# Voting tomorrow, is there any point?



## Khamelion (May 6, 2015)

I mean and I do rather generalise here, all parties are just as bad as the other, their leaders are two faced charlatans who 99% of the time just pay lip service to the population to curry favour in order to gain our vote.

So will you vote, or are you going to abstain as you feel the options open to us are just not worth it?


----------



## Crazyface (May 6, 2015)

Hell yes !!!! If you don't vote, in what ever form, you basically do not want democracy. So......good luck with that !


----------



## adam6177 (May 6, 2015)

I've already voted by post......if you don't vote, you cant moan.


----------



## Khamelion (May 6, 2015)

I've posted the question, out of curiosity as a colleague at work is going to abstain, as he thinks none of the parties are worth voting for, his choice as is his democratic right.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 6, 2015)

[video]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/may/05/no-normal-election-dont-let-your-voice-be-taken-away-owen-jones[/video]


----------



## JustOne (May 6, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			If you don't vote, in what ever form, you basically do not want democracy.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree... not wanting democracy but wanting someone worth voting for aren't quite the same.



Whoever offers 2p off a pint of beer will get elected, the country is ruled by the mob minded, the ones who can't get out of the middle lane of the motorway, can't manage to get their black bags INTO their bins, or have 4 kids under 16.... 3 of which are pregnant.

Doesn't matter who I'd vote for as it probably will make NO significant difference to my life OR my childrens (who will have to put up with the crap we already have now no matter what).


----------



## SocketRocket (May 6, 2015)

JustOne said:



			I don't agree... not wanting democracy but wanting someone worth voting for aren't quite the same.



Whoever offers 2p off a pint of beer will get elected, the country is ruled by the mob minded, the ones who can't get out of the middle lane of the motorway, can't manage to get their black bags INTO their bins, or have 4 kids under 16.... 3 of which are pregnant.

Doesn't matter who I'd vote for as it probably will make *NO significant difference to my life OR my childrens *(who will have to put up with the crap we already have now no matter what).
		
Click to expand...


They could well be helping to pay off our National overdraft for us.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 6, 2015)

Tell him to vote and spoil his paper. It still registers as a sign of dissension, the number of spoiled papers are read at the count and it entitles him to moan for the next 5 years. Don't vote at all then he has to keep quiet no matter what is introduced.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Hell yes !!!! If you don't vote, in what ever form, you basically do not want democracy. So......good luck with that !
		
Click to expand...

Abstention is a perfectly valid part of a democratic process.


----------



## drew83 (May 6, 2015)

I have never voted before on the principal that they are all politicians & therefore all corrupt & will not do anything they promise.

However, this will be my 1st vote. I have no illusions that my little tick (or cross or whatever) will change the world, but there is one party I prefer the sound of. Still don't believe they will stick to their word, but we can but try.


----------



## Ethan (May 6, 2015)

You should always vote. These people will decide much of your life, so you should exercise your choice/prejudices to select either those you approve of or minimise the harm by selecting the least worst of a bad lot.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			Abstention is a perfectly valid part of a democratic process.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - IMO no it's not. The democratic process requires participation if it is to be valid. If you are not happy with the choices presented then you create the choice you want.  Meanwhile you choose what fits best - no-one should expect a 100% fit - though these days folks do seem to think that they are entitled to get precisely what they want.

And in this election voting is especially important given that it looks to be being a close run thing with lots of claims about legitimacy or lack of legitimacy flying about.  And one of the claims for legitimacy will be based upon turnout and the size and % of vote for each party.  So even although your vote may not change the result in your constituency your vote *will *count.

So please for one day put your (perhaps understandable) cynicism away; look at the bigger picture, and cast a vote.


----------



## guest100718 (May 6, 2015)

nope not voting, cant be bothered. Probably hit the course for 9 holes if the weather is good


----------



## Imurg (May 6, 2015)

The only difference my vote will make is that the Conservative candidate will have 1 less on his majority...

On another point, if abstention isn't democratic why does it happen all the time in Parliament.?


----------



## Fyldewhite (May 6, 2015)

Imurg said:



			The only difference my vote will make is that the Conservative candidate will have 1 less on his majority...

On another point, if abstention isn't democratic why does it happen all the time in Parliament.?
		
Click to expand...

Agree.
a) I'm in a constituency with a 20,000 Tory majority.......but I will still vote.
b) I have spoiled my ballot in the past. I don't agree you should vote for "the best fit", any time you vote you will be doing that anyway as no party fully represents an individual viewpoint. If there isn't a candidate with sufficient alignment with my views then I believe I'm fully justified in voting for none of them. I would still turn up to do so though. People have died for my right to do that so it's important to me.


----------



## Piece (May 6, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			I mean and I do rather generalise here, all parties are just as bad as the other, their leaders are two faced charlatans who 99% of the time just pay lip service to the population to curry favour in order to gain our vote.

So will you vote, or are you going to abstain as you feel the options open to us are just not worth it?
		
Click to expand...

I will vote. I'm old school: no vote, no say.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 6, 2015)

Poll stations are sooo yesterday.

Postal vote for UKIP went off last week.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - IMO no it's not. The democratic process requires participation if it is to be valid. If you are not happy with the choices presented then you create the choice you want.  Meanwhile you choose what fits best - no-one should expect a 100% fit - though these days folks do seem to think that they are entitled to get precisely what they want.

And in this election voting is especially important given that it looks to be being a close run thing with lots of claims about legitimacy or lack of legitimacy flying about.  And one of the claims for legitimacy will be based upon turnout and the size and % of vote for each party.  So even although your vote may not change the result in your constituency your vote *will *count.

So please for one day put your (perhaps understandable) cynicism away; look at the bigger picture, and cast a vote.
		
Click to expand...

What he said really.  Saying your vote does not count is statistically wrong if nothing else.  Listen to the returning officer.


----------



## SaintHacker (May 6, 2015)

I will most definitley be voting tomorrow. I really think they should have a 'none of the above' option though.


----------



## Foliage Finder (May 6, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Tell him to vote and spoil his paper. It still registers as a sign of dissension, the number of spoiled papers are read at the count and it entitles him to moan for the next 5 years. Don't vote at all then he has to keep quiet no matter what is introduced.
		
Click to expand...

No vote, no right to complain. As above, it is entirely reasonable to spoil the ballot by leaving boxes blank and writing that you won't be voting for any of the above. Then you can complain as it is still counted with the other votes as a rejection of the candidates at that time. I will definitely be in the polling station tomorrow, and on the first Thursday in May every 5 years (provided there's not another election in the meantime!).


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 6, 2015)

JustOne said:



			I don't agree... not wanting democracy but wanting someone worth voting for aren't quite the same.



Whoever offers 2p off a pint of beer will get elected,* the country is ruled by the mob minded, the ones who can't get out of the middle lane of the motorway, can't manage to get their black bags INTO their bins, or have 4 kids under 16.... 3 of which are pregnant.*

Doesn't matter who I'd vote for as it probably will make NO significant difference to my life OR my childrens (who will have to put up with the crap we already have now no matter what).
		
Click to expand...

Think you'll find the country is ruled by mostly privately educated MPs from comfortable backgrounds.


----------



## Chisteve (May 6, 2015)

I think it is one of the most important elections to vote 

Hopefully there will be common sense - like the Scottish referendum

The silent majority will hopefully have there say in this election 

Also I'll be glad when its over as I'm sick of the hype - its seems to be a personalty vote now


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - IMO no it's not. The democratic process requires participation if it is to be valid. If you are not happy with the choices presented then you create the choice you want.  Meanwhile you choose what fits best - no-one should expect a 100% fit - though these days folks do seem to think that they are entitled to get precisely what they want.

And in this election voting is especially important given that it looks to be being a close run thing with lots of claims about legitimacy or lack of legitimacy flying about.  And one of the claims for legitimacy will be based upon turnout and the size and % of vote for each party.  So even although your vote may not change the result in your constituency your vote *will *count.

So please for one day put your (perhaps understandable) cynicism away; look at the bigger picture, and cast a vote.
		
Click to expand...

To quote a favourite saying - WRONG

Being in a democratic society means that you have the choice to do what you wish with your vote. Being in a democratic society means you are not forced to vote for anyone if you so wish - it's your vote - what you do with it is your choice


----------



## Fish (May 6, 2015)

I'll be voting, although I've had nothing (polling card) through my door, so hopefully its just a case of going to the nearest polling station!


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - IMO no it's not. The democratic process requires participation if it is to be valid.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree, it clearly doesn't invalidate democracy and is a functional aspect in the freedoms of political opinion.

Just to set the record straight as you've assumed my position incorrectly; I will and have always voted but I respect the right of people to abstain if that is what they choose.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 6, 2015)

Living in a constituency where there will only ever be one 'winner'... 
It can be hard work to motivate yourself to bother to vote...

Only ever been doorstepped the once... In the near four decades I've lived in the area...
Even the 'losers' can't be asked to bother you....

Wish every seat could be made a marginal one...
Then 'they' may have to start listening and actually act on what the electorate want...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 6, 2015)

When I worked in local authority and a customer was sounding off about the Council I always asked them if they voted.
8/10 was a no.
I then refused to listen to any further comments on the Council.
IMO If you do not participate in the system you are denied any comment on the running of it.

I remember one magic occasion which started.......what has this council ever done for it's golfers.
Reply......Well it built the golf course you are playing on for starters.


----------



## User62651 (May 6, 2015)

There is a point, if you want change then you need to vote for it. Scots wanted change so we voted for it. We voted for devolution, then we voted in a majority SNP Scottish Govt, we voted to abolish tuition fees and bridge tolls and for free prescriptions as they are devolved issues, we voted no on independence...just, now we're voting for a stronger representation at Westminster be you pro or against independence. The Scottish electorate is now engaged in democracy and forcing change more than other parts of UK, all simply by voting. 
It can make a difference.
Vote.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			I disagree, it clearly doesn't invalidate democracy and is a functional aspect in the freedoms of political opinion.

*Just to set the record straight as you've assumed my position incorrectly;* I will and have always voted but I respect the right of people to abstain if that is what they choose.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't assume anything at all about your position.

Anyone can abstain if that's what they want to do - I still think it's an avoidance of responsibility.  And they shouldn't complain about any outcome unless they then get themselves sorted to do something about it for the next time.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

I don't care if you don't vote for someone, but every single person should (I believe) by law be forced to attend their polling station. If they don't want to tick a box, i don't care, they can scribble all over their ballot, but it might shake the apathy from some people. If they're going to have to go their anyway, they might bother to look into who their choices are. 

