[angrysoba]

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it so assume you are being deliberately faux thick for effect?

My vote is functionally no different from not voting. They might as well tear up my ballot and not bother counting it. It wouldn't matter if the person in the lead was Tory Lib dem labour or whatever. The same problem would be there for two thirds of voters

According to the Electoral Reform Society, in 2010, the Liberal Democrats had 29 safe seats. That means that anyone not voting for the Lib Dems were disenfranchised, their votes may as well have been torn up at the ballot box, and the people of the constituency were in the same position as me.

Oh wait, except that in 2015, the Lib Dems lost at least 20 of these.

You may not be satisfied with the way elections are run, and how the results are determined, but politicians still have to pay attention to the views of people in their constituencies.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Only because not enough other voters in your constituency agree with you.

Anyway, I don't know what your particular seat is and how safe it is, but "safe seats" have fluctuated over time especially recently with the decline of the Lib Dems, the rise of the SNP and the threat to the Tories that UKIP posed. I expect we'll see a few "safe" Labour seats fall as well.

You already pointed out that you used to live in a safe Labour seat and now live in a safe Tory seat. That only means that your vote is comparatively important depending on where you live, if your concern is to vote for a party that represents your views, rather than, say, a parliamentary candidate. But it does not mean you have no vote at all. I, on the other hand, do have no vote at all.

It's not about whether enough people agree with me because as I have pointed out if they did then it would only mean a different group of voters having a vote that didn't matter.

So even if the safe seat changes over time that doesn't fix the problem.

Do you think you should have a vote in this election incidentally? Plenty of people resident in the uk won't either

 

[angrysoba]

Do you think you should have a vote in this election incidentally? Plenty of people resident in the uk won't either

Not really. Or at least one of the reasons why I didn't vote in elections after leaving the UK was that I thought I had less of a moral right to vote. After all, I didn't pay taxes so I thought it was somewhat unfair of me to vote on the basis of where a party or a candidate thought that tax money should be allocated.

Having said that, in more later and more recent elections I thought that certain policies were things I should have had a say about as a UK citizen regardless of my residency. Those things include overseas wars and policies on Europe. In particular, I would have wanted to vote in the European referendum regardless of where I lived because of how my citizenship and my children's could be affected. It was then that I regretted having not voted since 1999, even though I had been registered to vote in a safe Labour seat in Central Leeds, as I believe that continuing to vote would have kept me registered and entitled me to a vote in the referendum.

 

[Worm]

I'm not a big fan of the whole 'my candidate didn't win, therefore my vote didn't count' argument.

Various PR systems mitigate this somewhat, but it's always an issue somewhere down the line.

The overall results of an election do matter. It's not simply about who wins. The spread of the vote, encouraging support for non-mainstream candidates, large swings, small swings, they all matter. I understand the frustration, having nearly always lived in areas where large majorities prevail, but that does not discourage me from voting.

I vote for who I think would be best for the role. If they don't win, so be it, but voting for a losing candidate is functionally different from not voting.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I vote for who I think would be best for the role. If they don't win, so be it, but voting for a losing candidate is functionally different from not voting.

It really isn't. The whole system is set up as winner takes all and we have the rather ridiculous situation where TM calls a General Election because she has concerns that Parliament might actually disagree with her on some things and won't just automatically rubber stamp everything she wants.

Any attempt to have a diversity of opinion, to form a consensus or to incorporate/accommodate minority viewpoints is weakness, a defeat, an embarrassment.

Some people are silly enough to think politics is black and white, off and on, win or lose, but real life is not that simple.

And yes, if you want to encourage people to participate in the process, to make it relevant for them, to get them engaged then the functional equivalent of tearing up their ballot paper after they cast it is not helping anyone.

People can convince themselves all they like that spoiling their paper is an effective protest, that voting matters, that an MP with a majority of 19% will somehow act differently than an MP with a majority of 20% but there is no evidence that any of that actually matters or makes a difference.

 

[Worm]

Oh, I agree that many people treat it that way, but I generally think that the only way that is going to change is by dealing with it, not by flinging the toys out of the pram. The 'winner takes all' attitude is perpetuated by politicians, and we have to oppose that. One way to do so is to vote for other politicians. No, it's not easy, or quick, or particularly effective in the short term, but it can bring about change. Scottish elections run a version of PR, and - I think - benefit from it. That didn't happen by accident.

"an MP a majority of 19% will somehow act differently than an MP with a majority of 20%"
Definitely not. But an MP with a majority of 19% will act differently to one with a majority of 1%. If you everyone who didn't vote for the winning candidate decided that their vote was worthless, then in the next election, that candidate would win with 100% of the vote.

You have to turn up, make your case, and deal with the result. In my opinion.

But, you know, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I'm not a big fan of the whole 'my candidate didn't win, therefore my vote didn't count' argument.

That's not the argument. The actual complaint is more like, "only one candidate has a chance of winning, therefore votes for anyone else don't matter."

 

[Agatha]

A whole day off from electioneering today; it's good to hear other things going on the world on the news (at least until after 10pm).

I will be exercising my franchise in local elections, where all the three main party candidates have made exactly the same promises (oppose the local fracking, oppose the local greenbelt development, support local services).

Back to the General Election: if it could ever be in my power to feel sorry for Diane Abbott, it would be for the mess she made of the LBC interview. Utterly cringeworthy.

 

[Information Analyst]

Me personally? Keep pointing out how the current system disenfranchises people and encourages them not to bother voting or engaging in politics. Of course some people prefer that way.

You could also stop mis-using that word.

To be honest, it's not clear what you actually want, other than objecting to the current system. Sure, it does means that in some constituencies an MP can get elected on less than 50% of the vote, but that's not universally true. Then again, you complain that in a 60/40 split the 40 are left disgruntled, even though it's a bit of a no brainer than some of them would still be OK with the final result, even if it wasn't their first choice.

When it comes down to it, no matter what system is in place, there will always be those winners and losers, if there is more than one choice on the ballot paper. Over the years I've lived in constituencies in which my vote did not get someone elected, and others where it did. I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference on a personal level, because it's the overall national result that counts.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You could also stop mis-using that word.

Or you could stop asserting that the word is being mis-used.

To be honest, it's not clear what you actually want, other than objecting to the current system. Sure, it does means that in some constituencies an MP can get elected on less than 50% of the vote, but that's not universally true. Then again, you complain that in a 60/40 split the 40 are left disgruntled, even though it's a bit of a no brainer than some of them would still be OK with the final result, even if it wasn't their first choice.

Yeah its obvious not clear to you. Not sure how I can help you though. Maybe re-read what I actually wrote?

Or maybe you think the status quo is just fine. A status quo where:

Half of all votes cast in the election – 22 million – went on losing candidates, 331 of 650 MPs elected on under 50 percent of the vote, and 191 with less than 30 percent of the electorate.

So yeah 'some constituencies' - more than half of them.

When it comes down to it, no matter what system is in place, there will always be those winners and losers, if there is more than one choice on the ballot paper. Over the years I've lived in constituencies in which my vote did not get someone elected, and others where it did. I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference on a personal level, because it's the overall national result that counts.

No it isn't. It's the summation of all the local constituency results that counts. Quite different. A system where half the votes are wasted. A system where the Government is given absolute power based on 36% of the vote.

Rather than complain about word-choice I'd like to see someone justify those figures as being fair, right and acceptable.

 

[Giz]

Or you could stop asserting that the word is being mis-used.



Yeah its obvious not clear to you. Not sure how I can help you though. Maybe re-read what I actually wrote?

Or maybe you think the status quo is just fine. A status quo where:

Half of all votes cast in the election – 22 million – went on losing candidates, 331 of 650 MPs elected on under 50 percent of the vote, and 191 with less than 30 percent of the electorate.

So yeah 'some constituencies' - more than half of them.



