Living in a 'safe seat' - "My vote doesn't count"

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

A young woman said this on the Question Time special last night. She was in an audience consisting only of people aged under 30, so I don't know how much under 30 she was, but I've heard other people saying this too.

Yes, it's frustrating - I live in a constituency which is held by a very senior Tory and it is very much considered a safe seat.

However, some people don't seem to understand that a seat isn't arbitrarily decided and officially reserved as a guaranteed win for one party - it's like that because every person's vote does count, exactly the same as in the diciest of marginals, but if a large majority of voters in the same constituency invariably choose to vote the same way, leaving you in the minority, then what they choose will win. Your vote did count - to reduce the majority by one vote - it's just that, in a first-past-the-post system, there can only be one winner.

By contrast from a constituency-based election, the man from the SNP also seemed unable to grasp the basics of a referendum, when he complained that Scotland had voted to remain in the EU but was being denied this and thus it was not democracy. As Scotland had already previously voted to stay in the UK, each adult in Scotland, like in the rest of the UK, had exactly one vote. As a city/region, London voted to remain, but didn't get the majority wish, because the referendum was held across the UK as a single whole.

It seems to be a widely-held conspiracy that we do whatever England wants, but whenever UK-wide issues are voted on, whether on a constituency or an individual basis, of course 85% of the say is going to come from where 85% of the people happen to live. Yes, we have four home nations, but how would it possibly have been fair if every Scottish/Welsh/NI vote in the referendum had counted for 6 times as much as every English vote? Even if we had done it on a home nation basis, it was still two either way.

Meanwhile, somebody in the audience complained at not having had ONE vote in the Brexit referendum (as an under-18 at the time) and yet their grandparents (plural and obviously both over 18) had been allowed TWO votes, so how could this possibly be democracy?!

If you don't like the system or if you want national independence, then great - campaign and vote whenever able to change it. But democracy, for good or bad, hasn't been denied to you just because more people in your constituency or country wanted something different from you - this is exactly what democracy is, in fact.

Am I missing something here? Do a lot of people think that democracy = what they as an individual want - or do they have a valid point?

Haha! Same here 😀

I live in the new speaker's constituency. Only Green and an Independent are standing against him. Lots of people not happy and I know it was the same in Bercow's seat.

I live in a safe Tory seat and I do feel my vote is wasted, although I will vote.

It's our system, if we had some form of PR, everyone's votes would count. As it is, it's the marginals that decide the result of the election and so some votes count more than others.

I do think the young woman in the audience had a point about young people, who have the most to lose, not having the opportunity to vote on Brexit (or in the General Election for that matter).

Part of political apathy among the young seems to derive from their being prohibited from participating in the democratic process until they turn 18.

If that happens to be shortly after a General Election, your first opportunity to cash your vote may be when you're 23.

The voting age needs to be lowered.

cast your vote obviously!

I was speaking to a candidate about this the other day. I live in a safe seat, and he mentioned that even if a challenger doesn't get in, the share of the national vote is still seen as indicating support for that party.

I think the UK should switch to voting by ranking candidates, keeping the link of 1 constituency = 1 MP while giving smaller parties more chance to boost support.

We've had 22 years of our Tory MP and not a cat's chanc in hell of getting the useless, pompous wotsit out.
I'm spoiling my vote on Thursday because quite frankly not one of the alternatives appeals to me.

I disagree that the man from Scotland doesn’t understand democracy. One of the main arguments in the Scottish Independence referendum was that it would force Scotland out of Europe. It was one of the key reasons for my no vote. Scotland is now being dragged out largely due to an English vote - Scotland’s voice has been completely ignored.

True, but Scotland as an independent country would have been/would be no longer in the EU whereas Scotland as part of a majority-Brexit-voting UK is still leaving the EU, so what's the difference really? The choice in Indyref apropos Brexit was to either leave the UK and guarantee leaving the EU or stay in the UK and maybe end up staying or maybe end up leaving the EU.

London is also being dragged out of the EU against the majority view - how has their voice been any less ignored than Scotland's concerning Brexit? The same is true of everybody in the UK who voted to remain - their voice is now being ignored because that of the people who wanted to leave was slightly louder.