Too much apathy, too much laziness, too much "me me me" attitude by many. If everyone who didn't vote, all voted for a new party, I believe (could be wrong this is from memory), this party would be one of the biggest straight away.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I don't care if you don't vote for someone, but every single person should (I believe) by law be forced to attend their polling station. If they don't want to tick a box, i don't care, they can scribble all over their ballot, but it might shake the apathy from some people. If they're going to have to go their anyway, they might bother to look into who their choices are. 

Too much apathy, too much laziness, too much "me me me" attitude by many. If everyone who didn't vote, all voted for a new party, I believe (could be wrong this is from memory), this party would be one of the biggest straight away.
		
Click to expand...

Forcing someone takes away their democratic right to have a choice 

And just because someone decides not to vote doesn't mean they are - lazy or its all about them. 

In a great deal amount of people I believe it's because they see no one they believe they can vote for. 

If there was a none of the above vote then more may turn up and take that choice which would be a big wake up call for the parties 

But you can't force people in a country that believes in free choice and free will.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Forcing someone takes away their democratic right to have a choice 

And just because someone decides not to vote doesn't mean they are - lazy or its all about them. 

In a great deal amount of people I believe it's because they see no one they believe they can vote for. 

If there was a none of the above vote then more may turn up and take that choice which would be a big wake up call for the parties 

But you can't force people in a country that believes in free choice and free will.
		
Click to expand...

I said force people to attend. Not force people to vote. 2 very different things. You can force people to attend, and still be support of "free choice and free will", they aren't mutually exclusive. If you force them to vote for someone, that is when you get the issue.

You still have a "none of the above" vote, you leave it blank. I have no issue at all with people doing this!

I disagree. The vast majority of people "I" speak to about why they aren't voting is because they don't know anything about it, and can't be bothered to look into it. That, to me, is lazy.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I don't care if you don't vote for someone, but every single person should (I believe) by law be forced to attend their polling station. If they don't want to tick a box, i don't care, they can scribble all over their ballot, but it might shake the apathy from some people. If they're going to have to go their anyway, they might bother to look into who their choices are. 

*Too much apathy, too much laziness, too much "me me me" attitude by many*. If everyone who didn't vote, all voted for a new party, I believe (could be wrong this is from memory), this party would be one of the biggest straight away.
		
Click to expand...

pretty much this.

Turn out in Scotland is forecast to be around 80% - and given that 94% of those eligible to vote have registered that is a solid and incontrovertible starting point for the legitimacy of any result.  This also suggests that folk have decided that voting matters.  Hopefully the same applies to the rUK.  Though I don't know the percentage registered to vote I have read  talk of a turnout of under 70%.  When it comes to legitimacy in respect of turnout I suspect that the MPs from Scotland will have more of a claim on legitimacy than many of those of the rest of the country.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I said force people to attend. Not force people to vote. 2 very different things. You can force people to attend, and still be support of "free choice and free will", they aren't mutually exclusive. If you force them to vote for someone, that is when you get the issue.

You still have a "none of the above" vote, you leave it blank. I have no issue at all with people doing this!

I disagree. The vast majority of people "I" speak to about why they aren't voting is because they don't know anything about it, and can't be bothered to look into it. That, to me, is lazy.
		
Click to expand...

Forcing people to attend is still taking away their own choice - people can "chose" not to attend - simple as that - free will.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			pretty much this.

Turn out in Scotland is forecast to be around 80% - and given that 94% of those eligible to vote have registered that is a solid and incontrovertible starting point for the legitimacy of any result.  This also suggests that folk have decided that voting matters.  Hopefully the same applies to the rUK.  Though I don't know the percentage registered to vote I have read  talk of a turnout of under 70%.  When it comes to legitimacy in respect of turnout I suspect that the MPs from Scotland will have more of a claim on legitimacy than many of those of the rest of the country.
		
Click to expand...

Can you show me where this "rUK" is ? There is no such place so not sure why you keep talking about them - it's another sign or a division some people are trying to make between Scotland and other countries within the UK. It's quite simple - there is England , Wales , Scotland and N Ireland as separate countries - there is a nation working together called UK which unites the four together - there is no such place as rUK - it was a nation made up by people in Scotland to try and create a them and us - some still use it to try and ensure the divide is valid.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Forcing people to attend is still taking away their own choice - people can "chose" not to attend - simple as that - free will.
		
Click to expand...

I don't get that you seem to be 'proud' of the fact that you have decided not to vote - I'd be upset and do my damnest to find some reason - any reason - to vote.  But you seem to be precisely the opposite - determined NOT to vote - whatever anyone might say.  Whatever.

rUK - draw a line round Scotland - the rest of the United Kingdom is rUK.  Don't know where you got the idea that the rUK is a nation...merely a shorthand.  maybe you'd prefer EWANI as that is explicit.

Besides - rUK is also that part of the United Kingdom that can't vote for an SNP candidate.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't get that you seem to be 'proud' of the fact that you have decided not to vote - I'd be upset and do my damnest to find some reason - any reason - to vote.  But you seem to be precisely the opposite - determined NOT to vote - whatever anyone might say.  Whatever.
		
Click to expand...

What I do or don't do is irrelevant - but whatever happens tomorrow it is my own choice - i won't judge anyone on their choice so don't judge me on mine. Not once have I said I'm proud - right now I'm actually quite sad and disappointed that our politicians are that bad that people feel they can't vote for them. But again that's their choice - don't judge them.



			rUK - draw a line round Scotland - the rest of the United Kingdom is rUK.  Don't know where you got the idea that the rUK is a nation...
		
Click to expand...

Why would I draw a line around Scotland - even suggesting something like that just shows how you want the divide - and it's you that keeps talking about rUK like its a nation - it started last year during in the independence talk and some keep bringing it up - people like you

Either separate countries or all together - not Scotland and then the rest.


----------



## fundy (May 6, 2015)

of course theres a point, whether you like them or not the 2 main options will clearly run the country differently, and I would expect most people to have a preference of these options, despite not liking the individuals. im not a fan of either but one is a far better option, both for me and the country imho so i will definitely be voting


----------



## Red scorpion (May 6, 2015)

this is why I tend to stay out of political discussion as I get confused very easily.if it's rUK because you can't vote for SNP does that mean you get to vote to for Sinn Fein and plaid Cymru in England?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Forcing people to attend is still taking away their own choice - people can "chose" not to attend - simple as that - free will.
		
Click to expand...

You can argue that stopping people from running buck naked down the middle of the m25 is restricting their choice.

I am yet to hear a good argument on why people shouldn't *have* to attend their polling station.

If you want to be extreme, then if you don't attend, why should you get any help from the government. It effects every single facet of your life, and you're trying to give people an easy get out clause to not be involved. I believe that the *vast* majority of non-voters do so apathetically, not from some deep held belief against the system. 

Do you have an opinion on if we should be in/out of Europe? If so, then vote either way.
Do you have an opinion on whether austerity or increased spending will stimulate the economy? If so, then vote either way.

Two pretty big questions.

If you don't have an opinion, then educate yourself.

(The "you" is the hypothetical you, i'm not directing/assuming/judging any individual in particular)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			You can argue that stopping people from running buck naked down the middle of the m25 is restricting their choice.

I am yet to hear a good argument on why people shouldn't *have* to attend their polling station.

If you want to be extreme, then if you don't attend, why should you get any help from the government. It effects every single facet of your life, and you're trying to give people an easy get out clause to not be involved. I believe that the *vast* majority of non-voters do so apathetically, not from some deep held belief against the system. 

Do you have an opinion on if we should be in/out of Europe? If so, then vote either way.
Do you have an opinion on whether austerity or increased spending will stimulate the economy? If so, then vote either way.

Two pretty big questions.

If you don't have an opinion, then educate yourself.

(The "you" is the hypothetical you, i'm not directing/assuming/judging any individual in particular)
		
Click to expand...

The argument why people shouldn't "have" to is quite simple - because we live in a free country where people have a choice - there is nothing stronger than that. Start "forcing" people and all of sudden it's not a choice anymore. 

We all have a choice in life - yours is to attend - others make a different choice , no one should be judged regardless of what their reasons are. It's not a "get out clause" it's a choice. That's democracy for you and it's a right we all have - you exercise your right and so do they people that don't turn up to vote or don't vote by post etc. Some might not care - that's their right , some can't be bothered to involved - again that's their right - doesn't matter what their reason is - it's their right to decide 

What would be the next step - force people to chose one - then force them to decide which choice.


----------



## AmandaJR (May 6, 2015)

Regardless of the options available and how strongly, or not, I feel about any of them I can never forget the struggle by many to allow everyone the right (and undeniable privilege) to vote. So I will attend the polling station and be thankful of my right to do so...


----------



## Region3 (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			You can argue that stopping people from running buck naked down the middle of the m25 is restricting their choice.

I am yet to hear a good argument on why people shouldn't *have* to attend their polling station.

If you want to be extreme, then if you don't attend, why should you get any help from the government. It effects every single facet of your life, and you're trying to give people an easy get out clause to not be involved. I believe that the *vast* majority of non-voters do so apathetically, not from some deep held belief against the system. 

*Do you have an opinion on if we should be in/out of Europe? If so, then vote either way.
Do you have an opinion on whether austerity or increased spending will stimulate the economy? If so, then vote either way.

Two pretty big questions.

If you don't have an opinion, then educate yourself.*

(The "you" is the hypothetical you, i'm not directing/assuming/judging any individual in particular)
		
Click to expand...

Is this not the same as forcing people who drive to learn how to fix an engine, or - heaven forbid - forcing people who play golf to learn the rules?

I have zero interest in politics and even less inclination to learn what it's all about just so that I can make an informed choice.


----------



## bladeplayer (May 6, 2015)

AmandaJR said:



			Regardless of the options available and how strongly, or not, I feel about any of them I can never forget the struggle by many to allow everyone the right (and undeniable privilege) to vote. So I will attend the polling station and be thankful of my right to do so...
		
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## upsidedown (May 6, 2015)

Will I vote, heck yes :thup:


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The argument why people shouldn't "have" to is quite simple - because we live in a free country where people have a choice - there is nothing stronger than that. Start "forcing" people and all of sudden it's not a choice anymore. 

We all have a choice in life - yours is to attend - others make a different choice , no one should be judged regardless of what their reasons are. It's not a "get out clause" it's a choice. That's democracy for you and it's a right we all have - you exercise your right and so do they people that don't turn up to vote or don't vote by post etc. Some might not care - that's their right , some can't be bothered to involved - again that's their right - doesn't matter what their reason is - it's their right to decide 

What would be the next step - force people to chose one - then force them to decide which choice.
		
