Let’s say you are in a constituency where the sitting MP has a humongous majority. Maybe a majority that is far, far bigger than all the votes for all of the other candidates combined. Like (say) Tottenham.
You have to ask yourself: What is the point in voting?
If you vote for the sitting MP your extra vote when added to the mountain they already have will make no difference. If you vote for any of the other candidates, you stand no chance whatsoever of changing the MP.
Even in a marginal seat a General Election constituency contest has only once been decided by a majority of one and that was back in 1910. As for a draw that has also only ever happened once, back in 1886.
The net result is is that on a personal level the physical and financial gain from participating in a vote, especially in a safe seat, is nil.
On this we have to hang the question: On an individual basis, what IS the point of voting?
The inescapable answer is that on a purely individualistic and selfish basis there is no point whatsoever.
But voting is not about the individual. Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless. It has no tangible reward. It results in a group decision where the wisdom of crowds prevails.
(which leads me into a book recommendation – a must read – "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki)
Even so, walking half a mile on a cold and rainy day to vote in an election where the outcome in your constituency is a forgone conclusion does test that altruism somewhat.
There is though a singular advantage in voting in a safe seat constituency. Especially if you are a little disillusioned with either the sitting MP or the main ( but distant) contenders.
You can safely experiment.
You can vote for someone else. You can vote for somebody or some party that takes your fancy. They don’t even have to have a fully formed policy base.
If it tickled you fancy you could vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party without consequence.
But rather than the Monster Raving Loony Party (who I am sure have a set of policies almost as good as any of the main partys anyway), why not use your vote to support a smaller party?
Why not vote for a party that is possibly struggling to get some notice?
Or maybe you would like to lend your support to a party that will achieve considerable electoral support across the country, but will, thanks to the inequities of out voting system gain no seats.
In either of these cases your vote does have some tangible effect.
For a small party like (say) the SDP it can provide vital visibility. With enough votes, even though they stand no hope of winning the seat, they’ll gain vital exposure. It may well stop them being quite so ignored by the media. Maybe they’ll start cropping up on the MSM Radar more often. This could give them vital publicity to fight future more winnable elections either locally or nationally.
For a larger party like (say) the Brexit Party a vote for them in an unwinnable seat is a vote of support. A vote that will be tallied up nationally. It will show with the millions of others across the country the inequities and plain damn unfairness of our electoral system.
So, as long as you regard altruism as a virtuous ideal, a vote in a safe seat is not a wasted vote.
You can, if you like, add it to the mountain for the current MP. Or vote for one of the traditional partys.
Or you can be adventurous.
Even a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party is better than no vote at all!
Showing posts with label fair votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fair votes. Show all posts
First Past the Post and Extremism
While First Past the Post can deny due recognition to minority parties, it is also, paradoxically, far more vulnerable to extremist manipulation than AV.
Minor party supporters who vote with their conscience, waste their vote. If they vote tactically, they deny their preferred candidate support. People usually vote with their conscience. While this is highly honourable, it can let the extremists in by the back door.
The most recent example of this was the election of George Galloway for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005. Galloway represented the so-called Respect Party. If you have any doubts about the extreme nature of Respect, which is essentially an umbrella organisation for various extreme left wing and Islamic groups, have a look at WikiPedia Page Here.
The Bethnal Green and Bow constituency has a large proportion of Bangladeshi immigrant voters. It appears they voted en-masse for Galloway due to the Islamic identity of Respect and also because the incumbent Labour MP (Oona King) was a Black woman of Jewish-Afro-Caribbean ancestry.
Even so, Galloway only secured 35% of the vote. But he won with a majority of 823 over Oona King.
If this had been a AV election Galloway would have had to make it to 50%. I find it difficult to believe that if the Liberal and Conservative vote had been redistributed with AV that Galloway would have won.
The end result was that the 65% of good people of Bethnal Green and Bow ended up being represented by an extremist party, rather than the capable Oona King.
Pro FPTP supporters often moan about how with AV, the second (or even third) choice on the first ballot may potentially win. Well, I reckon the majority of the people of Bethnal would have been overjoyed to see such a "travesty" in 2005.
Interestingly in the 2010, Labour regained the seat - with an Asian candidate who replaced Oona King. Many have commented on how Labour cynically sold out to the inherent racism of the Bangladeshi community in Bethnal simply to regain the seat. With FPTP they had to.
I understand Oona King was promoted to the House of Lords (Baroness King of Bow) but I understand, from several sources from she was a considerable loss to mainstream British politics
Below is the Bethnal election result for 2010. You will see the emergence of another extremist party - the BNP. They may have only gained gained 2.5% of the vote, but it is a foothold. People who are disenfranchised by FPTP are easy pickings for extremists. Perhaps what the BNP hope for is that one day, due to the unfairness of FPTP they may, on a fluke, secure 35% of the vote and so gain the seat - just like George Galloway.
Maybe that's the reason the BNP among others, are so keen to see AV voted down.
We must replace FPTP. It is a decrepit system ill suited to a modern democracy. AV is far from perfect but it stands head and shoulders above FPTP.
Minor party supporters who vote with their conscience, waste their vote. If they vote tactically, they deny their preferred candidate support. People usually vote with their conscience. While this is highly honourable, it can let the extremists in by the back door.
The most recent example of this was the election of George Galloway for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005. Galloway represented the so-called Respect Party. If you have any doubts about the extreme nature of Respect, which is essentially an umbrella organisation for various extreme left wing and Islamic groups, have a look at WikiPedia Page Here.
