What was the point in voting....

27 replies

plum100 · 09/05/2010 11:03

...if we are not going to be listened to?

Im the first to admit Im not that clued up about politics, but I really see how this hung parliament is fair.

The torys got the most. So surely they shouuld be in power as the biggest number of people voted for them?

I know they need to have the majority but isnt that a stupid rule that takes it out of the voters hands? I mean, it seems to me that its up tp Nick Clegg now as to who gets in to power - who ever agrees to give his party what he wants he will do a 'deal' with them. His party got the least amount of votes, so obviously not many people in the country want him running things, yet he's going to get a hand in it.

I dont really see the point in voting if , in the end it isnt up to us to decide who we want to run our country. It is now up to the 3 main parties to decide between themselves - to do 'deals'. They shouldnt be doing deals and bargaining with each other - it our counrty , thats why we vote isnt it?

I know I havent explained myself very well but surely the bottom line is that now any of the parties could be in power - our votes really have nothing to do with it - if they did then the two top parties would have to be joined but of course that would never happen. I just think it leaves a bad taste in the mouth to think of the politicians all sucking up to one another right now to get what they want. Torys got the most votes - the people spoke - they should rule.

So what was the point of me voting, if they are going to decide themselves anyway? And Im not a disgruntled tory supporter - I voted labour.

OP posts:

atlantis · 09/05/2010 12:37

"I mean, it seems to me that its up tp Nick Clegg now as to who gets in to power - who ever agrees to give his party what he wants he will do a 'deal' with them."

Couldn't agree more and it is the best reason for not changing the system to PR.

Yes, the system needs to change to make it fairer, to stop labours abhorent changes to the system that allows them so many seats for so few votes, but not to PR.

Chil1234 · 09/05/2010 11:17

Needing a parliamentary majority to govern effectively is a very practical matter... not stupid at all. Principal job of government is to pass legislation and if you only have 300-ish 'yes' votes vs 350-ish from all the other parties in parliament then you are not going to get any legislation passed so you're not a very effective government. You need a willing partner to make up the numbers.

The point about all the deal-making is why some of us are not totally enthusiastic about PR and don't see it as an automatic panacea. In a PR election system, there is almost never an outright winner. It invariably comes down to coalitions and deal-making. So you vote X and you get X+Y or X+Y+Z.... as you can see already 'Vote Clegg, get Cameron' is really upsetting a lot of LDs. Some would say that having to form these consensus governments is fairer, others think it gives too much power to very small parties.

When/if it comes to a referendum these are the kinds of pros and cons to consider.

Unflip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread