20 comments by 1 or more people

1. Not voting at all will certainly lead to a new voting system: none at all. When anarchy reigns supreme in Britain, you'll wish you still had First-Past-The-Post. ;-)

   29 Apr 2005, 22:40

2. PR is a much better system.

   PS: We have it. It works too. It's just a shame that the concept seems more difficult than put-an-X-in-the-box.

   29 Apr 2005, 23:21

3. PS: link is broken.

   29 Apr 2005, 23:24

4. i'm not sanctioning not voting at all. i'm just saying that voter apathy is grounded in logic. if you're going to re-engage voters, you have to make them feel that their vote really does count. check out the fixed link to see what i'm talking about.

   very good cause

   30 Apr 2005, 00:48

5. Good link, Sarah: I've just registered.

   30 Apr 2005, 14:47

6. I don't quite understand why not to vote Lib dem. (Assuming you like their policies) It reduces Labour's share of the vote, yes. But it also reduces the Conservative share, and the UKIP share, and the Veritas share, and the BNP share… And it increases their capability of forming part of a coalition government. Even if they don't win, they may well win seats, and so influence.

   In any case, there is no possibility of you making Labour and Lib dems both lose by voting lib dems instead of abstaining. A big boost to the smaller parties will also send an important message to the bigger ones.

   And besides, you can vote, and still register in the petition.

   01 May 2005, 01:06

7. Charles Kennedy has repeatedly gone on record as saying he is absolutely not interested in forming a coalition government, because he will do what is best for the Liberal Democrats and won't play second fiddle to anyone, including Labour. I respect him for saying this. However, it does rule out your argument for voting for the Liberals on the basis of forming a coalition government. I doubt very much Kennedy will go back on his word on this; if he does he's as big a liar as the rest of them, but he does strike me as being honest, something I give him a lot of credit for. That doesn't change the fact that he'd be a hopeless PM and the Lib Dems would be a disaster for this country however. The Lib Dems: A nice idea that would go horrifically wrong in practice.

   If you want Labour out, the best chance is to vote Conservative (or tactically of course in anywhere north of the midlands). If you want Labour back, well you need your head examined. If you don't care which party wins, then I would urge you to look at the evidence and reconsider.

   01 May 2005, 09:41

8. a vote for the smaller parties doesn't particularly do anything when you think about, it with this system of voting. i come from an area where are particular problems that need addressing. most people i spoke to over the holiday are voting to shock as opposed to a belief in their policies. this i feel is wrong because i am fairly sure this attitude is prevalent throughout the area & i am afraid that the MP will actually be elected as the problems affect so many people so strongly.

   i believe every vote should be cast for the party whose policies the voter most believes in. sadly it makes little real difference when essentially there's not a huge amount of difference between the 'big three' to start with, whatever their manifestoes say. also, in the current voting system, the make-up of parliament is not representative of the votes cast.

   that's why i feel that, at the moment votes are wasted. what i was trying to do here was point out why, for every person i know who's voting, i know several others who aren't. i have registered for the petition and i'm thinking about voting. i'm realistic enough to realise that its not ideology that counts, it's what politicians do in practice, to make people's lives better in some way, that really counts. that's why i think a vote for the lib dems is not the best idea. yes, they have some great ideas, but i think that is all they will ever be.

   01 May 2005, 12:04

9. On the myth that voting for LibDems will mean Labour lose this election, take a look at yesterday's Independent (30/04/05). It says:

   "The sudy found that a swing of 11.5% from Labour voters to the LibDems could deprive Mr. Blair of his overall Commons majority [...]".

   It then goes on to say, that even if Tony Blair lost the majority, that still doesn't mean that the Conservatives are going to gain it.
   Why Charles Kennedy is so vehemently opposed to forming a coalition, I don't understand! I don't know about the history of coalitioins in Britain, but in Germany it is virtually impossible not have a coalition governement and it's been good for Germany in some respects. With a Green Party coalition partner, Germany is now on the forefront of recycling, it's cities are more inviting than ever and few countries (if any) produce more electricity from wind farms.
   This shouldn't be taken as advice to vote for the Greens, but I do believe that everyone should vote according to what policies they like and not what is tactically the best. In my opinion there is no such thing as a lost vote. Every marginal victory scares the winner, because next time round, he may well lose his seat.

   01 May 2005, 12:08

10. i agree, i think that a coalition would be beneficial in a lot of ways. but all i have to say about labour is Iraq. of course it depends who you listen to, but i think it was fundamentally wrong to undermine the UN's authority. i know a lot of other MPs voted for the war as well, but i can't help feeling the vested interests had more to do with it than the freedom of the Iraqi people. as the party in power, Labour have to take responsibility for it at some point, and as this hasnt happened through UN action, i think people voting with their feet as it were would be a good idea. then they'd really listen.

    01 May 2005, 15:12

11. people should vote with their feet**

    01 May 2005, 15:13

12. Didn't do a trackback I'm afraid, but I've just posted an article based on this post :-)

    01 May 2005, 16:14

13. Peter:

    Also, that refers to labour voters voting Lib Dem instead. What I am referring to is disillusioned Labour voters voting Lib dem – instead of not voting at all. I can't see any negatives to this. There is no way this would help the Tories, in any case – if there is a hung parliament, even if no coalition is formed, Blair would have to have a minority government, and in that, the Lib dems would still have lots of power.

