I'm not voting for anyone!

[Westdene Seagull]

There is a difference between not voting and spoiling your ballot paper.

If the former, no-one knows why you didn't vote. If the latter then they know you "cared" enough to make the effort but were not happy with the candidates on offer, i.e. you said no to all of them - not turning up does not make the same statement at all, it just says you couldn't give a toss.

Yet politicians have been worrying about dropping turnouts for a while now which is why things like easier postal voting was introduced. Given they have taken action against this problem ( and I understand there are discussions about introducing technology for voting ) but don't seem to worry about taking any action to lower the number of spoilt ballot papers it would seem not voting at all if you are not happy with any of them sends a stronger message than spoiling your paper.

 

[Mowgli37]

I disagree. I have no trust in any party and won't be voting. What's the real difference between not voting and spoiling your ballot paper? Why am I allowed to moan about the corruption and deceit as I see it if I spoil the paper but have no right if I don't vote?

You vote for policies and therefore, you vote for the party you think has the best ones that will benefit you and your area. I'm with you on the corruption, it angers me as much as the next man but any party that gets in will make some changes, it depends which changes you want. There are bad eggs in every basket but I do not believe that every politician is corrupt, vote for the party who, even if you do not like them, will bring the most benefit to your constituency.

 

[Buzzer]

But we don't have the option of 'none of the above' do we so spoiling the paper makes absolutely no difference to not voting because the winning candidate is still the winning candidate whether I choose to spoil the paper or don't vote. Sure it's nice to have bragging rights about how much popular support you have but at the end of the day it's about winning that seat whether by one vote or a million.

 

[gazingdown]

Yet politicians have been worrying about dropping turnouts for a while now which is why things like easier postal voting was introduced. Given they have taken action against this problem ( and I understand there are discussions about introducing technology for voting ) but don't seem to worry about taking any action to lower the number of spoilt ballot papers it would seem not voting at all if you are not happy with any of them sends a stronger message than spoiling your paper.

They are not concerned about spoilt papers as there are so few. If 50% (or whatever) are spoilt then they'll soon start to worry about them!!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You vote for policies and therefore, you vote for the party you think has the best ones that will benefit you and your area. I'm with you on the corruption, it angers me as much as the next man but any party that gets in will make some changes, it depends which changes you want. There are bad eggs in every basket but I do not believe that every politician is corrupt, vote for the party who, even if you do not like them, will bring the most benefit to your constituency.

Or the PERSON who will bring most benefit to your constituency regardless of which party they belong to. If more people voted in the way [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] plans to next year we'd get a better quality of MP. Like him I'm anything but a Green supporter ( especially locally ) but Lucas does appear to be a decent MP and someone I would consider voting for if I could ( which I can't ).

 

[beorhthelm]

If nothing else, go in and spoil your ballot paper.

At least then you've made use of your democratic right.

its also your democratic right to abstain. they count turnout remember, which is published far more widely than the spoiled ballot count.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Not having the right to moan if you don't vote is such a bollocks argument.

 

[Mowgli37]

Likewise, I feel the same about local elections so won't be voting but thankfully in the General Election I have an MP that I trust to do what she thinks is the right thing and even though I'm against Green policies I happen to think she's a damn fine local MP so will be voting for Lucas. Where does this leave me? Am I allowed to moan about the government but not our council or am I a fraud for voting for someone whose policies I disagree with?

You're not a fraud at all, and I am sorry if you feel I was accusing you of being so, I wasn't. I would say apply the same logic to the local elections, choose the candidate who will bring the maximum benefit to the area.

 

[hybrid_x]

i love a bit of "if you don't vote you don't have a say" line - makes me giggle so much.

 

[El Presidente]

its also your democratic right to abstain. they count turnout remember, which is published far more widely than the spoiled ballot count.

True, but imagine if there were more spoiled ballot papers than voted for the party with the highest number of votes. That would give an indication to the parties of the degree of contempt in which they are held by the population.

 

[Buzzer]

If you really think that they're all bad then at least vote for the one that you think is the lesser of the evils. Whatever happens, one of them has to get elected, so you may as well try any get the one that you'd dislike the least in power.

But I think they're all bad. All of them. Okay, taking your 'lesser of the evils' argument - that excludes all the noddy extremist parties. That leaves:

UKIP - no chance. Farage is an egotist, the party is chock full of candidates with some very dodgy extremist views and they're a one-trick pony with just one policy.
Labour - No. Never. I could never vote for a party that even pays lip-service to socialism, besides they gave us Tony Blair.
Lib Dems - the party of Clegg, Norman Baker and they are very pro-EU. No way.
Tory? Never again. My brand of One-Nation Conservatism was left behind by that party years ago.
Greens? No. I don't like socialism, remember.

