How do I make my vote count?

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "How do I make my vote count?" by rabbitpirate.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/culture/how-do-i-make-my-vote-count/

 

[MRaverz]

To be the decision on who to vote for is obvious. Go for the party who want to reform the voting system so that it actually reflects what the general population want, go for the party which actually maps out the changes it's going to make rather than just saying it'll do something different and then not doing anything. Vote Liberal Democrats.

If you want to make your vote count, personally I'm talking with those around me about the policies. It ensures that the choice I make is the best one, and it also convinces others to really think about who they vote for. But even without that, a vote for proportional representation is a vote for making sure that everyone's vote is heard.

As it stands the Lib Dems are one point below the Tories and three above Labour. Yet with the current voting system, Lib Dem will get the third amount of seats again. That's why the system needs to be changed, so that we can get rid of the old 'Red-blue, blue-red' government and actually have people in Parliment who represent us.


On voting records, it seems a lot of Tories are voting pro-homoeopathy. I wish I had known when I had the chance to question my local candidate.

 

[australopithecus]

I recently discovered my vote is not worth one vote, it's worth about 0.1863 of a vote or there abouts.

Yay, democracy!

 

[Tyler Durden]

Pragmatic questions of the merits or otherwise of tactical voting aside, I recommend the following site:
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
The idea is to separate policy from the politics (cults) of personality.
I hope you find it of interest.

 

[timreid]

Hey,

You could try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_pairing

- can't say I've done it, but it strikes me as filling an evolutionary niche in our system...

Best

Tim

 

[Shaedys]

Direct>district democracy?
I'd say just vote for the party you believe most in. This is coming from the Netherlands, where every vote counts equally though.
So... yeah you might want to vote for one of those three parties you most agree with. It could at the very least sway your district away from conservative.

 

[e2iPi]

I had a similar conundrum during the last Presidential election here in the US. I live in a state that has gone to the Republicans for the last 35 years; I was bummed that my vote wouldn't count amid the many brain-dead ditto-heads running around. Well, lo-and-behold, in 2008 my state carried Obama,I was so proud I nearly cried. In addition we got a shiny new Democrat for governor, but the jury is still out on her, she may be brain-dead as well.

I guess the moral to the story is just vote and don't be shy about telling others who you are voting for and, most importantly, WHY.

-1

 

[MRaverz]

Pragmatic questions of the merits or otherwise of tactical voting aside, I recommend the following site:
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
The idea is to separate policy from the politics (cults) of personality.
I hope you find it of interest.

To be fair, that's not the best site around. It tends to bore people to death.

I prefer http://www.votematch.org.uk. It does the same thing, but without boring you to pieces and without the ability to guess which party the policies match to.

 

[Jotto999]

Same issue in Canada, the voting system is flawed like that. But it gets mentioned here and there, hopefully it gets fixed.

I turned old enough to vote just a couple months after the last election, so I've never voted before. My advice is to vote if you can, though. Voter apathy makes me a sad panda.

 

[Aught3]

Votes always count, you should vote for who you want to win.

 

[joshurtree]

The problem is that the constituencies are not equal in size. As such if you have one constituency of, lets say, 100,000 people and all of them vote Tory (The Conservative Party) then that equals 1 seat in Parliament. However if you have ten other constituencies all with 10,000 people in them and they all vote for the Labour Party then they get 10 seats in Parliament, even though they got exactly the same number of votes. What this means is you get situations, like during our last general election, where numerically more people voted for the runners up than voted for the party that actually won the election. Not ideal.

The constituencies aren't all that different in size (you can get hold of some statistics for England and Wales here). There will always be some variation but nothing like the 10 to 1 ratio that you give. The bigger problem is that the margin of victory or loss in each constituency isn't taken into account. The reason the LibDems aren't going to win the election despite being level with the other two parties in popularity is that their vote is quite evenly spread. Whereas Conservatives and Labour have strongholds in certain areas. Imagine the following senario, whichisn't far from reality in a lot of places.

Constituency A

• Conservative - 20,000
• LibDem - 15,000
• Labour - 5,000

Constituency B

• Labour - 20,000
• LibDem - 15,000
• Conservative - 5,000

Despite having the largest share of the vote the LibDems come away with no seats. That's why they are always pusing for proportional representation.

