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?

I looked up the numbers in the last GE in my very safe Tory seat.
If every registered voter who didn't vote had voted and had voted for the second place candidate - still would be a Tory seat.

Safe Tory seat here too. However I feel I can't moan about how shit they are unless I vote for another party, so just voting for the privilege of complaining.

so just voting for the privilege of complaining.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

I hear ya!

My area is a VERRRRRY safe Tory seat, like around 80%, as the demographic is mostly middle class/upper class.

I know the bloody Tory twonk is going to win, but no WAY will I vote Tory.

I mean, if everyone thought 'why bother as my vote won't count?!' Nothing would ever change, and we would have Tories in forever.

They're gonna win though, and it IS depressing to think we could have these clowns for another 5 years.

I blame Jeremy Corbyn. Sorry to his fans, but lots of people don't like him, and have deserted the party in droves. He is the reason the Tories keep winning (IMO.)

The best moment of the general election in 1997 was Michael Portillo losing his ‘safe seat’. It was a truly glorious thing to watch.

There is no such thing as a safe seat! We just need a decent party in opposition. Unfortunately, there are none at the moment.

@theemmadilemma, at least Adam Afriye is a decent MP.

There is no such thing as a safe seat!
I am afraid this is simply not true - certainly not in the short to medium term. There certainly are many seats that haven’t changed hands for years and won’t at this election

If you vote in a place where the majority of people do not share your political views then you don't have the chance to shape Parliament. If we had true PR, everybody's vote would go towards deciding how Parliament is made up. My constituency has been strongly Tory since it's creation before my birth. I always vote but it's hard not to feel that it's pointless.

Well she’s right. Obviously people should vote anyway of course!
FPTP is dodgy as feck.

I think you have to look at it as casting a warning to the safe party: if you don’t vote, there is an assumption of voter apathy rather than them seeing the actual number of votes against them. All of us have a part to play, even if all we can do is show the winning party that they might have the majority but they don’t have us all.

Expanding on what Sotired just said...

I think it's also helpful to think that a vote, even if it is for the party who didn't win in your constituency, still has some effect. For a start it might be a step towards the safe seat not being safe in years to come - these things do change. Also, it sends a message to those running in future elections about what voters want - ie exerts some pull on political developments. I'm not saying one vote makes a massive difference, but the ballot box is one place where every voice is recorded and politicians who want to get votes at the following election take heed.

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?
If the Referendum had been run properly and not just a bullshit, fucked up arse of a thing, it would have stipulated a majority in each of the regions. Possibly even a super majority. Then we wouldn't have this shambolic mess that is Brexit IV, Another Bollocking Balls Up.

Yanbu at all. I’m able to vote for the first time (naturalised foreign national). I’m a Jew in a Labour stronghold 🤷‍♀️.

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?

If the Referendum had been run properly and not just a bullshit, fucked up arse of a thing, it would have stipulated a majority in each of the regions. Possibly even a super majority. Then we wouldn't have this shambolic mess that is Brexit IV, Another Bollocking Balls Up.

So you believe that, had fewer than 700,000 people in NI voted to remain and every adult in Wales, Scotland and England voted to leave, it would have been perfectly fair and democratic to let 700,000 people override all of the rest and decide on behalf of 67 million people, just by virtue of where in the UK they happen to live?

Another safe seater here and yes I will be voting.

As I've said elsewhere I'm in two minds in the FPTP v PR debate. PR definitely seems fairer but can lead to less local knowledge on the MPs part and no relationship with local issues (on which the good ones can and do help). It can also lead to endless negotiating and delays over enacting legislation (er .... just like a hung parliament, but those until recently have been rarer).

I would like mandatory voting. Nearly two thirds of 18-24 y o are thought to have voted in 2017 and similarly in the Referendum. In my previous area, those young people would have been pro Brexit and Tory, so that's not my argument. It's just if you have a vote you should use it - and that includes council elections.

I would also like better monitoring of postal voting. I can understand those away for work or incapable of getting to their constituency in time should be able to exercise their vote by post but it seems open to abuse.

It would have raised the question, should NI remain in the UK. Given the research that shows that English people swung it in Wales, perhaps it's time for England to decide if it wishes to be part of the UK.

Most of scotland used to be either Tory or Labour with Glasgow and Clydeside very Labour. The SNP changed that in the last 20 years. If you feel strongly about a party I'd also join it and campaign for it.

There is no such thing as a safe seat!
There are more than 120 seats across England and Wales which have not changed hands in the Commons since 1945 with the Conservatives retaining a majority of them.
Conservatives have held 76 seats and Labour 47 since World War II

I would also like better monitoring of postal voting. I can understand those away for work or incapable of getting to their constituency in time should be able to exercise their vote by post but it seems open to abuse.
I've used a postal vote for the last 15 + years - what abuse do you think it's open to?