Yes, 62% of Scottish voters were left disappointed, but so were 46% of English voters and 47% of Welsh voters. If you're part of a club, you only have the same equal say as any other person in that club. If you don't like the club rules, you exercise your right to leave - and it was the Scottish people alone who were allowed to decide whether or not to leave the club - none of the other three home nations can be blamed or held accountable for Scotland's choice to stay in.

The only way Scotland could possibly have stayed in the EU was if a sizeable proportion of people in England and Wales in the Brexit referendum had been disenfranchised or forced/bribed/persuaded to vote against what they individually wanted. How could Scotland have possibly democratically stayed in the EU?

YANBU.

There are legitimate arguments for it, but I don't agree with FPTP.

I expected the Torries will win this election at a canter but, based on current polling, right-wing parties (Cons, Brexit) will get around 45% of the vote, compared to around 55% for left-wing parties (Lab, LD, Green, SNP & Plaid).

That indicates a hell of a lot of 'wasted' votes.

Not that we'll see reform in our lifetimes.

Every adult may indeed have one vote, but each vote does not have the same value. I mean that quite literally too - political parties will not spend the same money campaigning in safe seats as they do in marginals. They literally spend different amounts of money to win each vote. And that's before we even get to constituencies of different vote sizes.

As for him misunderstanding what democracy is, he's right - we don't actually live in a proper democracy (logistically I can't see how that would even function), we live in a representative democracy, and in a particularly unfair system of FPTP. "Tyranny of the majority" is a particular problem with both referenda and FPTP (or any system which results in single-party government), and is something which Scotland is often the victim of. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a recognised phenomenon.

I’ve lived in safe Tory seats all my adult life and a safe Labour seat as a child, when obviously I couldn’t vote, but was influenced by my parents voting habits.

I lived in the constituency of a candidate for the leadership, for many years. It’s a family based area, not populated by older people, but has been Tory for ever. Now I live on the south coast, where the population is more transient, but again, not older people. Rather, a younger population, who move frequently. That’s been Tory for ever too.

I don’t know who to vote for. The party I might have gone for have some policies that I disagree with and they are high profile enough to make me think I can’t vote for them. I will vote, but I feel somewhat disenfranchised and that there isn’t a party that speaks to me. Obviously, that’s the same for many people, but some compromises are a step too far.

I think to assume a safe seat will always remain safe is pessimistic. If you build it, they will come.

Every adult may indeed have one vote, but each vote does not have the same value. I mean that quite literally too - political parties will not spend the same money campaigning in safe seats as they do in marginals. They literally spend different amounts of money to win each vote. And that's before we even get to constituencies of different vote sizes.

I agree with the last bit about different-sized constituencies, but otherwise, each vote DOES have the same intrinsic value. The parties care far more and make more effort to win votes which they don't feel they can take for granted, but that doesn't mean that those 'assumed' votes could not freely be changed at any time if the voters chose to do so.

It's the same as when you call a company and tell them you're planning to leave them, they frequently come up with a much better deal to keep you. Customers who have been with them for 30 years and have never made a fuss don't receive unsolicited calls or letters from the company offering them the same great deal. In fact, in the case of insurances, they usually hike the price for longstanding, non-complaining customers. It doesn't mean they value their custom any less, just that they take them for granted and don't feel the need to spend any time or money in wooing them.

Just out of interest, how do people who live in the Speaker's constituency feel about effectively being partially disenfranchised? Why aren't they furious - or do they only choose speakers from rock-solid safe seats (in which case, why worry about opposition who would never win anyway)?

Could somebody well-known and well-respected not stand as an independent in the speaker's seat, orchestrate a huge publicity campaign and at least not go quietly, even if they don't win?

There are legitimate arguments for it, but I don't agree with FPTP.

There are few, if any, legitimate arguments for FPTP. It polarises the vote and effectively disenfranchises those who actually do vote if their party of choice has no chance of winning in a constituency. It is also significant that up to a third of all eligible voters in the UK choose not to vote at all.

The UK is only one of two EU countries that uses FPTP. Everywhere else uses some form of proportional representation. The other major democracies that use FPTP are largely ex-British colonies, including the USA, where Trump was elected despite not gaining the majority of votes cast (Clinton received 2.87 million more votes than Trump did) and where only 55% of the electorate voted in 2016.

