very upset and angry

Discussion in 'THE AIGBURTH ARMS' started by neilold, Jun 8, 2017.

  1. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    Anyways sorry if I've insulted anybody with my general stupidity, but my upset still stands. I'm mostly upset about the process, not ukip singularly. plus at general elections, the fact that you vote for the leader of the country , rather than the local candidate is even more reason for it to be like I said, as far as I'm concerned.
     
  2. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    I do know we have a different system than first past the post, which by the way I also have issues with, I just thought it was different at general elections, who you voted for, not the actual system itself that is,
     
  3. Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century

    Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century Supply Officer

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Location:
    Deep Space in the 15th Century
    You don't actually vote for the leader of the country per se. The Prime Minister is not directly elected, the Prime Minister is just the leader of the party with the most seats. And the seats are technically MPs representing constituencies who only happen to be from the same party.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
  4. jmc2000

    jmc2000 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,517
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Concisely put.

    @neilold - the point of a general election is to pick someone who will represent your area at a national (rather than local) level.

    Among other things, MPs help someone become prime minister, by holding a seat for that person's party. If none of your candidates will do that for UKIP, you have no way of supporting UKIP in a general election.
     
  5. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    I know it's just smegty deep space.

    As for voting in another area, not possible, you have a specific voter number on the electoral register, for a certain area within you town. That's why you don't need to take a card to vote. You're already down on the sheets. This is done to making voting easier and to stop that precise idea, one of going to numerous polling stations and multiple voting. It does make thinks inconvenient and as my ordinal rant states v upsetting to the serious voter, but specificalky in the case of fraud prevention it's worth it, mind you they rig the boundaries anyway, so I guess it's by the by

    I will say this, we have a good process for casting you're vote in this country, it's simple, effective and convenient
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
    PeeJayHarvey likes this.
  6. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    I know that jmc, I just think it should be different in a general election, there should be a vote for general leadership of the country, and another one for local elections, though thanks for clarifying matey. it smacks of anti democracy to have to have an mp representing your area in order to vote for the national interest rather than doing so indirectly for the local one. Not that first past the post is much better, that has huge democratic law process issues. I know local MPs are important for bolstering governmental party support, they're also important for local councils to, I just think in general elections it should be about national democracy foremost


    Also my original moan and disillusionment stands!
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  7. Pembers

    Pembers Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,449
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Location:
    London
    So Neil, you were expecting to see something like

    May
    Corbyn
    Farron
    Lucas/Bartley
    Nuttal
    Stergeon

    on your ballot paper?

    I don't mean to be rude but from what I gather you aren't an especially young man, and seem (as you say) quite interested in politics, this can't be the first GE you've voted in?
     
  8. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    No it isn't. I expected to see that yes. Also the name of the local candidate below that. I think I always have in my area, except this ti..e, and that's what's confused me. I still think in general election times it should be like abovr, the sets of names, one for leadership candidates, and one for local xandidates
     
  9. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    Yeah, it's an inherently bias and outdated system. A lot of Green Party supporters have the same problem. Sometimes smaller parties choose not to run in certain areas, and in other cases they're unable to do so due to the costs involved. My local Green Party is hanging on by a thread due to a lack of finances.

    The only way I know of being able (or trying) to vote in another area is doing a vote swap. There are various online systems set up for that, but it's risky as it means having to trust whoever you're pledging to swap with. And since there's no legally binding agreement involved, they could of course just claim to be voting for your chosen party, but actually vote for their own.
     
  10. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    Yep I think it's a bit dodgy myself doing that. I don't think I'd want to commit fraud, as angry and upset as I am. I'd rather the system change itself . I'd much rather it was a problem system. Though that's certainly going it's own faults to.
     
  11. Abe

    Abe Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Location:
    Tomorrow
    Neil, is this an official announcement that you'll be running next time around?
     
  12. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    I can't be worse than the shower we currently have!
     
  13. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    It's not committing fraud. People are entitled to vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason (apart from being paid to do so). Unless money is exchanging hands, vote Swapping is not illegal, it's just risky due to the reliance on mutual trust. But yeah, I agree that the electoral system needs to change.
     
  14. Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century

    Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century Supply Officer

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Location:
    Deep Space in the 15th Century
    To the best of my knowledge, British ballots have never looked like that. It wouldn't make sense. There's only one Nuttal. So if Nuttal ran in every constituency, what happens if several elect him, which one does he represent? This would mean there'd just be the leaders in the House and they'd be leading empty seats. There's 650 constituencies. Whilst the prospect of 650 Nuttals sitting in the House of Commons would be a brilliant exercise in surrealism, candidates are only allowed to stand in one constituency for this reason.