Click to expand...

Strawman argument alert. A number of countries have made it compulsory to vote, do they seem to be forcing people to vote for a particular party? 

I'm not saying you have to vote, but you should have to attend. If you want to be a part of a country, it's your civic duty. If you want to benefit from it, you should be voting.

Otherwise you can have absolutely zero complaints about: The economy, taxes, European membership, the NHS, education, pretty much everything. 

You can't have it both ways that you don't want to engage, but still complain.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Strawman argument alert. A number of countries have made it compulsory to vote, do they seem to be forcing people to vote for a particular party? 

I'm not saying you have to vote, but you should have to attend. If you want to be a part of a country, it's your civic duty. If you want to benefit from it, you should be voting.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but i firmly believe that's nonsense - I know plenty in the military who haven't voted or attend - yet you suggest they aren't part of this country if they don't attend a polling station ?! And many people will play a part in making the country work without getting into the politics of it - are you suggesting they don't deserve to benefit from that work ?! 



			Otherwise you can have absolutely zero complaints about: The economy, taxes, European membership, the NHS, education, pretty much everything. 

You can't have it both ways that you don't want to engage, but still complain.
		
Click to expand...

Who has asked for it both ways ? 

Maybe they are happy with their lot and don't want to get involved or complain about NHS etc etc etc - once again that's their choice and they are happy with it.

There is a lot of people I believe who contribute to the running of the country - to suggest they aren't part of it or not fullfilljng some civic duty because they don't tick a box is actually insulting


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

I don't care if you vote or not, but I reserve the right to completely ignore any complaint you raise regarding the state of the country if you refuse to take part in the democratic process.. 
Mods, can we have a "You have no right to take part in this debate" smiley? 

Just read your post above Phil.. Sweet baby Jeebus, you couldn't have missed the point any more spectacularly if you'd just got in David Blunkett's taxi.....


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

Just imagine your golf club needs a new captain. Two people have put their names forward. You have played with both of them and you have seen both of them cheat in comps but couldn't prove it.
Would you vote for either of them?


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Just imagine your golf club needs a new captain. Two people have put their names forward. You have played with both of them and you have seen both of them cheat in comps but couldn't prove it.
Would you vote for either of them?
		
Click to expand...

I know that the running of the Country is important, but it's obviously nowhere near as important as the ceremonial figurehead of a local golf club.. I mean, who would pick the bunker for the Captains charity???


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I know that the running of the Country is important, but it's obviously nowhere near as important as the ceremonial figurehead of a local golf club.. I mean, who would pick the bunker for the Captains charity???
		
Click to expand...

Would you vote for either of them?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Just imagine your golf club needs a new captain. Two people have put their names forward. You have played with both of them and you have seen both of them cheat in comps but couldn't prove it.
Would you vote for either of them?
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't vote for either


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I don't care if you vote or not, but I reserve the right to completely ignore any complaint you raise regarding the state of the country if you refuse to take part in the democratic process.. 
Mods, can we have a "You have no right to take part in this debate" smiley? 

Just read your post above Phil.. Sweet baby Jeebus, you couldn't have missed the point any more spectacularly if you'd just got in David Blunkett's taxi.....
		
Click to expand...

Thank god someone understands. Love the idea of that smiley by the way, would completely work on so many things. 



Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but i firmly believe that's nonsense - I know plenty in the military who haven't voted or attend - yet you suggest they aren't part of this country if they don't attend a polling station ?! And many people will play a part in making the country work without getting into the politics of it - are you suggesting they don't deserve to benefit from that work ?!
		
Click to expand...

You seem to have glanced over your previous argument, almost like you realised it was nonsense.

I never said they aren't a part of this country, but I do feel, even if you're in the military, that it is your duty to vote. If you're a part of the country you need to have a say in it, even if your say is that you spoil your ballot. 



Liverpoolphil said:



			Who has asked for it both ways ? 

Maybe they are happy with their lot and don't want to get involved or complain about NHS etc etc etc - once again that's their choice and they are happy with it.

There is a lot of people I believe who contribute to the running of the country - to suggest they aren't part of it or not fullfilljng some civic duty because they don't tick a box is actually insulting
		
Click to expand...

Many many people will happily moan, but not vote. If you even suggest that isn't the case then I know you're just trolling. 

You find that insulting? You, good sir, are looking for offence in that case. 

Clearly we disagree on what someones civic duty is, but I struggle to believe you will convert me to believe that it is something people should just be able to forget about, when it plays such a massive part in every single persons life.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Would you vote for either of them?
		
Click to expand...

Put someone else forward then. If you don't care enough to do that, then you can't moan if someone is elected captain who you have seen cheat.

Again though, it's not linked to the GE, as the captain of your golf club won't impact nearly every single aspect of your life.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 6, 2015)

fundy said:



			of course theres a point, whether you like them or not the 2 main options will clearly run the country differently, and I would expect most people to have a preference of these options, despite not liking the individuals. im not a fan of either but one is a far better option, both for me and the country imho so i will definitely be voting
		
Click to expand...

Is that not the problem this election.

Outwith Scotland [known as OS in future] the voters do not like any of the options available to them, namely, Red Tories, Blue Tories, Traitors and Dafties.
The OS voters on here who say they will not vote or will vote for an obscure independent seem to back this up. As does a predicted low turnout.

Within Scotland there is one very popular party and an expected turnout of over 80%.
and .....as Hogan says the OS voters on here have the cheek to talk about legitimacy


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Thank god someone understands. Love the idea of that smiley by the way, would completely work on so many things. 



You seem to have glanced over your previous argument, almost like you realised it was nonsense.

I never said they aren't a part of this country, but I do feel, even if you're in the military, that it is your duty to vote. If you're a part of the country you need to have a say in it, even if your say is that you spoil your ballot. 



Many many people will happily moan, but not vote. If you even suggest that isn't the case then I know you're just trolling. 

You find that insulting? You, good sir, are looking for offence in that case. 

Clearly we disagree on what someones civic duty is, but I struggle to believe you will convert me to believe that it is something people should just be able to forget about, when it plays such a massive part in every single persons life.
		
Click to expand...

And there will never IMO be a time in this country in my lifetime where people are forced to make a choice and then they deal with their own consequences of their choice - personal responsibility 

Thankfully I believe we have got it right in this country and people can freely decide to make their own choice without being forced.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Is that not the problem this election.

Outwith Scotland [known as OS in future] the voters do not like any of the options available to them, namely, Red Tories, Blue Tories, Traitors and Dafties.
The OS voters on here who say they will not vote or will vote for an obscure independent seem to back this up. As does a predicted low turnout.

Within Scotland there is one very popular party and an expected turnout of over 80%.
and .....as Hogan says the OS voters on here have the cheek to talk about legitimacy
		
Click to expand...

You know what is driving most of this Scotland vs rUK/OS/OT/EWNI debate? Both sides constantly talking about it, and stopped drawing wild conclusions. Maybe if both sides (yourself included) stopped talking about it like it was Scotland vs rUK/OS/OT/EWNI then it might all work a bit better. 

Oh, and disparaging remarks like "Red Tories, Blue Tories, Traitors and Dafties" don't exactly help debate.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Is that not the problem this election.

Outwith Scotland [known as OS in future] the voters do not like any of the options available to them, namely, Red Tories, Blue Tories, Traitors and Dafties.
The OS voters on here who say they will not vote or will vote for an obscure independent seem to back this up. As does a predicted low turnout.

Within Scotland there is one very popular party and an expected turnout of over 80%.
and .....as Hogan says the OS voters on here have the cheek to talk about legitimacy
		
Click to expand...

Can someone translate what this is supposed to mean ?!

Seems another Scotland and the rest post that is very common these days


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Put someone else forward then. If you don't care enough to do that, then you can't moan if someone is elected captain who you have seen cheat.

Again though, it's not linked to the GE, as the captain of your golf club won't impact nearly every single aspect of your life.
		
Click to expand...

Starting to feel like Jeremy Paxman here

Would you vote for either of them?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Starting to feel like Jeremy Paxman here

Would you vote for either of them?
		
Click to expand...

That completely depends (its hard to answer a completely hypothetical situation!). If I had seen them both cheat, that wouldn't necessarily mean I wouldn't vote for them. If one of them had plans for the golf club/course that I agreed with, and that would improve it for the whole membership, then yes I would still vote for them.

Would you vote for either of them? And if not, would you accept that if you didn't vote for either, and didn't take any step to present a third party, you have no complaint about anything the elected captain does?


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			That completely depends (its hard to answer a completely hypothetical situation!). If I had seen them both cheat, that wouldn't necessarily mean I wouldn't vote for them. If one of them had plans for the golf club/course that I agreed with, and that would improve it for the whole membership, then yes I would still vote for them.
		
Click to expand...

If you found out their promises to improve the club/course were lies and they had stealing from the green fees, would you vote for them?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			If you found out their promises to improve the club/course were lies and they had stealing from the green fees, would you vote for them?
		
Click to expand...

Come on, you have to answer mine as well! 

If that was the case I would weigh up the options. If I felt that the benefits of them improving the club/course outweighed the theft of green fees (if we're doing this to scale, then we're talking a penny or so), then yes I wuold still vote.

If I believed strongly enough that neither could be trusted, as before, I would look to a third party. OR I would turn up to vote, and make a point that I couldn't trust either of them.

If I couldn't trust either, and didn't vote, then I would have no complaint about anything that happened at the course, including the theft of green fees, or the lack of course improvement. I didn't engage, so can't complain.


----------



## JT77 (May 6, 2015)

It's my first time voting in Northern Ireland and I have no idea who to vote for. 
I also wish total votes counted not the existing way with the most seats etc. 
I know we had the chance a few years back not sure why it wasn't passed imo. 
We are prabably going to end up with a coalition again this time it the party with the most seats might not be in power. Something about that just seems wrong to me.


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			If you found out their promises to improve the club/course were lies and they had stealing from the green fees, would you vote for them?
		
Click to expand...

So they are proven liars, thieves, and accused cheats?  I may be wrong here, but I would expect the Club to refuse to allow either to stand in that case.. However, if in this mythical golf club, they were allowed to stand, then I would ensure that someone more fitting would stand against them. If I couldn't find anyone else, then I'd stand myself...


----------



## PhilTheFragger (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			If you found out their promises to improve the club/course were lies and they had stealing from the green fees, would you vote for them?
		
Click to expand...