 

[Giliell]

Seems like we're getting the best of the worst with proportionate representation, more or less here.
But, really, it doesn't get you out of that problem either

So, you might call it pathetic, but I 've resolved to follow my conscience.
so I vote for the small party, even if it's not going to jump the 5% hurdle.
Or I go to the election and cross out the whole thing.
I don't vote for the "lesser evil".
There are some reasons. One of them is the self-fulfilling prophecy: If all voters of the party who has been the loser last (25) time(s) don't go to vote, of course the others will win.
The other one is that it would mean I condone the lesser evil and give them authority to act in my will.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

I never got that voting for small parties is a waste of your vote idea. You vote is insignificant no matter who you vote. If a party gets 10 million the chances that the party will actually win because of you are absurdly small. You vote out of principle, not because you actually think that your one vote will make a difference. So why don't you set an example and vote for the party you actually want to win?

 

[Prolescum]

Came across this yesterday.

 

[Andiferous]

Seems like we're getting the best of the worst with proportionate representation, more or less here.
But, really, it doesn't get you out of that problem either

So, you might call it pathetic, but I 've resolved to follow my conscience.
so I vote for the small party, even if it's not going to jump the 5% hurdle.
Or I go to the election and cross out the whole thing.
I don't vote for the "lesser evil".
There are some reasons. One of them is the self-fulfilling prophecy: If all voters of the party who has been the loser last (25) time(s) don't go to vote, of course the others will win.
The other one is that it would mean I condone the lesser evil and give them authority to act in my will.

I do the same (even though it often feels like my vote is fruitless - I've yet to actually help elect anyone into office).

I do see logic behind this strategy. The existence of little parties tend to keep the big parties in check, and the 'extremes' at either end tend to keep the moderates in balance.

 

[5810Singer]

Sorry if someone's already mentioned this.

Since we have an unelected second house that desperately needs reform (House of Lords), it's composition could be changed to that of members elected by proportional representation, whilst leaving the House of Commons on the constituency system.

This would probably create certain problems for the parties, but I don't think they would turn into problems for the country as a whole, and ultimately the parties would adapt.
If the "House of Representatives" keeps the same powers as the current House of Lords, then they can only have a guiding effect on the work of Parliament, as opposed to a controlling one, and their effect on Parliament could be assessed as though it were on a sort of trial basis.

If the new house works then we will have introduced proportional representation, reformed the second house, and increased democratic influence.
If the experiment continued to be a success then it seems sensible to me that the staus of the two houses should be swapped, and the "House of Representatives" would reflect the ruling party of government, and the House of Commons would reflect regional differences and interests.

I don't think this is a new idea, but what do you guys think of it?

 

[Andiferous]

Our system is based on yours. We both have a "House of Commons," but our "House of Lords" is actually the Senate. Senators here are appointed and not elected, though there's a movement toward having elected representatives. Our Senate is partisan and usually appointed for loyalty, so it doesn't have very much power either.

Not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting the "house of representatives" would represent only those representing the majority party (or coalition)?

I'm not an expert on American political systems, but the idea of giving the second house more power sounds a bit more like the American system of elected senate.

 

[5810Singer]

Not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting the "house of representatives" would represent only those representing the majority party (or coalition)?

No, I was a bit unsure as to how to word that part, and I've obviously been ambiguous.

What I envisioned is that with the fullness of time the premacy of the two houses would switch, and equally the UK would switch from the constituency system to PR when choosing a government.

My reasoning is that the "House of Representatives" would become the premier house of Parliament, as it's membership would reflect the the political views/allegiances of the UK population as a whole, and the House of Commons with members from the various constituencies would reflect the regional interests of the UK, and would become the second house.

I'm not an expert on American political systems, but the idea of giving the second house more power sounds a bit more like the American system of elected senate.

Well I'm suggesting a two house system, with both houses being elected not appointed, so if that's more like the US, then yea.

 

[Prolescum]

We still need to get rid of the lizard queen, though. Sinn Fein might actually bother to represent their constituents then. The issue of Royal ascent must come up if we were to reform the houses properly. Which no current politician would touch with a barge pole. Weak-willed bastards.

 

[Andiferous]

I suspect dispensing of our Queen would be the final blow to the commonwealth....