Metropol

If you are either of these

a) usually a Labour voter but have been disillusioned in the recent past
b) usually a Tory voter but not sure this lot of em are much better than The Labour lot
c) usualy votes but wont this time because fed up with the big two
d) hardly ever vote because you dont think your vote counts,
as it would be for anyone but the main two or three parties

would you consider voting for one of the other small parties for this election
if you knew a lot of other people that were either of the above would vote
for the same one

Is the following a decent strategy keeping in mind it would only need to be this once

You research your voting regions last general election results and agree to vote for the party that got the most votes last time

If its Labour or Conservative you pass onto the next one then put an X next to them on the ballot paper
weither it's a Green, Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP, Peace Party etc.

If any of those party's scare you it wouldnt matter as neither of them collectively across the UK
would have enough power to put any extreme policies they would have into action

Ideally a lot of small parties/ independents would get a collection of seats all over the
place and at the very least scare the **** out of the main two enough for them to get their act together

What would there be to lose? I can only see huge benefits.

Would many people sign up to that

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on here, and bear in mind Plymouth, Trout and James Martin have all posted in the past.

Sput wrote:That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on here, and bear in mind Plymouth, Trout and James Martin have all posted in the past.

Paul Daniels has an attractive smile.

I think that puts me way up on the top of your list, Sput. ^

The very idea that any "strategy" is involved in voting is ludicrous. This isn't the Weakest Link where everyone flips over their board to reveal their vote, and then try to justify it. This is a private ballot where your vote is your own, and no-one elses. If you wish to vote for the BNP then that is your prerogative. The fact that some chose them over the mainstream parties in the recent Eurolections isn't indicitave of voter strategy, rather an indication that the expenses scandal caused more people to either stay away (turnout was 34%) or give their vote to other parties not involved in the scandal.

People shouldn't vote because they think their vote counts. They should vote for the party that reflects their personal feelings. If one thought "I don't want to be in Europe, but I won't vote for UKIP because they won't get in" then we would only have two parties in the whole political scene in the UK, from Parliament to Parish Councils. This is where the argument of a "wasted vote" makes no sense at all. OK it may seem irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but if 639 people voted for the National Jelly Appreciation Network, than that, in statistical terms at least, means 639 people want free jelly for all.

This is where the ever alarmingly increasing amount of support for the British Nazi [sic...or is it?] Party comes in. In theory, in a FPTP system they should never gain enough support in a parliamentary constituency to result in a parliamentary seat. But if out of a constituency of 100,000 1000 voted for them, then 1% of the constituency has a right to voice that opinion through their vote.

Alexia wrote:People shouldn't vote because they think their vote counts.

Oh, the abuse I've taken for saying this in the past.

I don't know whether I agree with this sentiment, but I'm currently thinking democracy seems to consist of a dictator, but you get to chose which one you like out of two, and the knowledge that if you didn't vote, the result would probably be exactly the same.

Alexia wrote:The very idea that any "strategy" is involved in voting is ludicrous. This isn't the Weakest Link where everyone flips over their board to reveal their vote, and then try to justify it. This is a private ballot where your vote is your own, and no-one elses. If you wish to vote for the BNP then that is your prerogative. The fact that some chose them over the mainstream parties in the recent Eurolections isn't indicitave of voter strategy, rather an indication that the expenses scandal caused more people to either stay away (turnout was 34%) or give their vote to other parties not involved in the scandal.

People shouldn't vote because they think their vote counts. They should vote for the party that reflects their personal feelings. If one thought "I don't want to be in Europe, but I won't vote for UKIP because they won't get in" then we would only have two parties in the whole political scene in the UK, from Parliament to Parish Councils. This is where the argument of a "wasted vote" makes no sense at all. OK it may seem irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but if 639 people voted for the National Jelly Appreciation Network, than that, in statistical terms at least, means 639 people want free jelly for all.

Perhaps, if you really agree with Party X's views mostly, but you know that they won't have a hope in the next election, but you really hate Party Y's views, and Party Z are the only plausible opposition to them, then perhaps to compromise, you have to vote Party Z, strategically, to avoid Party Y getting in?

Rob Del Monte wrote:
Perhaps, if you really agree with Party X's views mostly, but you know that they won't have a hope in the next election, but you really hate Party Y's views, and Party Z are the only plausible opposition to them, then perhaps to compromise, you have to vote Party Z, strategically, to avoid Party Y getting in?

Did you even read my post? If you agree with Party X's views, then vote for Party X. Your vote ISN'T wasted in any way - you have exercised your democratic right and validated the views of Party X.

Rob Del Monte wrote: I don't know whether I agree with this sentiment, but I'm currently thinking democracy seems to consist of a dictator, but you get to chose which one you like out of two, and the knowledge that if you didn't vote, the result would probably be exactly the same.

Ever heard of a hung parliament? We are quite likely to get one next time round. No one party with an overall majority, bringing coalitions and other complicated arrangements into the mix.

I think, bill/alexia, what he's saying is your post seems to suggest being blinded by idealism when voting, whereas most people are probably a bit more pragmatic: They will vote based on both their own view and the information available about who's most popular, so that they can take solace that, while their ideal party doesn't get in, one that is in some way aligned to their ideology (even though it's a compromise) is in power.

Alexia wrote:

Rob Del Monte wrote:
Perhaps, if you really agree with Party X's views mostly, but you know that they won't have a hope in the next election, but you really hate Party Y's views, and Party Z are the only plausible opposition to them, then perhaps to compromise, you have to vote Party Z, strategically, to avoid Party Y getting in?

Did you even read my post? If you agree with Party X's views, then vote for Party X. Your vote ISN'T wasted in any way - you have exercised your democratic right and validated the views of Party X.

I understand that you can register a vote to communicate a sort of protest, that stastically, your vote says "this is the party I support", whether or not you think it is going to put them in power, but is communicating that sentiment really worth letting Party Y in? Will Party Y really care that you, and perhaps a few others, voted Party X and adapt their policies accordingly?

Whilst I hypothesised that the electoral result would probably be the same without one's vote, in fact, if i remember correctly (from what I've read/been told, I was much younger at the time to be interested), my local MP got in on a 2-vote majority. Say he was with Party Y, if only I'd voted Party Z, and perhaps a friend had, then a party that was closer to my allegience would be making the important decisions in my area.

As it happens, he isn't in "Party Y", and I support him actually. Perhaps, even, he is in my Party X, but if he was with Party Y, would I have risked letting him in, just to register my vote with Party X to put in some database somewhere that "I voted Party X"? I suppose doing so would be the most sincere and honest thing. What would other Metropolers do?

Alexia wrote:

Rob Del Monte wrote: I don't know whether I agree with this sentiment, but I'm currently thinking democracy seems to consist of a dictator, but you get to chose which one you like out of two, and the knowledge that if you didn't vote, the result would probably be exactly the same.

Ever heard of a hung parliament? We are quite likely to get one next time round. No one party with an overall majority, bringing coalitions and other complicated arrangements into the mix.

I was reading about a hung parliament on Wikipedia earlier on today. As it's turned out, I've ended up talking politics a lot today (not one of my coincidences again !!!)! Perhaps that would give the Lib. Dems a balance of power?