¶ And so election fever has swept through the nation like a tickly cough, and the day has finally arrived to put your best cross next to the best candidate. But is the best candidate the person who will best represent your voice in Parliament (Des Turner, the Labour incumbent) or should the best candidate represent the party who most reflects your values (the Lib Dems)?
Turner may well clinch it. Importantly he was against the war in Iraq. His stance for ID cards leaves something to be desired but, on an important local issue, he’s campaigned for the Falmer Stadium site. That said his literature has annoyed me. While mostly positive, he does tack this on the end:
While that statement may actually be true, the message is fundamentally wrong. Many politicians use this as way of attracting wavering voters but it amounts to persuading people to vote against someone rather than for someone. Crucially, this approach requires that your vote is based upon an assumption of how everyone else will vote. We would still be a two-party country if the everyone voted that way.
An interesting sub plot to all this is the location of polling stations. Traditionally polling stations have been in schools and Post Offices, but now many rural populations are voting in pubs. While this could be said to mirror of a change in society’s values, it is instead a reflection of the (present and past) Government’s policy of shutting down Post Offices and closing local schools.
Comments
1
are we not still a 2 party country?
2
Oh dear. If this was QI the ‘obvious’ alarm bells would be echoing around the studio. In the 2001 election, the votes were split thus:
We don’t have proportional representation so this isn’t how the MPs lined up, but it still shows that the two main parties account for only 2 thirds of the country’s votes.
3
You’re right, this is annoying.
The Labour leaflet for my area (Sheffield Central) had a graph which looked almost exactly the same, except that it was a lie.
There was no scale on the graph, and If you looked at the numbers in a table below the graph, it showed Lib Dems having ~60% of the number of votes as Labour, not the 5–10% you’d guess just from looking at the graphic. This kind of blatantly dishonest electioneering really gets my goat.
Although your leaflet may have been fine, of course :)
4
We still are a 2 party country. I think Lib Dem would do a lot better if people believed they were a real option – but most people are still in the ‘Tory or Labour’ mindset and see any other party as a no-chance also-ran. I’m the same, if i voted Lib Dem i’d feel my vote was something of a waste, because I do not see them getting into power, no matter whther I think they best represent my views or not. As long as people who vote go in with a bias like that, a third party never will stand a chance. Catch22.
Green will never get in, just like UKIP won’t and the Monster Raving Loony Party never would have. There’s a big difference between choices and -realistic- choices.
5
No wasted vote, if you don’t agree with the 2 major players, don’t vote for them. You do waste your vote if you vote for someone you don’t believe in, because it will mean the continuation of your inability to vote for the party who most accurately reflect your views.
As Rich says, if everyone voted that way we really wouldn’t be a 2-party country.
Add your comment
Comments are now closed on this post. If you have more to say please contact me directly.