Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

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:
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.

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.

MintHumbug · 09/05/2010 12:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HamShine · 09/05/2010 12:48

"You vote for the party you agree with and then broker deals with other parties which may or may not be what you voted for!" Yes, but they may well be what other people voted for, and that's what the parliament is for - otehr people as well as you...

Chil1234 · 09/05/2010 12:58

That's not how the disaffected LDs see it though, is it? The very people demanding PR as their top priority should be the first to step up to the plate to help their leader make a PR-like outcome work in practice. Instead they're chucking words around like 'betrayed' and 'unfair' already.

theyoungvisiter · 09/05/2010 12:59

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

Well actually no, the biggest number of people DIDN'T vote for them. The majority of the country would prefer not to have a tory government and voted for other parties - hence why we are in a hung parliament situation. If the majority of the country had wanted the Tories then we would have a Tory majority and a Tory government.

The point is now to find a working alliance which most people in the country are happy with. Hence the search for a coalition.

Pogleswood · 09/05/2010 13:08

Was just going to post the same thing,theyoungvisiter!
74% of the population didn't vote Tory,after all.

Pogleswood · 09/05/2010 13:09

Whoops,arithmatic breakdown there - make that 64%...

policywonk · 09/05/2010 13:19

Wake up and smell the coffee, people - FPTP is broken. It has delivered a hung parliament - we don't have anything to fear from PR any more, because FPTP is starting to deliver the same outcome, just in a much more unfair and distorted way (LibDems got 23% of the vote and 10% of the seats - anyone want to argue that that's fair?)

UK isn't a two-party country any more; it's a multi-party country. Hung parls are going to be the norm from now on anyway - might as well have a representative hung parl rather than a massively distorted one.

electra · 09/05/2010 13:20

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

No, the system would not be fair unless the party with the most seats won by enough seats. There has to be enough of a margin. As it is there are a lot of swing voters who don't feel convinced by DC and the Tory's proposed agenda for the country. (I'm talking about swing voters too - not people like myself who would never ever vote tory). If they were they would have won with a big enough majority. But the fact of the matter is that they haven't won by enough of a margin.

People talk about the 2005 election and Tony Blair winning the same number of votes or whatever but this was right after the Iraq war, where Tony Blair's popularity had waned considerably as a result.

If the Tories can't do any better than this after 13 years as the opposition, with a shiny new image, media support and up against a hugely unpopular PM.......then there must be a very good reason why many are not convinced by them. Perhaps we are now generally a more progressive and tolerant UK than the conservatives would want and people see that they would seek to take us back.

Chil1234 · 09/05/2010 13:24

"Hung parls are going to be the norm from now on anyway - might as well have a representative hung parl rather than a massively distorted one."

Which is fair comment. But, assuming the LDs reach agreement with the Tories this time, how likely is it that they'll retain the support of their voters? The number of LD people I've seen saying 'so betrayed' 'next time I'm voting Labour' suggests that they're not feeling all that comfortable with what a balanced parliament means in practice....

toccatanfudge · 09/05/2010 13:24

what amuses me is that a hung parliament is quite common in some parts of the world (I belive many European countries have them?) yet some Brits seem to think it's a really awful thing.

theyoungvisiter · 09/05/2010 13:24

"Wake up and smell the coffee, people - FPTP is broken."

Oo Pol I'm loving the new shouty style

I imagined you striding into the room and banging your fist on the table making all us jaded posters jump and drop our pens.

wannaBe · 09/05/2010 13:28

so what do people think will happen when we have another election in October?

If we go to a system of PR are people happy knowing that the bnp got the fourth largest number of votes and thus that some of their members will be in parliament? And that more people will vote for them knowing that their vote won't be wasted?

Chil1234 · 09/05/2010 13:32

"some Brits seem to think it's a really awful thing."

Balanced parliaments have not been our tradition so far. The first opportunity we get to bring UK politics in line with the European model and form working coalitions is a good test-run for political reform. However, it seems that the people most upset with the process right now are the ones that have been pressing for exactly this situation all along.

Which is ironic.

policywonk · 09/05/2010 13:32

wannaBe - yes, that's the price you pay. I can live with that. It's called democracy. There'd also be waaaay more Green MPs, UKIP MPs, socialist MPs, nationalist MPs - people's views actually getting represented! Shocking!

I voted LibDem and I can live with them getting into bed with the Tories if they extract electoral reform as a concession. If they don't - woe betide them, frankly. They're going to lose a lot of support.

toccatanfudge · 09/05/2010 13:32

5th largest number of votes actually wannabe

Coolfonz · 09/05/2010 13:33

Tories got 36pc of the turnout, which was 65pc of registered voters, which was ?xxpc? of the adult population eligible to vote.

FPTP is always a minority govt, we live in an oligarchy not a democracy. Real power in the hands of a tiny pocket-lining elite.

The Tories got 22.75pc of reg'd voters by my maths...

policywonk · 09/05/2010 13:35

Other countries still using FPTP: Nepal, Azerbaijan, Yeman & Tonga. Good company, eh?

PR in various forms is used in Scotland and Wales already. Their parliament/assembly works just fine. Not to mention just about every other European country.

toccatanfudge · 09/05/2010 13:41

the risk of having BNP types in parliament is a risk I would also be prepared to pay for peoples votes actually counting.

Perhaps if people knew their vote would actually count for something if they're not voting for Con/Lab they would be more inclined to go out and vote

Coolfonz · 09/05/2010 13:42

but 500,000+ people voted bnp, why shouldn't they have mps?

theyoungvisiter · 09/05/2010 13:43

yes I agree. I hate and detest the BNP but disenfranchising people is not the answer.

Jux · 09/05/2010 13:43

I think this is quite a good thing really. Now whatever legislation the Government tries to enact, they will have to make a really good case for.

If it's sensible and clearly in the country's interests then MPs from other parties will vote in favour of it.

If it's not, or the general populace make enough of a fuss, then other MPs won't back it.

Presumably.

It would be interesting to see.

HamShine · 09/05/2010 13:44

Would PR not reduce the risk of people voting BNP as a protest vote?

Pogleswood · 09/05/2010 13:50

wannaBe,I don't think it is right to bar people from representation,however much I might disagree with their views.Also,to deny representation to a much larger group of people because letting them be representated in parliament will also invove the BNP having MPs seems distinctly undemocratic,and gives the BNP more influence than they deserve.

Swipe left for the next trending thread