    There are no "Leadership Candidates" in a FPTP general election per se. Parties decide their own leader. In the general election you are asked to vote for an MP to represent your constituency. You are never actually asked directly who you want to run the country. But usually people vote for the MP representing the party that they want to run the country, to boost that party's seats, because party politics dominate the discourse. No one cares about or understands the concept of an MP going into the House and doing something to help a particular constituency anymore. Maybe that meant something to people before the Industrial Revolution, but nowdays someone in Truro can get on their phone and have a blazing row about the terrorist attack in London with a stranger in Aberdeen. The idea that constituencies mean anything has long since faded away and all people understand is national party politics.

    The House of Commons decides national issues, so it should be decided by a national vote. You should be able to vote for any UK party from anywhere in the UK, but you can't, because the system is schizophrenic. It answers a question that it doesn't actually ask. It thinks it's still like that episode of Blackadder where Baldrick runs for office. Though with some of the people elected, maybe it's not far off.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  15. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    Like I said I'd probably prefer a pr system. Not that that's trouble free. As the coalition problems we now face will prove. I know what you mean in what you said. I could have sworn i have seen different though. Anyway my original issues still stand regardless. I guess I was so angry and upset about not being able to vote for my party it clouded my mind someehat, and I still am. Not that it makes a difference overall now, now they're dead ducks anyway.
     
  16. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    Oh, I assumed voting swapping was illegal. I actually think it should be, like I said I'd much prefer an overall system change,than it be down to this kind of thing, everytime
     
  17. Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century

    Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century Supply Officer

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Location:
    Deep Space in the 15th Century
    The fact that there are (apparently) vote swapping systems online just goes to show how crazy it is. "I live in this place so my vote won't count. I'll vote for your party in my area if you vote for my party in yours".

    I'm confused by the concept. Who's going to vote UKIP for you somewhere else? The only person who would vote UKIP for you would be someone who was going to vote UKIP anyway so what's the point, or someone who doesn't care about politics so they wouldn't be on a vote swapping site in the first place, or a Green-supporter in an area where a UKIP candidate is running but unlikely to win, so again what's the point. Plus I can't imagine a Green-voter and a UKIP-voter trusting each other to vote for parties that are their respective anathemas. I suppose a Eurosceptic Tory-supporter might offer to vote UKIP for you if you vote Tory for them, but a UKIP-supporter who can't vote UKIP would probably vote Tory anyway, wouldn't they?
     
  18. Pembers

    Pembers Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,449
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Location:
    London
    I'm certainly in favour of electoral reform, something closer to proportional representation. It's silly that parties like the Greens and UKIP can get half a million votes each and only have 1 MP between them, yet the SNP get a million votes and have over 30. The Lib Dems who got more than double the number of votes of the SNP but have a 1/3 the no of MP's.

    First past the post works for a 2 party system, you both put candidates against each other in each constituency and whoever wins the most 'matches' wins, kind of like the Ryder Cup.

    But with 5 or 6 parties getting at least half a million votes then that system doesn't work. The problem is in many ways it's a fair system, you vote for a member of parliament to represent your local area and its issues. I'm not really sure how to make it fairer, I guess something along the lines of the amount of votes you get from the public affecting the weight of your vote in the house of commons, but I'm really not educated enough on this to say much more.
     
  19. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    5,774
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    above you all in cheshire
    I prefer my idea that at general election times only, votes count towards the actual parliamentary members, rather than local candidates being part of the bigger picture. So basically you would have 2 sets of names on the paper, one which went towards your local candidate, which counted towards your local mp in a regional sense, and another with the party leaders. which went towards a national vote. Of course, this leads to a situation where you could vote labour local, and national conservative, which is confusing, but it also offers the advantages of enabling you to vote from a larger list of national candidates, that isn't reliant on a local candidate running.

    Plus people vote for regional and national reasons anyway in a general election. therefore it wouldn't be that radically different in theory, and yearly local elections would still be ran the same way, thus enabling you to alter the structure of local candidates. Whichever system you use though, its still gonna have big problems and big effects, both on the ability to actually vote for your party, and on constantly being in a coalition status, which weakens the vote process when it comes to voting on specific parliamentary laws
     
  20. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia

    The basic idea is to swap with people who live in areas where your chosen party has a more realistic chance of winning, and of whom share your passion for keeping out a particular party.

    So for example, back in 2015 I came across numerous Green party supporters who swapped with Labour voters in other areas. Because, realistically, our local Green Party had no chance of beating the depressingly strong local Tories. Whereas the local Labour party had a genuine chance of beating them.

    Meanwhile, the Green Party had a much better chance of winning in other areas (Brighton being the most obvious example) in which Labour had much less chance. Therefore swapping would, in theory, make sense for both vote swappers by means of giving their respective parties more votes, whilst working together to keep the Tories out.

    I'm not entirely sure how well this would or wouldn't translate to Ukip and Tory voters as some of them seem to hate one another as much as they hate all the other parties. But I suspect some Tory/Ukip voters would swap if they felt it would be of benefit to them.
     

Share This Page