No it isn't. It's the summation of all the local constituency results that counts. Quite different. A system where half the votes are wasted. A system where the Government is given absolute power based on 36% of the vote.

Rather than complain about word-choice I'd like to see someone justify those figures as being fair, right and acceptable.

Being disgruntled is not the same as being disenfranchised.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Being disgruntled is not the same as being disenfranchised.

As in...

I'm disgruntled when someone posts a vapid hit and run snipe of a reply with zero content then runs away and hides for a few days. I'm disenfranchised when my vote is ignored and rendered worthless.

 

[MikeG]

Oh dear. Are some people advocating a system in which every single candidate is a winner? That's the only logical outcome of complaining that those who vote for a losing candidate are disenfranchised.

By the way, please go tell someone living in Belarus, or a black South African who lived through apartheid, that despite being free to vote for whomsoever you please, and in a system where all parties are free to campaign unmolested by the authorities and where all the votes are properly counted, that you're disenfranchised. Poor, poor pitiable little snowflake..........you didn't get to vote for the winner...............oh diddums.

 

[Amazer]

Oh dear. Are some people advocating a system in which every single candidate is a winner? That's the only logical outcome of complaining that those who vote for a losing candidate are disenfranchised.

By the way, please go tell someone living in Belarus, or a black South African who lived through apartheid, that despite being free to vote for whomsoever you please, and in a system where all parties are free to campaign unmolested by the authorities and where all the votes are properly counted, that you're disenfranchised. Poor, poor pitiable little snowflake..........you didn't get to vote for the winner...............oh diddums.

I get the point that Archie is trying to get across though. In that respect I think that, for example, the Dutch system for parliamentary elections is much superiour.with it's proportional representation. It more honestly reflects the position of the electorate.

 

[Pixel42]

Whilst I sympathise with Archie's predicament (and indeed share it) I think the verb 'to disenfranchise' should be reserved for cases where people are prevented from voting at all, rather than be diluted to also cover far less egregious flaws in democracy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Whilst I sympathise with Archie's predicament (and indeed share it) I think the verb 'to disenfranchise' should be reserved for cases where people are prevented from voting at all, rather than be diluted to also cover far less egregious flaws in democracy.

Hey if that's the problem I've got one of them in my household too. Permanent UK resident not allowed to vote.

Of course it would be a bit silly to dismiss criticism of the system by saying for example something stupid like black South Africans had it worse under apartheid. It would take a special kind of bljnkeredness to see that as any kind of argument.

A small minded petty right wing I'm all right jack kind of blinkeredness that doesn't give a crap about anyone or anything other than winning and crushing the opposition. The kind that lauds Theresa May as strong and stable and sneers at human rights. That dismisses criticism of May as petty and puerile while calling the first minister of Scotland whiny. That kind of blinkeredness. Thank god there's nobody like that around here.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The term disenfranchised has a well established meaning which is much broader than just having the right to vote. It also sums up the problem with the establishment and the current system that people think 'you are not disenfranchised you have a piece of paper with a meaningless vote' is a convincing counter argument.

 

[The Don]

I get the point that Archie is trying to get across though. In that respect I think that, for example, the Dutch system for parliamentary elections is much superiour.with it's proportional representation. It more honestly reflects the position of the electorate.

I agree that proportional representation does mean that the proportion of parliamentary representatives more accurately represents the votes cast but we had a proportional representation referendum and the result was (unfortunately for people like me who would prefer PR) very clear cut.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Even under a PR scheme, there is a lower cut-off where parties don't get representation. Describing people who voted for those parties as being disenfranchised is, IMO, just as inaccurate as Archie Gemmill Goal describing himself as being disenfranchised.

 

[Pixel42]

Hey if that's the problem I've got one of them in my household too. Permanent UK resident not allowed to vote.

What verb would you use to describe their position which distinguishes it from yours?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What verb would you use to describe their position which distinguishes it from yours?

I'd call them people who don't have a vote if I wanted to distinguish them.