No Bob, We would put you up as an alternative candidate 


Back to the main debate,  The last 8 letters of the word Apathetic sum it up for me

You have the right to vote, people have sacrificed themselves over the years to give you that right and it is simply wrong not to exercise that right.

There should, however,be a none of the above option, so those who dont like any of the candidates can make their protest known


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

You can't compare the notion of abstaining in a political system with a straw man argument based on a hypothetical club that operates under an unknown constitution.

Do those who feel non-voters should have no right to a say in society realise that that is the same as only granting citizenship based on participation? You realise what that sounds like don't you? Hint: It's not a democracy.


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			You can't compare the notion of abstinence in a political system with a straw man argument based on a hypothetical club that operates under an unknown constitution.

Do those who feel non-voters should have no right to a say in society realise that that is the same as only granting citizenship based on participation? You realise what that sounds like don't you? Hint: It's not a democracy.
		
Click to expand...

Whoa there sunshine... Hold yer Horses... 
What is actually being said is that "If you don't vote, don't come and complain about what's happening later"  You'll still hold all the advantages of living in a Democracy, you just won't have a legitimate box to stand on when you're in the Pub with your mates mouthing off that XXX has raised your VAT and introduced another level of bureaucracy to your Fruit and Veg stall...


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

I wouldn't vote for either of them, it would only encourage them.

If I were to vote at the GE, I would like it to be an informed vote. I would examine the lies....I mean policies and study each lying, cheating scumbag..... I mean candidate at great length.
As it happens, I would rather poke my eyes out with a blunt lob wedge than waste my time doing that.

And as for those who churn out that old chestnut 'If you didn't vote, you cant complain', I put it to the house that it is the person who DID vote that shouldn't complain, after all it was you who put him/her there in the first place. At least if I didn't vote, my conscience is clear


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			I wouldn't vote for either of them, it would only encourage them.

If I were to vote at the GE, I would like it to be an informed vote. I would examine the lies....I mean policies and study each lying, cheating scumbag..... I mean candidate at great length.
As it happens, I would rather poke my eyes out with a blunt lob wedge than waste my time doing that.

And as for those who churn out that old chestnut 'If you didn't vote, you cant complain', I put it to the house that it is the person who DID vote that shouldn't complain, after all it was you who put him/her there in the first place. At least if I didn't vote, my conscience is clear
		
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct.. Instead of engaging in the debate, what you do is Turn your eyes away and claim that "it was nuffink to do wiv me Guv" . I mean, lets be honest, if you never try, you can never make a mistake..

Or, as a voter, I have a say in our Democracy. If I don't like what is happening, as an engaged voter, I have a right to say something about it..

Or, to put it another way, The elected officials can study the voting statistics and decide exactly which demographics they can ignore.. As a non-voter, they can quite happily ignore you as it doesn't matter what they do, you won't make any attempt to hold them to account..


----------



## bobmac (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			As a non-voter, they can quite happily ignore you as it doesn't matter what they do, you won't make any attempt to hold them to account..
		
Click to expand...

They might as well ignore me as I'll be ignoring them.
Anyway, I've said more than I normally say on the subject of politics so I shall bid you all good evening and happy bickering. :thup:


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			What is actually being said is that "If you don't vote, don't come and complain about what's happening later"
		
Click to expand...

So these non voters have no rights to participate in society. They are castigated as lesser citizens? Until when? The next time there's an election? 

There are no horses to hold here. What you're suggesting is not a democracy. It's more like an aristocracy where only elite citizens are permitted to contribute in governance. It's the very thing we had the good sense to break away from in the UK.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			So these non voters have no rights to participate in society. They are castigated as lesser citizens? Until when? The next time there's an election? 

There are no horses to hold here. What you're suggesting is not a democracy. It's more like an aristocracy where only elite citizens are permitted to contribute in governance. It's the very thing we had the good sense to break away from in the UK. 

Click to expand...

I don't see any ban on anyone voting, and just leaving it to elite citizens?


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			So these non voters have no rights to participate in society. They are castigated as lesser citizens? Until when? The next time there's an election? 

There are no horses to hold here. What you're suggesting is not a democracy. It's more like an aristocracy where only elite citizens are permitted to contribute in governance. It's the very thing we had the good sense to break away from in the UK. 

Click to expand...

Are you actually reading the posts you're reacting to? I have to ask as you have twice now completely misrepresented what is being said.. Maybe you are attempting to justify a standpoint you already have by taking partial comments out of context and reacting like a "Politician"....


----------



## AuburnWarrior (May 6, 2015)

I'll vote because people have given up their lives so that I may vote.  It's the least I can do.


----------



## DanFST (May 6, 2015)

There is always a point. 

If your unsure just spoil your vote. No time for people that moan, but don't even bloody vote!


----------



## delc (May 6, 2015)

I will be voting because democracy was what my late father and uncles fought for in WW2. However I still don't know who for! I don't believe in any of the political parties, so probably the least bad option!


----------



## SocketRocket (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Forcing people to attend is still taking away their own choice - people can "chose" not to attend - simple as that - free will.
		
Click to expand...

You can choose not to pay your Council Tax but will end up with a fine and ultimately in prison.  Is that taking away their choice?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You can choose not to pay your Council Tax but will end up with a fine and ultimately in prison.  Is that taking away their choice?
		
Click to expand...

No comparison at all.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Are you actually reading the posts you're reacting to? I have to ask as you have twice now completely misrepresented what is being said.. Maybe you are attempting to justify a standpoint you already have by taking partial comments out of context and reacting like a "Politician"....
		
Click to expand...

I can't see how you think it's misrepresentation? I disagree with the suggestion that non-voters should have their voice silenced. So I'm going to argue against the suggestion that non-voters "just won't have a legitimate box to stand on when you're in the Pub with your mates mouthing off". Because it's wrong. They have as much right as anyone else.

Freedom of political opinion is a fundamental human right and an attempt to remove, stifle or use it against someone is wrong and in contradiction of democracy.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 6, 2015)

Seems some don't want to vote and will then be the most vocal when the elected government (however that is made up) make changes that will affect the lives of everyone. As others have rightly pointed out, plenty have made huge sacrifices over the years to ensure we still have a democratic vote and I feel as strongly as many others here that there's an obligation for that reason alone to go out and vote. Whether you agree with any party or not I'd rather see people out and cast a spoilt vote than no vote at all


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			I can't see how you think it's misrepresentation? I disagree with the suggestion that non-voters should have their voice silenced. So I'm going to argue against the suggestion that non-voters "just won't have a legitimate box to stand on when you're in the Pub with your mates mouthing off". Because it's wrong. They have as much right as anyone else.

*Freedom of political opinion is a fundamental human right and an attempt to remove, stifle or use it against someone is wrong and in contradiction of democracy*.
		
Click to expand...

Summed up perfectly


----------



## Imurg (May 6, 2015)

If I vote Labour in Aylesbury, my choice, my vote will lose(by about 25000) and my views will not be represented
If I don't vote at all my views will not be represented....

What's the real difference?

My views are not being represented.........


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			I can't see how you think it's misrepresentation? I disagree with the suggestion that non-voters should have their voice silenced. So I'm going to argue against the suggestion that non-voters "just won't have a legitimate box to stand on when you're in the Pub with your mates mouthing off". Because it's wrong. They have as much right as anyone else.

Freedom of political opinion is a fundamental human right and an attempt to remove, stifle or use it against someone is wrong and in contradiction of democracy.
		
Click to expand...

Sweet Jesus.. The point that is being made (and missed in your case), is that if you decide not to vote then you can hardly mouth off in the Pub (or on a forum) about how badly the person elected is doing.. It's a simple concept.. You can hardly complain about something you decided to take no part in.. Nobody is being denied any Human Rights. I'm just not going to listen to that person as they have no basis for complaint.. 
Stop looking for a Grand Conspiracy to deny basic rights to the population when the point being discussed is a Social conversation.........


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Summed up perfectly
		
Click to expand...

For Gods sake Phil.. Stop being so obtuse.. No one is being denied any right or freedom.. I reserve the right to ignore any complaint you have because you decided not to act on your political opinion.


----------



## Imurg (May 6, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			You have the right to vote, people have sacrificed themselves over the years to give you that right and it is simply wrong not to exercise that right.
		
Click to expand...

Just being "Foxy" pedantic - but if you have a right to vote you also have a right to not vote.
Until its made a legal duty.....


----------



## AuburnWarrior (May 6, 2015)

90% are going to vote, according to the results at the top of the page...

I wonder what the result would be in the proper election if 90% of the population voted...


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Just being "Foxy" pedantic - but if you have a right to vote you also have a right to not vote.
Until its made a legal duty.....
		
Click to expand...

And I have the right to ignore that persons complaints in a social environment.. Take part, or stand back and let the process happen around you.. You have all the choice in the World...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			For Gods sake Phil.. Stop being so obtuse.. No one is being denied any right or freedom.. I reserve the right to ignore any complaint you have because you decided not to act on your political opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Of course you reserve the right to ignore people if thats what you want to do - no issues with that at all mate

Just believe everyone have the right to free speech and free choice - thats what people fought for - our freedom.


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Of course you reserve the right to ignore people if thats what you want to do - no issues with that at all mate

Just believe everyone have the right to free speech and free choice - thats what people fought for - our freedom.
		
Click to expand...



Ok, for all those people who have claimed that they won't vote because all Politicians are corrupt thieving bar stewards..

What do you think that a dishonest Politician prefers, a 100% vote turn out, or a 36% vote turn out?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:





Ok, for all those people who have claimed that they won't vote because all Politicians are corrupt thieving bar stewards..

What do you think that a dishonest Politician prefers, a 100% vote turn out, or a 36% vote turn out?
		
Click to expand...

He would prefer more to allow him to get more votes possibly ?


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He would prefer more to allow him to get more votes possibly ?
		
Click to expand...

Bit sexist there Phil 

He/She would probably prefer as low a turn out as possible.. Voter apathy is perfect for the corrupt element.. Much easier to get away with their shady dealings when only a small percentage actually care..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Bit sexist there Phil 

He/She would probably prefer as low a turn out as possible.. Voter apathy is perfect for the corrupt element.. Much easier to get away with their shady dealings when only a small percentage actually care..
		
Click to expand...

Only way for them to stop shady dealings is for none of them to get voted in - or for the whole damn lot of them to stop being corrupt - but we know its not going to happen


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

bobmac said:



			If you found out their promises to improve the club/course were lies and they had stealing from the green fees, would you vote for them?
		
Click to expand...

I'd report my findings to the main committee and ask for the vote on captaincy to be postponed until the allegations were properly investigated and put to the candidates.


