Who the heck do I vote for? Or Shall I not bother?

[Saffy]

I wonder how many people that complain about the Govt actually voted in the last election. It doesn't matter who you voted for, the fact you voted means you have the right to complain, people who don't vote should just sit quietly. If they are so disenchanted with the Govt or their MP then they should make the effort to vote. I believe it should be compulsory to vote, it is in certain countries.

 

Here ya go .. I knew someone would bring this one up ! Hahah !

[Mr Nobody]

Read the party manifestos.

Then read independent views on them.

Maybe talk to friends and relatives.

If any party knocks on your door - think of the thing that interests or affects you the most and ask the candidate or canvasser. There is also lots of virtual ways to contact politicians now too.

A friend of mine is very interested in technology. He said he wasn't bothered about elections, pensions, childcare or the NHS. He would vote for the party that committed to better and faster and free broadband similar to that in Japan/Korea.

He has not found a party yet.

So i guess it is all subjective.

My biggest gripe is tactical voting. The Liberals are wotsits for this.Little inaccurate barcharts saying only so and so can win.

Just vote for the party that suits you.

[Rioja]

Its just a shame we don't alllive in key marginals - then we'd be able to have a proper say in the future make up of Parliament. As it is most constituencies will return an MP from the same party they have always done. This means that lots of people in those safe seats don't bother voting - whats the point when the same party always wins.

 

This means that voters in key marginals hold the balance of power. In effect their votes are more important than everyone elses. Which doesn't seem very democatic to me.

[sandyf]

You need changes to make change, otherwise nothing changes.

[John X]

that is why I believe it should be compulsory.

 

The problem with that is that it risks undermining the whole system.

 

You can make someone vote, but you cannot make them vote for a particular party. That means that you would have to allow a 'None of the above' option.

 

You then risk the 'None of the above' vote being in excess of the winning candidate's vote in some cases.

 

John X

[Number Six]

The problem with that is that it risks undermining the whole system.

 

You can make someone vote, but you cannot make them vote for a particular party. That means that you would have to allow a 'None of the above' option.

 

You then risk the 'None of the above' vote being in excess of the winning candidate's vote in some cases.

 

John X

 

You can simply spoil your paper. I've done that a few times.

[llamatron]

You can simply spoil your paper. I've done that a few times.

 

why bother? its no different to not voting. Do you think the people counting give a **** they just throw it in the irrelevant pile

[Greybeard]

Read the party manifestos.

 

 

And you'll find each of the three main parties are now a slightly different shade of social democrat

 

The manifestos are just statements of what they think you want to hear and election promises quickly forgotten or shelved for reasons of more pressing business.

 

The party most likely to do something about electoral reform are the Lib Dems because they are the party most likely to gain from it. Until we get electoral reform we'll be stuck on the same old merry-go-round of lame politics and an apathetic electorate.

[Number Six]

why bother? its no different to not voting. Do you think the people counting give a **** they just throw it in the irrelevant pile

 

Of course I don't think the people counting care. My 'vote' is recorded though - I'm part of the turnout.

 

I would like to think that if there was a turnout of 90% at the election but only 50% of people actually voted properly that it would send more of a message to politicians than people just staying at home ever will.

 

It's much easier to dismiss a low turnout than it is to dismiss people making the 'effort' to walk as much as a mile in some cases(!) to show that they have no faith in any of the candidates.

[llamatron]

Of course I don't think the people counting care. My 'vote' is recorded though - I'm part of the turnout.

 

I would like to think that if there was a turnout of 90% at the election but only 50% of people actually voted properly that it would send more of a message to politicians than people just staying at home ever will.

 

It's much easier to dismiss a low turnout than it is to dismiss people making the 'effort' to walk as much as a mile in some cases(!) to show that they have no faith in any of the candidates.

 

but what would that change? do you think politicians would suddenly decide they should tell the truth and explain their decisions from now on? It wouldn't change a thing because those destroyed votes wouldn't change who had won the election and thats what its all about-staying in power at whatever cost!