YABU. I don't think people think their vote literally isn't counted if they live in a safe seat.

This might make interesting reading when it’s published
www.electoral-reform.org.uk/introducing-the-ers-general-election-results-hub/
From the Electoral Reform Society
“ When you talk to people from outside politics, they often think that seats automatically match how the public vote. The idea that if more people vote for a party nationally, that party will win more seats or that the majority of people voted for the government are common. With the ERS’ General Election Results Hub, we’re putting the flaws of our voting system at the centre of election night.”

It would have raised the question, should NI remain in the UK. Given the research that shows that English people swung it in Wales, perhaps it's time for England to decide if it wishes to be part of the UK.

Very true. I presume you mean English people who've moved to live in Wales? I don't see what difference it makes, though - if it's a UK-wide referendum, what does it matter where in the UK people live?

Indyref was different, as it was Scotland's choice whether to stay or leave, so people in the rest of the UK were rightly excluded. However, there were complaints then that Scottish people who had left Scotland to live elsewhere in the UK/world would not get a vote whereas other Brits and people from elsewhere in the world who had moved and taken up residence in Scotland would get a vote.

I think the complainers were very out of order there as, if you're a member of a 'club' - in this case the 'living in Scotland' club - you would be very much affected by the decision whereas those not in the 'club' would not be nearly as greatly affected, if at all.

There were plenty of Brexit-voters who were 100% non-English and plenty of Remain-voters who were fully English. If something affects the whole of the UK, I personally don't see it as important where in the UK a voter lives in that case.

If any of the four home nations believes differently and wants to go it alone, they need to campaign for a referendum and put it to the people in the nation in question. If we're all in a union and there's no majority desire within any nation for it to leave the union, then we're all in together.

I've used a postal vote for the last 15 + years - what abuse do you think it's open to?

There have been a number of concerns raised where postal votes have been potentially intercepted - less commonly at a post office/postal delivery level and more usually at a family/household level.

Given that many people requesting a postal vote will be doing so because of disability, frailty or other vulnerability, it could be very easy for a carer or other household member to get to the post first and use the vote for their own preferences, knowing or suspecting that the actual rightful voter would have voted differently.

There have also been reports of households where coercion or control is exerted by one family member and the other adults in the household are either 'told' how they must vote or the abuser simply fills them all the forms in and returns them without the other voter(s) ever seeing them.

Granted, this is unlikely to be the most personally damaging kind of abuse that people in such situations are going to suffer, but it is still very much abuse.

At least, if you turn up in person, you are given the ballot and publicly seen going to a booth on your own. It's very far from ideal, but at least you could choose your own voting preference and then lie to your abuser in the next booth afterwards as to how you voted. Shortly before you make and cement your plans to get away from them for good, one would hope.

YABU. I don't think people think their vote literally isn't counted if they live in a safe seat.

Neither do I - it's just the underlying implication that a minority-voting person's individual vote counts less than a majority-voting person's does. We've already discussed the many failings of the FPTP system, but whilst we have that system, no vote counts any less than any other within a particular constituency. If a seat has 70,000 voters and 60,000 of them invariably vote for Party A every time, that's 60,000 different people in total - i.e. a majority - all individually making their choice and casting their votes accordingly. It isn't like somebody can buy a block of 30,000 virtual votes to get them started before the actual people start casting their real votes.

If you support a candidate who is not from the party that invariably wins the seat by a landslide, it makes perfect sense to believe and state that it's pointless for you to vote or that your vote will change nothing; but it is simply wrong (and a bit arrogant) to suggest that it doesn't count. It DOES count, exactly as much as each individual vote for the majority-winning party counts.

If you genuinely believe that your vote doesn't count, I would ask what you believe should be done to make it count. The only solution I can think of would be to randomly discard the votes of thousands of other people who are profiled and known to favour the majority party (or simply disenfranchise them), to give you a better chance of getting your own choice - which would be thoroughly undemocratic and would therefore very much mean that their individual votes didn't count.

PR definitely seems fairer but can lead to less local knowledge on the MPs part and no relationship with local issues (on which the good ones can and do help)

There are versions of PR where voters have the choice between voting for Party X or for a named Party X candidate in a constituency. Either way, the vote counts for Party X on a national level, but the local candidate can be elected if they attract sufficient personal votes.

E.g. Under this system, Party X expects to win 50 seats nationally. Usually the party will nominate a ranked list of candidates, from say 1-70, so if they win 50 seats, the first 50 names on the list are chosen to sit in Parliament, with an average vote of say 25,000 votes. Candidate Y, a popular candidate in her city, is only number 55 on the list, so would not usually be elected. However, she gets 30,000 personal votes in her constituency. This automatically moves her further up the Party list, so she is elected, at the expense of #50 on the list.