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Only way for them to stop shady dealings is for none of them to get voted in - or for the whole damn lot of them to stop being corrupt - but we know its not going to happen
		
Click to expand...

But if we want them to stop being "corrupt" then the best way would be for us to get more involved in the Political process.. It's much harder to get away with dodgy dealings when people are constantly watching what you are doing..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			But if we want them to stop being "corrupt" then the best way would be for us to get more involved in the Political process.. It's much harder to get away with dodgy dealings when people are constantly watching what you are doing..
		
Click to expand...

How exactly can we the voter stop them being corrupt - how can we stop them claiming so much extra money , getting handouts and back handers for contracts etc - how can we stop every single party being out for themselves and not the rest of the population 

we cant - we have a vote to decide which one we pick - thats where are involvement ends. 

The make up of the politics within the whole of the UK is rotten to the core and the only way we could change that is by having a "none of the above" in the voting slip and then forcing them to wake up


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			But if we want them to stop being "corrupt" then the best way would be for us to get more involved in the Political process.. It's much harder to get away with dodgy dealings when people are constantly watching what you are doing..
		
Click to expand...

As I said with the Captaincy 'strawman' - faced with two candidates I don't fancy for the sort of reasons stated I can either sit on my hands - say and do nothing and not vote - *or I can get involved*; try and stop the election, and hopefully get new candidates coming forward that I *do *trust and between whom I can happily make a choice and vote for.  But first I have to get involved.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Sweet Jesus.. The point that is being made (and missed in your case), is that if you decide not to vote then you can hardly mouth off in the Pub (or on a forum) about how badly the person elected is doing.. It's a simple concept.. You can hardly complain about something you decided to take no part in..
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I do know what point you're making and I'm disagreeing with it because it's wrong. People are free to complain even if they don't take part.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As I said with the Captaincy 'strawman' - faced with two candidates I don't fancy for the sort of reasons stated I can either sit on my hands - say and do nothing and not vote - *or I can get involved*; try and stop the election, and *hopefully* get new candidates coming forward that I *do *trust and between whom I can happily make a choice and vote for.  But first I have to get involved.
		
Click to expand...

So how exactly would you stop two equally corrupt MPs going for the same seat - you couldnt stop the election , it would go ahead regardless of what you say. So your "solution" doesnt work within political elections. 

Highlighted the fantasy word - "hopefully"


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So how exactly would you stop two equally corrupt MPs going for the same seat - you couldnt stop the election , it would go ahead regardless of what you say. So your "solution" doesnt work within political elections. 

Highlighted the fantasy word - "hopefully"
		
Click to expand...

Define corrupt. If they are found to be corrupt or guilty of wrong doing they can be forced step down *before* the election (although their name may still be on the paper) and if they are guilty once in office can be forced to resign (or imprisoned if it goes to court) and a by-election held


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Define corrupt. If they are found to be corrupt or guilty of wrong doing they can be forced step down *before* the election (although their name may still be on the paper) and if they are guilty once in office can be forced to resign (or imprisoned if it goes to court) and a by-election held
		
Click to expand...

As has happened in my constituency - the LibDem candidate has been dropped by the LibDems due to irregularities in his registration.  He is still on the ballot paper and I could vote for him.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As has happened in my constituency - the LibDem candidate has been dropped by the LibDems due to irregularities in his registration.  He is still on the ballot paper and I could vote for him.
		
Click to expand...

But thats irrelevant to any action you have done -


----------



## gazr99 (May 6, 2015)

Will vote but it's the equivalent of voting for the best ****. 

Can't trust any of them, personally swaying towards Labour or Lib Dem's but unfortunately live in a Conservative strong hold, so doesn't what I do


----------



## louise_a (May 6, 2015)

I have always voted and will continue to do so, I was one of the first 18 years olds to vote back in 1972. I used to live in a marginal but not any more, so although my vote will not make a great deal of difference I will still pop down to the polling station to give it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But thats irrelevant to any action you have done -
		
Click to expand...

But you were talking about corrupt and there were irregularities (I think involving his deposit - may be wrong on that) and so he's been dropped. Not sure what you are saying is irrelevant?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But thats irrelevant to any action you have done -
		
Click to expand...

But it was picked up by someone and *they *acted upon it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 6, 2015)

louise_a said:



			I have always voted and will continue to do so, I was one of the first 18 years olds to vote back in 1972. I used to live in a marginal but not any more, so although my vote will not make a great deal of difference I will still pop down to the polling station to give it.
		
Click to expand...

Your vote *will* make a difference - maybe not in your constituency but in the overall turnout and votes/% for each party - and in a tight contest that will all matter - the legitimacy thing.


----------



## bluewolf (May 6, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How exactly can we the voter stop them being corrupt - how can we stop them claiming so much extra money , getting handouts and back handers for contracts etc - how can we stop every single party being out for themselves and not the rest of the population 

we cant - we have a vote to decide which one we pick - thats where are involvement ends. 

The make up of the politics within the whole of the UK is rotten to the core and the only way we could change that is by having a "none of the above" in the voting slip and then forcing them to wake up
		
Click to expand...

Our involvement absolutely does not end at the polling booth. If you refer back to the expenses scandal, certain newspapers were trying to expose the corruption for a long time before the more mainstream newspapers picked it up. If we, as an electorate, had cared more at the time, the outcry would have been much more vocal and would have resulted in a bloodbath in Westminster. The "corrupt" MP's knew that they just had to wait and the furore would blow over. 

In fact, I could make s strong argument for the recent expenses scandal making it easier for MP's to be corrupt based on the sheer amount of people who have withdrawn from the political process..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But it was picked up by someone and *they *acted upon it.
		
Click to expand...

Was it picked up by a voter then or someone within the system. Again it doesnt show how a voter can change things bar making a X in a box - so you stopping the election of two captains in a golf club cant really work in a general election or any political election.

Yes many MP's or candidates get found out over the years and get booted out etc - but if you had two MP's to vote between and trusted neither - there is nothing a voter could do - they couldnt stop the election going ahead.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 6, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Our involvement absolutely does not end at the polling booth. If you refer back to the expenses scandal, certain newspapers were trying to expose the corruption for a long time before the more mainstream newspapers picked it up. If we, as an electorate, had cared more at the time, the outcry would have been much more vocal and would have resulted in a bloodbath in Westminster. The "corrupt" MP's knew that they just had to wait and the furore would blow over. 

In fact, I could make s strong argument for the recent expenses scandal making it easier for MP's to be corrupt based on the sheer amount of people who have withdrawn from the political process..
		
Click to expand...

When can we as the electorate worry about our own lives ? 

The MP's should be beyond reproach - they should be whiter than white and looking after the best interests of the people who voted for them - they should work together with all the other MP's etc to make our country better - they should do that without the electorate having to worry about them - which then allows the electorate to take care of their own lives and family and job etc.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 6, 2015)

But if there were two MP's that weren't trusted surely the onus would be on the elected one to prove there was no corruption and the parliamentary regulators to investigate. Any wrong doing could lead to a by-election and the MP replaced. Of course the argument about them all being on the take with expenses etc is a whole different can of worms


----------



## Khamelion (May 6, 2015)

I voted by post a week or so back, first time I have done so since I could first vote after turning 18, my vote won't make any difference as the ward and constituency I live in is a Labour safe seat


----------



## Region3 (May 6, 2015)

Just caught a bit of coverage by accident on the news.

Seems strange that the slogan on the window of the labour campaign bus was facing _inwards_.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The MP's should be beyond reproach
		
Click to expand...


You could say that about a whole load of folk that we should be able rely on as we pass through life...

Unfortunately some will always find a way of letting us down...


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

LPP That's quite a large chunk of babble, especially for someone who's not even going to bother to enter a polling station. 

All of the problems and disillusions you have with politics have been addressed in various parties manifesto's, it's just up to you to engage and read them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			LPP That's quite a large chunk of babble, especially for someone who's not even going to bother to enter a polling station. 

All of the problems and disillusions you have with politics have been addressed in various parties manifesto's, it's just up to you to engage and read them.
		
Click to expand...

When did I say I'm not bothering to enter the polling station ? 

A manifesto is a bunch of words aimed to persuade people to vote for them - it is not a guarantee of action - many manifestos over the years have been left unfulfilled.


----------



## Crazyface (May 7, 2015)

maxfli65 said:



			There is a point, if you want change then you need to vote for it. Scots wanted change so we voted for it. We voted for devolution, then we voted in a majority SNP Scottish Govt,* we voted to abolish tuition fees and bridge tolls and for free prescriptions *as they are devolved issues, we voted no on independence...just, now we're voting for a stronger representation at Westminster be you pro or against independence. The Scottish electorate is now engaged in democracy and forcing change more than other parts of UK, all simply by voting. 
It can make a difference.
Vote.
		
Click to expand...

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on this, but 
1. how the hell did you get a vote on this? and voted correctly
2. Why don't we get a chance to vote on this?
3. Why are we in England the poorer relations to Scotland and Wales yet provide the wealth?


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When did I say I'm not bothering to enter the polling station ? 

A manifesto is a bunch of words aimed to persuade people to vote for them - it is not a guarantee of action - many manifestos over the years have been left unfulfilled.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies, it was just an assumption based on your confusing posts in this thread.

Yes i'm fully aware what a manifesto is.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 7, 2015)

10 good reasons to vote.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647#rlabs=2


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			Apologies, it was just an assumption based on your confusing posts in this thread.

Yes i'm fully aware what a manifesto is.
		
Click to expand...

They do say never assume. 

My posts are quite clear - I believe people have the right to a choice and act on their own free will. Just as I will make my own choice 

I am interested to hear how a manifesto is going to change the way the Mp's work and make them think more about the people that voted for them as opposed to themselves - can you enlighten me ?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			10 good reasons to vote.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647#rlabs=2

Click to expand...

Which 2 of the 12 did you not agree with?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			10 good reasons to vote.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647#rlabs=2

Click to expand...

Good to see the humour is still going strong


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Was it picked up by a voter then or someone within the system. Again it doesnt show how a voter can change things bar making a X in a box - so you stopping the election of two captains in a golf club cant really work in a general election or any political election.

Yes many MP's or candidates get found out over the years and get booted out etc - but if you had two MP's to vote between and trusted neither - there is nothing a voter could do - they couldnt stop the election going ahead.
		
Click to expand...

No - but you'd have good solid reasons not to trust the candidates standing to be your constituency MP I'm sure, other than 'I don't trust politicians - they are all the same; they are liars and in it for themselves' as these aren't really specific to the candidates. Especially as only a maximum of one is likely to have been an MP before.  So raise your specific trust concerns in advance of the election and get them investigated.  Sounds like a lot of hassle so easier just to not bother. I agree.