PR has at least two key advantages. 1) Every vote counts and voters have the opportunity to vote for a party that reflects their political opinion and has a reasonable chance of entering Parliament 2) It does not often produce an absolute victor, so parties have to co-operate and compromise in order for Parliament to function. Compare and contrast this with the appalling confrontational farce that characterises Westminster.

Unfortunately the two main political parties in England and Wales have developed into symbiotic twins, each as bad as the other, feeding off each other and ganging up on anyone who challenges their position. The LibDems came close to upsetting this arrangement, but were then properly shafted by the Conservatives when they climbed into bed with them in 2010.

I think to assume a safe seat will always remain safe is pessimistic. If you build it, they will come.

Exactly. This is why it irritates me when politicians and journalists talk about losing Labour/Tory/Lib Dem votes. A vote cast at the last election has now expired, is now worthless and cannot be lost or won any more. It has effectively been replaced by a brand new voting opportunity, which the holder can freely use to vote for the same party, a different one or choose not to use at all. Until and unless the new vote is cast, it belongs to nobody, so it cannot be lost by any candidate.

We had a referendum on AV in 2011. It bombed

Webuilthisbffet it's the potential outcome* of each vote that renders it its value in a FPRP system.

My vote is worth nothing as I live in a safe seat - it will not change the outcome ie which party MP is elected.

It would not be worth nothing in a marginal - it could influence the outcome.

It would also not worthless in a PR system.

It's not the 'intrinsic value' that counts; it's what impact if any it has on external outcomes.

I live in the newly elected speakers region. No major parties will stand against him. So basically my vote doesn't count I can either vote for the speaker for the next ten years or whatever independent crackpots stand up. It's driving me insane. The speaker should be given an honorary position and then the seat opened up to new MP candidates for all parties.

I don't actually think that coalition governments are bad things at all. Surely they represent a much better form of democracy, if the MPs have been proportionally elected. If twice as many people vote for a party, then they should get twice as much representation as you, but that doesn't mean you should get nothing at all.

Unfortunately the two main political parties in England and Wales have developed into symbiotic twins, each as bad as the other, feeding off each other and ganging up on anyone who challenges their position.

I 100% agree. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I think the squabbling between Labour and the Conservatives is a little bit like how the Big 4 supermarkets used to behave, as if 97% of people's grocery shopping money was already going to be split between them and it was just up to them to fight for their own share of that money. Then, the likes of Aldi and Lidl came almost of nowhere and have taken a huge amount of their shares right from under their noses.

The amount of people who abstained from voting was higher than the amount who voted Tory.
And the amount who voted Tory was less than the total who voted for something else.

My vote is worth nothing as I live in a safe seat - it will not change the outcome ie which party MP is elected.

But it isn't! As a PP said, you could just as easily say that the votes of people wanting to vote for the majority party in a safe seat are worth nothing too. As an individual, they happen to get what they wanted, but there would still have been no change had they not used their vote.

It's not the 'intrinsic value' that counts; it's what impact if any it has on external outcomes.

I get that this may make voting pointless but it still doesn't reduce the actual value of every individual vote, whether the majority choice or any other - and even safe seats can swing, as we saw in 1997.

A pound isn't much money, but a million pounds is loads. A millionaire could lose a pound in the street and not notice it gone, but if they lost a pound one million times, they most certainly would notice it.

We had a referendum on AV in 2011. It bombed

Correct - but AV is not Proportional Representation; it is a poor version of FPTP. The Conservatives campaigned against AV and Labour was at best lukewarm. Less than half of the electorate voted, and of those that did, 68% voted against AV. Some because they preferred the current system. Some because they saw that AV was not truly PR anyway.

It’s a bit over simplistic to claim there are no safe seats. Some places would elect a nematode worm with the appropriate rosette.

I live in safe Tory seat - been Tory for over 120 years
I still vote because I always will vote, but I do understand why some people will feel that it is pointless to do so in an area like this

Yep, same. Our Tory MP got around 60% of the vote in 2017. I will of course vote, but it's hard to feel like a non-conservative vote counts for much here under FPTP.