If I vote for any of the above they'll take my vote as vindication for their policies - the ones that I disagree with. I'm not changing anything by voting for them. I'm perpetuating a system that I disagree with. I don't want any of those parties taking my vote as some sort of tacit approval for the mess they're making.

 

[soistes]

I can't believe some of the stuff on here. Turnout rates in elections vary hugely by social class, ethnicity and particularly by age.

Middle class, white, elderly people are particularly likely to vote -- that's why most political parties are terrified of undertaking some sensible policies which would benefit other groups, because they don't want to upset the groups with the high election turnouts. That's why, for example, parties are not grasping the nettle on housing policy -- the people who'd most benefit from proper rent controls in the private sector, increased building of council/social/affordable housing etc tend not to vote, while the people who benefit from the status quo (middle-aged and elderly house-owners sitting on assets rapidly increasing in price) are more likely to vote. There are lots of other examples.

If young people, people on lower incomes and people in disadvantaged groups voted in larger numbers, some of these things would change.

Yes, of course, whether or not one individual NSC member votes or not, makes little or no difference on this occasion, but by not voting time and time again , you are contributing to the long-term decline in election turnout, which makes it easier for politicians to ignore certain segments of the population and, ironically, you are contributing to causing the very thing you are complaining about (that "politicians don't give a stuff about people like me"...).

 

[Buzzer]

they count turnout remember, which is published far more widely than the spoiled ballot count.

This is a very good point and one that is often discussed. I can't remember spoiled papers ever being mentioned as a worry by any political commentator.

 

[El Presidente]

This is a very good point and one that is often discussed. I can't remember spoiled papers ever being mentioned as a worry by any political commentator.

That's because historically spoiled ballot papers have been so few that they weren't worthy of mention. We can change that!

 

[Hotchilidog]

I can't believe some of the stuff on here. Turnout rates in elections vary hugely by social class, ethnicity and particularly by age.

Middle class, white, elderly people are particularly likely to vote -- that's why most political parties are terrified of undertaking some sensible policies which would benefit other groups, because they don't want to upset the groups with the high election turnouts. That's why, for example, parties are not grasping the nettle on housing policy -- the people who'd most benefit from proper rent controls in the private sector, increased building of council/social/affordable housing etc tend not to vote, while the people who benefit from the status quo (middle-aged and elderly house-owners sitting on assets rapidly increasing in price) are more likely to vote. There are lots of other examples.

If young people, people on lower incomes and people in disadvantaged groups voted in larger numbers, some of these things would change.

Yes, of course, whether or not one individual NSC member votes or not, makes little or no difference on this occasion, but by not voting time and time again , you are contributing to the long-term decline in election turnout, which makes it easier for politicians to ignore certain segments of the population and, ironically, you are contributing to causing the very thing you are complaining about (that "politicians don't give a stuff about people like me"...).

Good point well made, spot on. This is why voting is important.

 

[The Large One]

The 'None of the Above' Party would win any election by a landslide.

Seriously, Buzzer makes pertinent points about political apathy, and he's almost swayed me with his considerations.

However, I do feel that the sacrifices made by so many in order for democracy to at least have a shout deserve some appreciation - and that will win out. Would I use that argument in perpetuity? Yes, I would. The fact that there have been, and are, so many (not everyone, of course) who turn party politics into an unpalatable circus is a separate issue.

 

[Buzzer]

You're not a fraud at all, and I am sorry if you feel I was accusing you of being so, I wasn't. I would say apply the same logic to the local elections, choose the candidate who will bring the maximum benefit to the area.

No offence taken, I can assure you, it was a rhetorical question. I agree with the suggestion that we should have a 'none of the above', I just disagree that I 'should' either vote for the least worse candidate (a bit like asking if I would prefer to lose a leg, an arm or an eye) or that spoiling my paper will make any difference.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

No offence taken, I can assure you, it was a rhetorical question. I agree with the suggestion that we should have a 'none of the above', I just disagree that I 'should' either vote for the least worse candidate (a bit like asking if I would prefer to lose a leg, an arm or an eye) or that spoiling my paper will make any difference.

Good analogy! That's how I feel

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Show me a party who gives a shit about me and i'll vote for them! To date, no such party exists, and I won't vote for the sake of it.

No politician has the slightest to lose in ignoring people who have no intention of voting - why should they give a toss about non-voters? There's nothing in it for them. However bankrupt you may regard the system, it only changes from the inside. Vote from who's there, or spoil your ballot paper, or stand yourself next time round. Apathy from politicians changes nothing, granted. But apathy from voters has exactly the same effect.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Whilst I dislike UKIP what they have proven is that a UK based party can be formed and go from 0 to a few seats in 10 years. And in other countries new parties have been formed and got some power quite quickly. If there is genuine desire for change it can be done and done relativelly quickly.