----------



## bobmac (May 7, 2015)

For those of you heading off to the polls today, ponder this for a few moments......

This is not gossip, someone's opinion or just a made up number........ these are facts.

In 2008/9 when the expense scandal broke, Mps across the board claimed Â£102m.
In 2013/14 they claimed Â£103m

Divided by 650 MPs that is an *AVERAGE* of Â£158,461 each. 
Add to that their Â£67,060 salary.
Add to that, Â£7.4â€‰million DISCLOSED earnings from outside work and second jobs in the past year.
And not forgetting the 11% pay rise due after the election.
And not forgetting the Â£50,000 salary they can now claim for a member of their family 

No wonder they're so keen to get your vote.

Happy voting


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			My posts are quite clear - I believe people have the right to a choice and act on their own free will. Just as I will make my own choice 

I am interested to hear how a manifesto is going to change the way the Mp's work and make them think more about the people that voted for them as opposed to themselves - can you enlighten me ?
		
Click to expand...


Your posts are babble. I agree with you that people have the choice to act on their own free will, but I believe attending a polling station should be mandatory.

"Being in a democratic society means that you have the choice to do what you wish with your vote. Being in a democratic society means you are not forced to vote for anyone if you so wish - it's your vote - what you do with it is your choice" 

That's an excellent point you typed, and one I completely agree with. But confusingly, you are using it to Justify people who don't vote? I think you have your idea's of Free will and democracy confused. If a large percentage of the Electorate don't enter a polling station, how can the result of said vote, and the idea of a democratic UK be considered valid?

I'm not sure your attempts to belittle me are working, a manifesto is just a piece of paper. At no point have I said otherwise.


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			For those of you heading off to the polls today, ponder this for a few moments......

This is not gossip, someone's opinion or just a made up number........ these are facts.

In 2008/9 when the expense scandal broke, Mps across the board claimed Â£102m.
In 2013/14 they claimed Â£103m

Divided by 650 MPs that is an *AVERAGE* of Â£158,461 each. 
Add to that their Â£67,060 salary.
Add to that, Â£7.4â€‰million DISCLOSED earnings from outside work and second jobs in the past year.
And not forgetting the 11% pay rise due after the election.
And not forgetting the Â£50,000 salary they can now claim for a member of their family 

No wonder they're so keen to get your vote.

Happy voting  

Click to expand...

How much does it cost to travel regularly between Westminster and their constituencies? Or would you rather they didn't bother visiting their constituents once elected?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			Your posts are babble. I agree with you that people have the choice to act on their own free will, but I believe attending a polling station should be mandatory.

"Being in a democratic society means that you have the choice to do what you wish with your vote. Being in a democratic society means you are not forced to vote for anyone if you so wish - it's your vote - what you do with it is your choice" 

That's an excellent point you typed, and one I completely agree with. But confusingly, you are using it to Justify people who don't vote? I think you have your idea's of Free will and democracy confused. If a large percentage of the Electorate don't enter a polling station, how can the result of said vote, and the idea of a democratic UK be considered valid?

I'm not sure your attempts to belittle me are working, a manifesto is just a piece of paper. At no point have I said otherwise. 

Click to expand...

Can't see why you are so confused ? The statement you posted is clear as day and you agree with it - people have the right to choice what to do with their vote - simple

And in regards Manifestos - this was you initial post 
*All of the problems and disillusions you have with politics have been addressed in various parties manifesto's, it's just up to you to engage and read them.*

It appears you are suggesting they have addressed the problems with MP's ? So have they actually addressed them or just words ?


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

Am in one of the safest seats in the country but I'll still go out and vote.

If you can't find a candidate/party that is remotely aligned with your views then it is still worthwhile to spoil your ballot.

To do otherwise would be to take for granted our very fortunate position of being born into a country which is democratically run.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			How much does it cost to travel regularly between Westminster and their constituencies? Or would you rather they didn't bother visiting their constituents once elected?
		
Click to expand...

Can they not pay for their travel out of the Â£70 grand a year pay ? Everyone else has too - they get travel costs and money for a second home - sorry but it's a disgrace the amount of money they claim


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can't see why you are so confused ? The statement you posted is clear as day and you agree with it - people have the right to choice what to do with their vote - simple

And in regards Manifestos - this was you initial post 
*All of the problems and disillusions you have with politics have been addressed in various parties manifesto's, it's just up to you to engage and read them.*

It appears you are suggesting they have addressed the problems with MP's ? So have they actually addressed them or just words ?
		
Click to expand...


The statement is completely clear you are correct. But you are using it to Justify why people don't vote, which it completely contradicts. That's why i'm confused. 

And yep that was my initial post. I don't know the problems with MP's, but the Greens and UKIP have a large section on Parliamentary reform.


----------



## bobmac (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			How much does it cost to travel regularly between Westminster and their constituencies? Or would you rather they didn't bother visiting their constituents once elected?
		
Click to expand...

My local Mp claimed Â£11,523 last year for travel and accommodation.


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can they not pay for their travel out of the Â£70 grand a year pay ? Everyone else has too - they get travel costs and money for a second home - sorry but it's a disgrace the amount of money they claim
		
Click to expand...

Right, so how many trips to Westminster could Danny Alexander, representing Inverness, afford from his Â£67,000 salary? Should constituencies further from London be disadvantaged then?


----------



## ger147 (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			My local Mp claimed Â£11,523 last year for travel and accommodation.
		
Click to expand...

So divided by say 40 weeks that's just under Â£300 a week.  I doubt he/she will be taking over Mike Ashley's place on the UK's rich list any time soon.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			The statement is completely clear you are correct. But you are using it to Justify why people don't vote, which it completely contradicts. That's why i'm confused. 

And yep that was my initial post. I don't know the problems with MP's, but the Greens and UKIP have a large section on Parliamentary reform.
		
Click to expand...

Where is the contradiction? 

People have the right to choice what to do with their vote - if that means choosing not to use it then they have exercised their right 

Simple


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 7, 2015)

To me the fundamental flaw in the argument that not voting is 'expressing an opinion' is that it is virtually impossible for anyone to know what that opinion is.  I agree that it is your right not to vote if you want to, but to me it is a very futile and dangerous thing to do, There are many many reasons why people legitimize to themselves the fact that they do not vote. So whilst one person may not vote as they can't find a parties' policies that they agree with, others will not vote as they are in a safe seat and they see it as a waste of time, others may not vote as they do not agree with the whole political system as a whole, others may not vote as they do not agree with first past the post, other may not vote as they are just completely apathetic and could not be arsed to register in time.  Plus I am sure there are many other reasons people will try to justify their stance with.

But as there are so many reasons, by not voting I would argue you are not registering some kind of protest that will get heard.  But you will just be classes as one of the apathetic masses that do not vote.  And politicians will not care about you, why should they if you do not vote?  And then when people start moaning about the government being in power with only a relatively small percentage of the total eligible vote (as they inevitably will once all the horse trading has been completed), then we have only brought that on ourselves.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			For those of you heading off to the polls today, ponder this for a few moments......

This is not gossip, someone's opinion or just a made up number........ these are facts.

In 2008/9 when the expense scandal broke, Mps across the board claimed Â£102m.
In 2013/14 they claimed Â£103m

Divided by 650 MPs that is an *AVERAGE* of Â£158,461 each. 
Add to that their Â£67,060 salary.
Add to that, Â£7.4â€‰million DISCLOSED earnings from outside work and second jobs in the past year.
And not forgetting the 11% pay rise due after the election.
And not forgetting the Â£50,000 salary they can now claim for a member of their family 

No wonder they're so keen to get your vote.

Happy voting  

Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Can they not pay for their travel out of the Â£70 grand a year pay ? Everyone else has too - they get travel costs and money for a second home - sorry but it's a disgrace the amount of money they claim
		
Click to expand...

Yeh that's a bit of money. Probably best to not give them a salary and then let only the rich take up a position. 

OR we pay them what they're worth. They don't even earn that much, considering how long it takes to get to the position, the work that goes in, and how volatile their career is. How do you fancy losing your job after 4/5 years, just because people don't like your boss?

This really isn't that big a salary. If you think it is, then stand for election yourself. It's an easy job where you're paid loads, why doesn't everyone go for it?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Where is the contradiction? 

People have the right to choice what to do with their vote - if that means choosing not to use it then they have exercised their right 

Simple
		
Click to expand...

And being forced  to go to a polling station doesn't impact that *at all*.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Right, so how many trips to Westminster could Danny Alexander, representing Inverness, afford from his Â£67,000 salary? Should constituencies further from London be disadvantaged then?
		
Click to expand...

In such a technical advance age we are in now I'm sure that most MP's can stay in one location for the majority of the time and still function - how trips does any MP need to take ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			And being forced  to go to a polling station doesn't impact that *at all*.
		
Click to expand...

You are forcing them to cast a vote or spoil etc 

That impacts on their free choice - simple


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You are forcing them to cast a vote or spoil etc 

That impacts on their free choice - simple
		
Click to expand...


Free choice and democracy aren't the same thing. You do understand that right?


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In such a technical advance age we are in now I'm sure that most MP's can stay in one location for the majority of the time and still function - how trips does any MP need to take ?
		
Click to expand...

That depends if you think it's important that MPs raise local issues at Westminster, take part in debates, work on new laws and amendments etc.

Perhaps the country should be run by email? Or on a forum!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			That depends if you think it's important that MPs raise local issues at Westminster, take part in debates, work on new laws and amendments etc.

Perhaps the country should be run by email? Or on a forum!
		
Click to expand...

And all the above can be worked on at Westminster yes ? With the odd trip back home


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You are forcing them to cast a vote or spoil etc 

That impacts on their free choice - simple
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose, or accidentaly. Every single law in this country impacts your free choice, every single one.

Making someone attend something as important as the GE, is not impacting that much on your free choice. Making someone vote for a specific party, is a significant impact on your free choice. They really really aren't the same.

If you don't want to legitimise/support the election, spoil you ballot. It's really easy.


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And all the above can be worked on at Westminster yes ? With the odd trip back home
		
Click to expand...

So no need for MPs to regularly be at their constituency, whose issues they are representing?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			Free choice and democracy aren't the same thing. You do understand that right?
		
Click to expand...

Read my statement again 

Everyone of us has a vote - what we do with that vote it up to us - our choice and we face the consequences of that choice simple as that 

The minute someone is forced to vote then they no longer have that free choice to do what they wish with it. 

