cressida Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Probably because it is. Unlike the period 2007-2010 when it was going down the pan. I agree that period was a disaster and I think it will have put off a lot of people from trusting Labour with the economy again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 But even when a referendum was held to change the voting system, only 42.2% of people could be bothered to come out and vote, for a voting system that would make their vote count.Yeah, we were promised a referendum with Proportional Representation as an option, the Conservative old guard fought tooth and nail to get that removed and replaced with the Alternative Vote system that no one wanted, then they proceeded to muddy the waters saying it wouldn't work and providing examples where someone no one votes for wins. Frankly I'm amazed 42.2% turned out. ---------- Post added 04-12-2013 at 23:44 ---------- That is one of the good things about introducing a "none of the above" option: it is only the tiniest of changes and to resist it, they would have to admit that they are scared of losing to nobody...Good luck with that, all they have to do is vote no. Even if a petition forces a debate in the house no one is actually compelled to speak, then all they have to do is vote no and it's next order of business please. As for admitting they are scared of losing to no one, they are in charge, they don't have to admit to a thing they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 so what do we think? Can we have a "meh!" option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted December 5, 2013 Author Share Posted December 5, 2013 That is one of the good things about introducing a "none of the above" option: it is only the tiniest of changes and to resist it, they would have to admit that they are scared of losing to nobody... Good luck with that, all they have to do is vote no. Even if a petition forces a debate in the house no one is actually compelled to speak, then all they have to do is vote no and it's next order of business please. The European Convention on Human Rights provides us with the right to free elections. Is an election truly free if we do not have the option to vote against all the candidates on offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The European Convention on Human Rights provides us with the right to free elections. Is an election truly free if we do not have the option to vote against all the candidates on offer? You have the option to not vote for anyone anyway. I'm yet to see anyone describe a good point about the "none of the above" option being added to ballot papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 What Labour is saying sounds nice, but then I think they're the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Letting people claim disability because they feel a bit sad. No, no no no no. Conservatives are the least bad option right now, at least they're trying to get people working and off the dole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You have the option to not vote for anyone anyway. I'm yet to see anyone describe a good point about the "none of the above" option being added to ballot papers. To not vote is interpreted as 'apathy' To vote 'none of the above' is a vote of no confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 To not vote is interpreted as 'apathy' To vote 'none of the above' is a vote of no confidence. But - what comes of a "vote of no confidence"? It's not going to change whoever ends up with a majority's views of how popular they are. There are lots of things you could improve about our political system (recall by referendum / scrapping of the whip system / non-fixed terms / forced referendums on certain issues / etc), but just having a "I don't like you lot" box on a bit of paper is a waste of time and effort because it will change nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Conservatives are the least bad option right now, at least they're trying to get people working and off the dole. dont you mean getting people to work for their benefits:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted December 5, 2013 Author Share Posted December 5, 2013 You have the option to not vote for anyone anyway. Voting for nobody is not the same as voting against everybody. I'm yet to see anyone describe a good point about the "none of the above" option being added to ballot papers. The first point is: where is the downside? There is none. It would cost nothing to implement, and the worst thing you can say about it is that it may be pointless. OTOH, we have an increasing problem with voter turnouts. Is it apathy or abstention? There is no way of telling without a NoTA option. That information has some value. Of course, if NoTA wins the vote, then there would be some considerable cost, as they would have to re-run the election, but in that event, the option has already proved its worth. ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 08:45 ---------- To vote 'none of the above' is a vote of no confidence. Is it? I think it is a vote to say: "I don't want any of these parties representing me, give me some other options". ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 09:00 ---------- just having a "I don't like you lot" box on a bit of paper is a waste of time and effort because it will change nothing. It has the potential to cause substantial change. Consider where I live. Most people vote for Labour. Some people vote against Labour, and a lot of people don't bother voting because Labour are sure to get in, not least because the against Labour vote is divided. If NoTA was an option, and the other parties had a bit of sense, then the vote could be changed to a straightforward for Labour: against Labour. Probably, they would still win, but they may at least have to work for it a bit, and there are a lot of constituencies where things are not so forgone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.