They're not voting because...
- Simple really.Some comparisons....
Simple really.
Some comparisons.
1983
Labour gets 27.6% of the vote, and 209 seats. Alliance (LD precursor) gets 25.4% of the vote, and 23 seats.1992
Labour gets 34.4% of the vote, and 271 seats. LDs get 17.8% of the vote, and 20 seats.1997
Labour gets 43.2% of the vote, and 419 seats. Conservatives get 30.7% of the vote, and 165 seats.2001
Labour gets 40.7% of the vote, and 413 seats. Conservatives get 31.7% of the vote, and 166 seats.As far as I'm concerned, this proves that the government is nothing like representative of the people, and so I will not even tacitly condone it by participating in these elections.
written 15th Apr 2005
Responses
-
Miss Dipsy replies: But some parties (like the Lib Dems) advocate proportional representation (PR), which would eliminate the problem in the "first past the post" system of the number of seats not reflecting the number of votes. Why not vote for a party who advocate PR? By not participating you aren't sending the message that you disagree with the particular voting system, you are just yet another person who didn't vote and therefore is assumed to have no opinion.
written 15th Apr 2005
If you have a really strong opinion on any matter, there are only two ways of getting heard: vote, or start campaigning actively on the issue. I know voting is only one little vote in a sea of millions, but if everyone who felt like you turned out to vote it might actually make a difference. -
SJ replies: That's a good point, and one that has been made to me before. However, while I could turn up and vote for the Liberal Democrats, I would then be voting for a number of policies that I think are very much /not/ in the interests of this country, or rather, not yet in the interests of this country.
In all likelihood, I will turn up, and spoil my ballot paper, since it seems the most sensible course of action to me.
written 15th Apr 2005