Let people decide what they want without being told what to do. 

If someone wishes not to vote then that's up to them - not you or I regardless of their reasons. I'm certainly not going to judge them because of it


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			So no need for MPs to regularly be at their constituency, whose issues they are representing?
		
Click to expand...

In the 8 years I haven't seen the local MP once - even when the local military base closed down which had been open since the 1930's and played a massive part in WW2 he sent his secretary as his rep for the closing down ceremony. 

He has representives to work within his constituency - he can communicate with them daily - he doesn't need to be in the location


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In the 8 years I haven't seen the local MP once - even when the local military base closed down which had been open since the 1930's and played a massive part in WW2 he sent his secretary as his rep for the closing down ceremony. 

He has representives to work within his constituency - he can communicate with them daily - he doesn't need to be in the location
		
Click to expand...

So judging all of them on the basis of your unimpressive MP?

Perhaps if you voted you'd stand a chance of getting someone better.


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Read my statement again 

Everyone of us has a vote - what we do with that vote it up to us - our choice and we face the consequences of that choice simple as that 

The minute someone is forced to vote then they no longer have that free choice to do what they wish with it. 

Let people decide what they want without being told what to do. 

If someone wishes not to vote then that's up to them - not you or I regardless of their reasons. I'm certainly not going to judge them because of it
		
Click to expand...


I have. But I still don't think you get it. I'd never force anyone to vote, but they should attend a polling station and spoil their paper.

I feel that you still won't understand why i'm confused, so I ask one last question.

How can it be a valid democracy when people don't vote?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			So judging all of them on the basis of your unimpressive MP?

Perhaps if you voted you'd stand a chance of getting someone better.
		
Click to expand...

The MP didn't need to be there - the laws are created in Westminster - that's where they need to be and let his staff look after his area under his guidance using modern technology 

But they don't "need" to constantly travel between the two places IMO


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 7, 2015)

I can't see any point forcing people to vote if they don't want to and frog-marching everyone up to a polling station seems like a complete waste of effort and impinging on civil liberties.


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush


----------



## Jimaroid (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			How can it be a valid democracy when people don't vote?
		
Click to expand...

Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.

Democracy isn't a singly defined system of government, there are many types of democracies, but fundamental principals within democratic societies are the rule of law and the political freedom for people to choose without pressure or coercion.

I'm just repeating myself from earlier in the thread now though.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 7, 2015)




----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.
		
Click to expand...

Individual freedom and Democracy are conceptual opposites.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			My local Mp claimed Â£11,523 last year for travel and accommodation.
		
Click to expand...

Not exceptional - my company paid Â£600/month for a flat for me for 4 yrs; Â£400/month unreceipted living expenses; and Â£300/month travel = Â£15,600 a year. Plenty of my colleagues on assignment live in a hotel during the week.  Say 4 nights @ Â£125/night = Â£500/week = Â£2000/month = Â£24,000 a year

It's expensive working away from home - and you can't really expect MPs to fund that out of their salary unless that salary is significantly bumped up and you do away with expenses altogether.  So pay MPs Â£125,000 a year and do away with expenses.  Sorted.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			To me the fundamental flaw in the argument that not voting is 'expressing an opinion' is that it is virtually impossible for anyone to know what that opinion is.  I agree that it is your right not to vote if you want to, but to me it is a very futile and dangerous thing to do, There are many many reasons why people legitimize to themselves the fact that they do not vote. So whilst one person may not vote as they can't find a parties' policies that they agree with, others will not vote as they are in a safe seat and they see it as a waste of time, others may not vote as they do not agree with the whole political system as a whole, others may not vote as they do not agree with first past the post, other may not vote as they are just completely apathetic and could not be arsed to register in time.  Plus I am sure there are many other reasons people will try to justify their stance with.

But as there are so many reasons, by not voting I would argue you are not registering some kind of protest that will get heard.  But you will just be classes as one of the apathetic masses that do not vote.  And politicians will not care about you, why should they if you do not vote?  And then when people start moaning about the government being in power with only a relatively small percentage of the total eligible vote (as they inevitably will once all the horse trading has been completed), then we have only brought that on ourselves.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of this


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's expensive working away from home - and you can't really expect MPs to fund that out of their salary unless that salary is significantly bumped up and you do away with expenses altogether.  So pay MPs Â£125,000 a year and do away with expenses.  Sorted.
		
Click to expand...

So MPs closer to London receive a higher salary in effect.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 7, 2015)

DanFST said:



			Individual freedom and Democracy are conceptual opposites.
		
Click to expand...

Because *political freedom* includes the right not to participate.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			Because *political freedom* includes the right not to participate.
		
Click to expand...

Says who? Not australia?


----------



## freddielong (May 7, 2015)

Not voting is not caring hidden in the lie of constitutional rights, put there by the lazy and the apethetic.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 7, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Says who? Not australia?
		
Click to expand...

And North Korea.


----------



## pendodave (May 7, 2015)

I did.

But sadly, there was no point as I'm in one of those blue(or red) hatted donkey constituencies.

A system where only a few hundred thousand votes are actually significant is a cancer at the heart of the country imho.

I would have : Proportional representation, none of the above as an option, compulsory voting.

Politicians might care a bit more what individual voters, rather than large doners, needed.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			And North Korea.
		
Click to expand...

Good point, that's the main issue with North Korea, that people are forced to vote. Not that they're forced to vote for a particular party, or have minimal liberties generally, it's that they're forced to vote.

FYI that isn't a reasonable argument. I have shown an example that refutes your previous point about political freedom. Unless you can prove to me that Australian voters don't have political freedom, your point has been disproven, no matter how much you want to reference dictatorship regimes.


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

pendodave said:



			I did.

But sadly, there was no point as I'm in one of those blue(or red) hatted donkey constituencies.

A system where only a few hundred thousand votes are actually significant is a cancer at the heart of the country imho.

I would have : Proportional representation, none of the above as an option, compulsory voting.

Politicians might care a bit more what individual voters, rather than large doners, needed.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.


----------



## MegaSteve (May 7, 2015)

Been there and done my bit....

Was there any point in me doing so?

Don't suppose I'll ever find out for sure...

The man wearing the blue rosette will be representing me whether I like it or not...

May even of been my last chance to vote in a GE... Hey ho...


----------



## Tarkus1212 (May 7, 2015)

pendodave said:



			I did.

But sadly, there was no point as I'm in one of those blue(or red) hatted donkey constituencies.

A system where only a few hundred thousand votes are actually significant is a cancer at the heart of the country imho.

I would have : Proportional representation, none of the above as an option, compulsory voting.

Politicians might care a bit more what individual voters, rather than large doners, needed.
		
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat, thankfully the local elections are happening at the same time and that's when my vote does count. We had the chance to get PR, unfortunately we chose not to. I recall the argument against PR being largely around "endless hung parliaments, coalitions and/or minority governments" - imagine that


----------



## ArnoldArmChewer (May 7, 2015)

Khamelion said:



			I mean and I do rather generalise here, all parties are just as bad as the other, their leaders are two faced charlatans who 99% of the time just pay lip service to the population to curry favour in order to gain our vote.

So will you vote, or are you going to abstain as you feel the options open to us are just not worth it?
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your view on the politicians, regrettably we are faced in this era with media obsessed megolamaniacs who will prostitute themselves at the drop of a hat in order to win a vote.  However if we don't vote we have no right to complain.


----------



## Jimaroid (May 7, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Unless you can prove to me that Australian voters don't have political freedom
		
Click to expand...

I can't fully, but at that level nothing can be proven because it's mostly a philosophical issue and there's the rub. It's ultimately a matter opinion. I've made it clear where my opinion lies and I think I could argue why I think Australia has a flawed electoral system but not one that doesn't allow political freedom.

If I really had to I would have to take the stance that compulsory voting goes against political freedom because in some ways it contravenes human rights. For example, a person who doesn't believe in democracy shouldn't be forced to vote in a democratic election.


----------



## DanFST (May 7, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			Because *political freedom* includes the right not to participate.
		
Click to expand...


Theories and Philosophical issues don't sit particularly easy with me, hence the change. 

You may well be correct tho.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			So MPs closer to London receive a higher salary in effect.
		
Click to expand...

If it amounted to in effect a salary increase for those closer to London then I wouldn't be worried about that as the cost of living increases as you get closer to London.  So less expenses to pay out of salary gives in effect a London and surrounds salary weighting/uplift.  BTW - I'm not arguing for this.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 7, 2015)

Organised chaos ! 

They moved our polling station but not told the estate 

As well as GE vote 

There is also council vote

And a vote against a 15% increase in council tax to allow the police station to re open full time 

Confusing all the people in the polling station ?!?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			I can't fully, but at that level nothing can be proven because it's mostly a philosophical issue and there's the rub. It's ultimately a matter opinion. I've made it clear where my opinion lies and I think I could argue why I think Australia has a flawed electoral system but not one that doesn't allow political freedom.

If I really had to I would have to take the stance that compulsory voting goes against political freedom because in some ways it contravenes human rights. For example, a person who doesn't believe in democracy shouldn't be forced to vote in a democratic election.
		
Click to expand...

You won't have anyone bothered about and standing up for your human rights at all, if you didn't have effective political representation.


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If it amounted to in effect a salary increase for those closer to London then I wouldn't be worried about that as *the cost of living increases as you get closer to London*.  So less expenses to pay out of salary gives in effect a London and surrounds salary weighting/uplift.  BTW - I'm not arguing for this.
		
Click to expand...

You seriously believe that?


----------



## bobmac (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If it amounted to in effect a salary increase for those closer to London then I wouldn't be worried about that as the cost of living increases as you get closer to London.  So less expenses to pay out of salary gives in effect a London and surrounds salary weighting/uplift.  BTW - I'm not arguing for this.
		
Click to expand...

How about the 46 MPs who have claimed expenses for London rent or hotels despite owning a property in London?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			You seriously believe that?
		
Click to expand...

You seriously don't?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			You seriously don't?
		
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			How about the 46 MPs who have claimed expenses for London rent or hotels despite owning a property in London?
		
Click to expand...

Well - getting rid of expenses and paying them more would sort that.


----------



## bobmac (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well - getting rid of expenses and paying them more would sort that.
		
Click to expand...

Good idea, just give them the extra Â£60/Â£70K in their salary and save them the trouble of having to invent claims


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If it amounted to in effect a salary increase for those closer to London then I wouldn't be worried about that as the* cost of living increases as you get closer to London.*  So less expenses to pay out of salary gives in effect a London and surrounds salary weighting/uplift.  BTW - I'm not arguing for this.
		