The Bethnal Green and Bow constituency has a large proportion of Bangladeshi immigrant voters. It appears they voted en-masse for Galloway due to the Islamic identity of Respect and also because the incumbent Labour MP (Oona King) was a Black woman of Jewish-Afro-Caribbean ancestry.
Even so, Galloway only secured 35% of the vote. But he won with a majority of 823 over Oona King.
If this had been a AV election Galloway would have had to make it to 50%. I find it difficult to believe that if the Liberal and Conservative vote had been redistributed with AV that Galloway would have won.
The end result was that the 65% of good people of Bethnal Green and Bow ended up being represented by an extremist party, rather than the capable Oona King.
Pro FPTP supporters often moan about how with AV, the second (or even third) choice on the first ballot may potentially win. Well, I reckon the majority of the people of Bethnal would have been overjoyed to see such a "travesty" in 2005.
Interestingly in the 2010, Labour regained the seat - with an Asian candidate who replaced Oona King. Many have commented on how Labour cynically sold out to the inherent racism of the Bangladeshi community in Bethnal simply to regain the seat. With FPTP they had to.
I understand Oona King was promoted to the House of Lords (Baroness King of Bow) but I understand, from several sources from she was a considerable loss to mainstream British politics
Below is the Bethnal election result for 2010. You will see the emergence of another extremist party - the BNP. They may have only gained gained 2.5% of the vote, but it is a foothold. People who are disenfranchised by FPTP are easy pickings for extremists. Perhaps what the BNP hope for is that one day, due to the unfairness of FPTP they may, on a fluke, secure 35% of the vote and so gain the seat - just like George Galloway.
Maybe that's the reason the BNP among others, are so keen to see AV voted down.
We must replace FPTP. It is a decrepit system ill suited to a modern democracy. AV is far from perfect but it stands head and shoulders above FPTP.
Labels:
Alternative Vote,
AV,
conservative,
fair votes,
First Past the Post,
FPTP,
labour,
lib-dem,
referendum
Reasons For AV - 1974
The first election of 1974 was held in February. It was all about who ruled the country.
Was it the elected government?
Or Authur Scargill and the NUM?
Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime minister called the election after a wave of strikes. He made it plain that the issue of who governed the country was the primary issue in the election.
But instead of getting the government with the highest popular vote, the country got the loser.
It got Harold Wilson.
Wilson's Labour Party won the most seats, even though they got a smaller share of the vote than the Tories. Because they got the most seats they were given the first opportunity to form a government
Wilson, on the day of the election called a surrender parley with Arthur Scargill and the TUC to ensure the security of his minority government.
He then went on to form the Lib-Lab pact, (a poor mans coalition).
The country was in crisis. It needed popular leadership.
It got a coalition of losers. Courtesy of First Past The Post.
Heath was not asked to form the government because the Tories had won fewer seats than the Labour party. Even though the Tories had a greater share of the popular vote. What a travesty.
Wilson, the grand appeaser, forced a false boom and then held another snap election in October 1974. This time he won legitimately though at terrible cost to the nations wealth.
The country got a supine Labour administration that sleep walked the country though devaluation and economic collapse when the country really should have got something a little more "popular" and dare I say, effective.
The country ended up on a rudderless pre-Thatcherite course to the Winter of Discontent. Internally riven by extremists and in the middle of the depths of the cold war the country was, as in 1929 and 1951, bankrupt. It remained that way for a long time.
The current First Past the Post system abjectly failed this country in 1926, 1951 and 1974. The intrinsic flaws in FPTP and particularly its sensitivity to swing seats mean it will fail again unless replaced.
FPTP has the potential to randomly foist either a coalition of losers or (much worse - as in 1951) promote a government with an absolute majority that clearly came second in the election.
FPTP must be replaced. To simply go along with the current system would be to fossilise our democracy and deny our children the right to a dynamic forward looking democracy.
There is only one way to vote in this referendum. Vote for fairness. Vote for AV.
Was it the elected government?
Or Authur Scargill and the NUM?
Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime minister called the election after a wave of strikes. He made it plain that the issue of who governed the country was the primary issue in the election.
But instead of getting the government with the highest popular vote, the country got the loser.
It got Harold Wilson.
Wilson's Labour Party won the most seats, even though they got a smaller share of the vote than the Tories. Because they got the most seats they were given the first opportunity to form a government
Wilson, on the day of the election called a surrender parley with Arthur Scargill and the TUC to ensure the security of his minority government.
He then went on to form the Lib-Lab pact, (a poor mans coalition).
The country was in crisis. It needed popular leadership.
It got a coalition of losers. Courtesy of First Past The Post.
Heath was not asked to form the government because the Tories had won fewer seats than the Labour party. Even though the Tories had a greater share of the popular vote. What a travesty.
Wilson, the grand appeaser, forced a false boom and then held another snap election in October 1974. This time he won legitimately though at terrible cost to the nations wealth.
The country got a supine Labour administration that sleep walked the country though devaluation and economic collapse when the country really should have got something a little more "popular" and dare I say, effective.
The country ended up on a rudderless pre-Thatcherite course to the Winter of Discontent. Internally riven by extremists and in the middle of the depths of the cold war the country was, as in 1929 and 1951, bankrupt. It remained that way for a long time.
The current First Past the Post system abjectly failed this country in 1926, 1951 and 1974. The intrinsic flaws in FPTP and particularly its sensitivity to swing seats mean it will fail again unless replaced.
FPTP has the potential to randomly foist either a coalition of losers or (much worse - as in 1951) promote a government with an absolute majority that clearly came second in the election.
FPTP must be replaced. To simply go along with the current system would be to fossilise our democracy and deny our children the right to a dynamic forward looking democracy.
There is only one way to vote in this referendum. Vote for fairness. Vote for AV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)