    Yeah, Kennedy's statements on coalitions are kinda misguided. But I don't think this makes people's vote in any way 'wasted'.

    Christopher:

    You are missing the point. Most (according to polls) people do want rid of Blair, but not at any cost. Not at the cost of letting in the Tories, in any case.

    01 May 2005, 16:18

14. And yet, when Germany tried Proportional Representation, it lead to Hitler's Dictatorship…

    04 May 2005, 12:30

15. But that wasn't PR's fault. Hitler would have won, in any system. He had lots of votes.

    Besides, I'd rather it be obvious that people were turning to extremism, than to simply use a system that hides the problem until it's too late.

    04 May 2005, 13:35

16. Hmm, that's a bit like using Hitler as an argument against vegetarianism.

    04 May 2005, 13:36

17. No, I'm saying PR was key in assisting Hilter's rise, which is obviously a bad thing. Your argument would be to suggest that the fact that Hitler was a vagetarian caused him to do what he did, which is illogical. Ner.

    05 May 2005, 15:04

18. Gman

    I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on george war bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment? Growing up, I was led to believe that the republican party was a grass roots party of the people & for the people. In retrospect, it is clear that the last 3 presidents produced by the republican party were nothing more then the rich man’s rich man hiding under the disguise of the overly misused term, “conservative”. The economic dark ages of reagonomics fleeced the middle and lower classes of this county simply to benefit the rich and wealthy. George warmonger bush has quietly shifted this country back to those economic dark ages. Bush inherited a strong economy and squandered that real quick. And even though 9 -11 did happen, none of bush’s reckless decisions are in any way justified by that day in history. It is clear that he never had any real salient foreign & domestic policies when he became president in 2000. Now we have 4 more years of republican lies and a growing body count overseas. If we ever actually do get out of Iraq, nothing will have changed and nothing will have been gained. The American people have never been given a specific objective in Iraq or a clear definition of exactly what victory in Iraq is from the president. Invading Iraq never had anything to do with, WMD, freeing the Iraqi people or making Americans safer and secure. Statements about WMD, Freeing Iraq or Making America Safer are nothing more then a marketing spin used to hide the ugly truth and make the lies palatable to the American public and justifiable to the red necks who voted for him. Bush likes to make statements such as “It’s worth the price” but he never says just what exactly “it” is. If he really believes that, then he should put his money where his mouth is and send his daughters to go fight in Iraq. The republican party claims to be for smaller less wasteful government but the current administration is responsible for the waste of more money, resources and human lives then any past democrat presidency. I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that the blood of Americans and innocent civilians is on my hands and the hands of those who voted for george warmonger bush. The real legacy of the bush cabinet is going to be one characterized by lots of wrongful deaths, lots of money and resources wasted, unnecessary tax increases for our children and grandchildren and the unnecessary destruction of various social programs that good decent people count on. Thanks to bush and his power hungry cabinet who all want to control congress, the senate & the supreme court, the USA is now a third world country hiding under the disguise of prosperity. Now that the USA owes all these hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like China, Germany, Russia & Japan, I wonder which language I need to learn for the day when these countries come to collect…

    03 Aug 2005, 19:57

19. laker fan

    Well, at least you learned from your mistake. 99.99% of those who voted for bush seem to love living in denial of the fact that bush is an embarassing total screw up who makes Nixon look good. These are same people who think that actual facts and truth exposing bush are the equivalent of liberal lies. When the the neo-conservative agenda is examined against the light of honesty and integrity, it is not difficult to see that those are 2 elements that do not even exist in neo-conservatism. When one lifts the veil exposing neo-conservatism for what it really is, it is easy to see it is not even an actual conservative agenda. It is simply an untried and untested political philosphy geared towards making the rich richer in this country at the expense of the middle and lower classes just like reagonomics did. If allowed to dominate, it creates a quasi-mexico like class system where there you have a small upper class of rich people and a large lower class of people but very little if any middle class. Democracy is reduced to a thing to be manipulated by the rich and even the constitution is of little to no application in neoconservatism. Those who are not willing to close their eyes to the truth can still hear president bush saying that he was going to "restore dignity to the whitehouse" during the 2000 campaign trail. If by "restoring dignity" he meant the unjustified killing of American citizens and innocent Iraqi citizens, alienating the U.S. from its allies and the economic crippling of our nation, I guess dignity has been restored to the whitehouse. Somehow Clintons little escapade with Monical Lewinsky radically pales in comparison to innocent bloodshed, USA resources wasted and blatant lies of the bush cabinet.

    22 Aug 2005, 21:28

20. Dracula

    Bush is too stupid to be a war monger. Simply put…he is nothing more then the rich man's rich man. Just like his daddy and his daddy's daddy ronald reagan, Bush simply wishes to fleece the middle, lower class and senior citizens to benefit the already rich and wealthy. Bush and the corrupt republican party have successfully turned congress from being the people's house to being their personal auction house for corporate and special interest. These guys make Nixon look like a saint.

    15 May 2006, 20:09