Click to expand...

So if I moved to stockton on tees, for example, my cost of living would increase?


----------



## jp5 (May 7, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			LOL 

Click to expand...

Of course there are some magical places far away from London that are more expensive to live in than places closer to London. You don't have to be a genius to work that out.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Good idea, just give them the extra Â£60/Â£70K in their salary and save them the trouble of having to invent claims
		
Click to expand...

Correct - No expenses claims - No issue.

The extra Â£60/Â£70K would be Â£30/Â£35K in pocket - so not inconsistent with a year expensed cost of travelling to and staying in London and cost of paying for admin support.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 7, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Of course there are some magical places far away from London that are more expensive to live in than places closer to London. You don't have to be a genius to work that out.
		
Click to expand...

Yes there are.


----------



## bobmac (May 7, 2015)

So, to sum up.....
There are some who want to vote and some who dont want to vote. Those who do want to vote think that those who dont want to vote are wrong about not voting and should indeed vote and those who dont want to vote think that those who want to vote are wrong about those not wanting to vote being wrong and should indeed vote with their feet and not vote against the wishes of those who are voting. (Wooley B. 1980)


----------



## chrisd (May 7, 2015)

So, what about those who have voted and think if no one else votes, their chosen candidate will win!


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You should always vote. These people will decide much of your life, so you should exercise your choice/prejudices to select either those you approve of *or minimise the harm by selecting the least worst of a bad lot*.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree..... they'll get your vote and think that they are doing well.

If we'd all stopped picking LibDems as an alternate for the past 40yrs they'd have faded away OR reinvented themselves into something worthwhile.


Would be interesting if one day there is an election and only 54 people in the whole country vote whilst 60M sit at home.... perhaps then someone might realise that the system (or parties) need to change.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			I don't agree..... *they'll get your vote and think that they are doing well.*

If we'd all stopped picking LibDems as an alternate for the past 40yrs they'd have faded away OR reinvented themselves into something worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

Or they may well work hard for their constituency as they know in 5 years time they will need to prove themselves or they may be out.  There seems to have been a lot more big swings in this election, which I think is a good thing as it means safe seats will be less safe.


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Sweet Jesus.. The point that is being made (and missed in your case), is that if you decide not to vote then you can hardly mouth off in the Pub (or on a forum) about how badly the person elected is doing.
		
Click to expand...

Very, very ignorant. I'm sure you voted which proves my point that the county is ruled by the mob (read as ignorant) minded.


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Very, very ignorant. I'm sure you voted which proves my point that the county is ruled by the mob (read as ignorant) minded.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. You're opinion is noted. You'll forgive me if I think that not only are you wrong in your insinuation, but also naive in your opinion and rude in your application. However, feel free to enlighten us as to your opinion on people who just can't be bothered to engage in the political system.


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Cheers mate. You're opinion is noted. You'll forgive me if I think that not only are you wrong in your insinuation, but also naive in your opinion and rude in your application. However, feel free to enlighten us as to your opinion on people who just can't be bothered to engage in the political system.
		
Click to expand...


You belong to a golf club.... the owners want to reduce it to 17 holes, the committee want to reduce it to 16 holes and the green keepers want 15, who do you vote for to keep 18 if it's not an option.... can't you still complain down the pub if you don't vote for either?


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			You belong to a golf club.... the owners want to reduce it to 17 holes, the committee want to reduce it to 16 holes and the green keepers want 15, who do you vote for to keep 18 if it's not an option.... can't you still complain down the pub if you don't vote for either?
		
Click to expand...

So, in your scenario, you're just going to sit there and allow it to happen? Get involved if it means that much to you. If it doesn't really mean that much, then feel free to sit idly by whilst other people do the work in your behalf. 
BUT, if you were sat in the pub moaning to me, I'd ask what you were doing about it. Once you said you weren't doing anything, then I'd stop listening as you obviously aren't that bothered, or were just too lazy to do anything.


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

Apply the scenario I wrote to the country's government... then tell me what you think I (we) man on the street should do?




bluewolf said:



			feel free to sit idly by whilst other people do the work in your behalf.
		
Click to expand...

LMAO!! .... my behalf? :rofl:


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Apply the scenario I wrote to the country's government... then tell me what you think I (we) should do?
		
Click to expand...

If there is no one you can vote for, then decide who you least want to get in power and vote tactically to attempt to deny them power. 
The other option is to ignore the bigger picture and focus strongly on the local picture. Study the promises of each of your local candidates and then vote for the one that best fits your personal beliefs. If that person deviates from their personal manifesto then you can write to them to ask the question, or approach them. I've contacted my local MP on several occasions and had answers each time. 
As an aside, I like my local MP. I suspect that she'll be in the shadow cabinet soon enough.


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			LMAO!! .... my behalf? :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

well, if someone shared your opinion and attempted to do something about it, then would they not be doing something on your behalf?


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			If there is no one you can vote for, then decide who you least want to get in power and vote tactically to attempt to deny them power. .
		
Click to expand...

So you'd vote for the (least liked) ones who'd shorten the course to 15 holes? 

No wonder the country has so many 'issues'. As I said before, ignorance, mob minded ignorance.



So glad you've got a foot in the door with your local MP


----------



## lobthewedge (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			You belong to a golf club.... the owners want to reduce it to 17 holes, the committee want to reduce it to 16 holes and the green keepers want 15, who do you vote for to keep 18 if it's not an option.... can't you still complain down the pub if you don't vote for either?
		
Click to expand...

I think I would acknowledge the fact that change is needed and not in doubt; listen to why all three parties wanted to reduce the amount of holes and make a measured judgement based on their proposals for the clubs future.


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			So you'd vote for the (least liked) ones who'd shorten the course to 15 holes? 

No wonder the country has so many 'issues'. As I said before, ignorance, mob minded ignorance.
		
Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore the insults as they add nothing. 

Your mythical golf club is having a vote to decide its future. You don't agree with any of the 3 options. In which case, do everything you can to add a 4th. Or, sit back and twiddle your thumbs whilst complaining to everyone who will listen. There is a reason that this country is in a poor state. It isn't the fault of the people who vote though.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			So you'd vote for the (least liked) ones who'd shorten the course to 15 holes? 

No wonder the country has so many 'issues'. As I said before, ignorance, mob minded ignorance.



So glad you've got a foot in the door with your local MP 

Click to expand...

Remind me again what you have achieved by not voting or engaging in the system? Or what that has ever achieved?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			You belong to a golf club.... the owners want to reduce it to 17 holes, the committee want to reduce it to 16 holes and the green keepers want 15, who do you vote for to keep 18 if it's not an option.... can't you still complain down the pub if you don't vote for either?
		
Click to expand...

Nice fairytale! and in my version, I met a fellow member who wanted it to stay at 18 holes but he didn't think anyone cared, so we got involved, put his name on the ballot paper and saved the day!!! Yippee, 
Anyone else like to come up with a ridiculous story to fit their point of view?
&#128540;


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 8, 2015)

15 holes would do wonders to reduce the time it takes to play a round of golf. Sounds like a really progressive policy, plus free mars bars for every player, funded by an extra levy on subs at the rich golf club down the road! Hurrah!


----------



## c1973 (May 8, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			15 holes would do wonders to reduce the time it takes to play a round of golf. Sounds like *a really progressive policy*, plus free mars bars for every player, funded by an extra levy on subs at the rich golf club down the road! Hurrah!
		
Click to expand...

Aye, awrite Sturgeon!


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			15 holes would do wonders to reduce the time it takes to play a round of golf. Sounds like a really progressive policy, plus free mars bars for every player, funded by an extra levy on subs at the rich golf club down the road! Hurrah!
		
Click to expand...

You've just solved Golf. Hurrah!!!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			You've just solved Golf. Hurrah!!! 

Click to expand...

That's not fair, I thought I'd saved the day &#128540;


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			You don't agree with any of the 3 options. In which case, do everything you can to add a 4th.
		
Click to expand...

Yeh... I'm just going to pop out and organise my climb to PM 

None of the above should be an option an all ballot papers, might call out some non-voters.


----------



## Hobbit (May 8, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			15 holes would do wonders to reduce the time it takes to play a round of golf. Sounds like a really progressive policy, plus free mars bars for every player, funded by an extra levy on subs at the rich golf club down the road! Hurrah!
		
Click to expand...

Noooo! I'd organise a referendum, which would lead to the opposition making all sorts of promises.... then nothing happens, status quo ensues!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Yeh... I'm just going to pop out and organise my climb to PM 

None of the above should be an option an all ballot papers, might call out some non-voters.
		
Click to expand...

It already is, it's called scribbling all over it


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

As a non voter I'd be interested to know what would happen if nationwide only 1M voters turned up at the polls... would it be classed as a 'miss vote'? (ie, is there a minimum turnout level required for a general election)


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Yeh... I'm just going to pop out and organise my climb to PM 

None of the above should be an option an all ballot papers, might call out some non-voters.
		
Click to expand...

So, now you're saying that something should be done to encourage people to vote? Even if that vote is "none of the above"? I agree, I'd rather that, than 34% of the population deciding not to bother. Imagine the power that 34% would have.


----------



## JustOne (May 8, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			It already is, it's called scribbling all over it
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the mob minded learned at school how to write an X

Maybe we'd have a better government if we had to write several pages as to why we are voting for our choice 

(not to include beer or benefits)


----------



## bluewolf (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Unfortunately the mob minded learned at school how to write an X

Maybe we'd have a better government if we had to write several pages as to why we are voting for our choice 

(not to include beer or benefits) 

Click to expand...

are you seriously stating that the "ignorant mob" or "voters" as I like to call them are at fault for the problems in modern society? Are you an advocate of Anarchy a la Russell Brand?


----------



## lobthewedge (May 8, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Unfortunately the mob minded learned at school how to write an X

Maybe we'd have a better government if we had to write several pages as to why we are voting for our choice 

(not to include beer or benefits) 

Click to expand...

That would be the SNP gubbed then.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 8, 2015)

And so - the day after - 72 of us said we'd vote and 9 said they wouldn't.  Did any of us who were intending to not do so - and did any of the 9 end up voting?

I voted.  Did my vote count? - well it didn't count towards Jeremy Hunt's 60% - but it did to my choice's equal best % of the vote since 1983.  And it counted to make a three way UKIP/Labour/NHS AP tie for 2nd place.  So yes - I feel that my vote made a difference and I am pleased that I participated.  74% turnout not too bad given Tory was a shoe-in with no LibDem candidate.


----------

