They're not voting because...
- We want a checkbox for those who want neither of the candidates!
I say, at every vote, there should be a checkbox for those, who disagree with all of the candidates. The constitution should ensure, that if these votes are in majority, a whole new election procedure should be started, with nwe candidates. Why is that, that if 70% of all citizens vote, and half of them +1 says blue is the color, then 35% +1 of all citizens decides what's the color? That's not the majority! The majority - 65% - wants it another way! Not deffinitely red, but something else then blue.written 19th Apr 2005
tom replies: Firstly, please sort out your grammar. I advise that you read Fowler's "The King's English", or Lynn Truss' "Eats, Shoots and Leaves".
Secondly, you do make a valid point: the First Past the Post is not proportional. Labour won a landslide victory and huge majority in 2001 with (I think) some 41% of the vote; they won it against the wishes of 59% of the electorate. However, if the system was changed we would have political stalemates, unstable coalitions, and indecisive, slow government. If Britain wants a strong government, she cannot have proportional representation.written 19th Apr 2005
idle replies: And you base your opinion on the German PR where they had many, many years of weak, ineffectual government?
Labour won with a small minority of the electorate (as opposed to the vote). Their 'decisiveness' does not make a strong govt., only an arrogant one that doesnt even need to defend their lies any more since they will carry the vote.
Thather's Tories and Blairs Labour have both had landslides because the difference between a win and a landslide is so small. It can be 1 or 2%. This leads to blatant lies in the manifestos, and blatant arrogance about the lies.written 19th Apr 2005