|
Oct 2016
12:35pm, 26 Oct 2016
5,788 posts
|
paul the builder
Binks: """If people voted only for people they truly believed in, and didn't vote in the case where there was no one they trusted then an election might be "won" with about 10% of the population."""
But in the real world, that's not going to happen. For every idealist like you, there are hundreds (like me) who might not like anyone on the ballot paper most of the time, but accept that we're going to get one of them. So it might as well be the least bad one.
Unless you can mobilise millions to approach elections like you do, then it's a futile position.
|
|
Oct 2016
12:45pm, 26 Oct 2016
7,352 posts
|
Binks
34% of the population approached the election like I did last time.
That's more than any individual party isn't it?
|
|
Oct 2016
12:53pm, 26 Oct 2016
5,789 posts
|
paul the builder
How do you know they did?
|
|
Oct 2016
1:00pm, 26 Oct 2016
7,353 posts
|
Binks
That's how many people didn't vote.
Ultimately with this kind of system everything you hope for has to be reduced to a cross (or not) in a box once every 5 years against the name of someone who has made a list of promises.
Every cross for a blue is a vote for a blue. All identical.
And so in terms of influence on the final result at least a third of the population did the same thing as me.
|
|
Oct 2016
1:14pm, 26 Oct 2016
5,790 posts
|
paul the builder
I did guess that it was 100% minus turnout.
My question was about why you think they approach elections in the same way as you do. I can think of a number of reasons why people don't vote, I'm surprised you can't.
|
|
Oct 2016
1:16pm, 26 Oct 2016
6,000 posts
|
Jambomo
So if that is the case Binks, why did you vote for leave in the referendum?
I know you said that you were voting on the trade side of things and I don't imagine you to be someone who supports the crap that was being spouted on immigration. So why did you vote for the "Least bad" option this time, why not abstain from voting?
|
|
Oct 2016
1:36pm, 26 Oct 2016
7,354 posts
|
Binks
The "why" does not matter does it ptb? It's simply a box counting exercise.
Jambomo I was toying with not voting. However I do have a principled objection to the EU and the basis upon which it exists. It's an objection I've had for 15+ years since I learned what it was.
Since this was a one issue vote upon a membership of a thing that I didn't want to be forced into being a member of I voted out.
It was difficult though. I had an objection to a thing and then when the thing came up for the vote the argument was hijacked by racists.
What if for example there was a referendum to nationalise the railaways, and you believed this was a good thing. But then a bunch of people started saying that if we nationalised them we could make the trains work better by banning foreigners on them or charging them more.
Clearly bollocks and racist, but what if it struck a chord with enough of the population to then swing chances of a "yes" vote. Would you go back on your preference and vote "no" because your desire to nationalise the railways is now held as equivalent as being racist?
|
|
Oct 2016
2:11pm, 26 Oct 2016
5,791 posts
|
paul the builder
Of course it matters, if you're going to claim that they have the same approach as you. FFS.
Even if they did - how are you going to convince *another* 40+% of the electorate (or so) not to vote in future? (so as to end up with something like the 10% 'win' mandate).
Like I said: a futile position.
|
|
Oct 2016
2:13pm, 26 Oct 2016
22,947 posts
|
SPR
Spoiling ballots is a better way of doing what Binks says, would be a powerful message.
|
|
Oct 2016
2:16pm, 26 Oct 2016
5,793 posts
|
paul the builder
It would certainly demonstrate how many of the 34% feel the way Binks does. And how many just can't be arsed whatever / are on holiday / forget / don't vote because they're in a safe seat and the result is a foregone conclusion / etc.
|
Politics
Oct 2024
