Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform

Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 6:38:27 AM)
As promised to Northern Gent, here is item 1 of my proposals to improve Britain; COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Proportional representation is a must for all elections - at national, county/city, district and town levels. This results in a far fairer representation in a democracy, and though it has its own potential issues, it is not flawed - as is the current system, where in a Tory area (for example - it works also for Labour and Lib Dem), a turd would be elected if it was painted blue, thus discounting a majority who didnt vote Tory, because of the "first past the post" system we have now. This also removes or at least alleviates the problem of big business, media and other lobbies effectively choosing the government by bankrolling/backing the election campaign of which ever party meets their interests, rather than the interests of the people. CAMPAIGN FUNDING In that latter aspect, we will also state fund political parties' election campaigns. There will be a minimum membership requirement for parties to receive such state funding, which should remove "nuisance" parties, established purely for the purposes of abusing the system. Members will still fund the establishment costs of the party and its day to day activities, but state funds will be used for campaigning. These state funds will be issued to a universally applicable value - no qualifying party may derive more than others, and no qualifying party may spend its own funds in campaigning, over and above the state granted funds. All unused funds must be repaid to the state when the campaign is over, along with full accounts of where, when, on what and how much was spent. This will create a level playing field, avoid the loans fiasco we recently experienced (still ongoing), and also remove the influence of those lobbies who might bankroll a party. Taxpayers will object of course, but must be convinced that this strategy is far better for our democracy than the current arrangement. WEIGHTED VOTES Thirdly, we will do away with the notion of one person, one vote. This system supposes that an 18 year old has an opinion of equal weight to a 60 year old who has far greater experience of life. This system also supposes that the opinion of an educated professional is of no greater worth than that of someone with no qualifications at all. Instead, we will recognise that whilst all must have a say, some opinions are simply far better informed than others, in the same way that a concentration camp victim has a far better informed view on naziism than some skinhead hoodlum with a swastika tattoo. One will still only be permitted to vote for one candidate, but votes will be weighted according to experience and awareness. At 18 years of age, one receives one vote. At 30 years of age, one receives two votes, and then accrues a further vote for every additional 10 years of experience, to a maximum 5 votes at age 60 or over. Less than 5 GCSEs at C or above, will result in no further vote. Milestones for educational levels will then be used to determine between one and five additional votes. Persons serving prison sentence of five or more years in each ten year rolling period, will suffer loss of one vote for each year served over 4 years. Thus at age 30, a GP might receive 2 votes based on experience, and 5 votes based on awareness - 7 votes. A 25 year old PhD student would receive 1 vote for experience and 5 votes for awareness - 6 votes. A 40 year old with no qualifications would receive 3 votes for experience and 0 for awareness - 3 votes. DESIRED RESULTS Everyone takes part in elections which give them a voice. Campaigns are judged by the electorate on the policies, not on the amount and quality of advertising. People are empowered to choose candidates without interference from lobby groups. People are given the consideration they deserve, rather than being treated as all as stupid/clever as one another. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 8:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen As promised to Northern Gent, here is item 1 of my proposals to improve Britain; COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. I can go along with compulsory voting as long as there is an abstention box. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Proportional representation is a must for all elections - at national, county/city, district and town levels. This results in a far fairer representation in a democracy, and though it has its own potential issues, it is not flawed - as is the current system, where in a Tory area (for example - it works also for Labour and Lib Dem), a turd would be elected if it was painted blue, thus discounting a majority who didnt vote Tory, because of the "first past the post" system we have now. This also removes or at least alleviates the problem of big business, media and other lobbies effectively choosing the government by bankrolling/backing the election campaign of which ever party meets their interests, rather than the interests of the people. This has my vote. Living in a country with PR I can see how good it works and how quick parliament can change. Not a bad thing. CAMPAIGN FUNDING In that latter aspect, we will also state fund political parties' election campaigns. There will be a minimum membership requirement for parties to receive such state funding, which should remove "nuisance" parties, established purely for the purposes of abusing the system. Members will still fund the establishment costs of the party and its day to day activities, but state funds will be used for campaigning. These state funds will be issued to a universally applicable value - no qualifying party may derive more than others, and no qualifying party may spend its own funds in campaigning, over and above the state granted funds. All unused funds must be repaid to the state when the campaign is over, along with full accounts of where, when, on what and how much was spent. This will create a level playing field, avoid the loans fiasco we recently experienced (still ongoing), and also remove the influence of those lobbies who might bankroll a party. Taxpayers will object of course, but must be convinced that this strategy is far better for our democracy than the current arrangement. Hmm. I could live with this as long as parties raised so much themselves from individual members and monies was capped. WEIGHTED VOTES Thirdly, we will do away with the notion of one person, one vote. This system supposes that an 18 year old has an opinion of equal weight to a 60 year old who has far greater experience of life. This system also supposes that the opinion of an educated professional is of no greater worth than that of someone with no qualifications at all. Instead, we will recognise that whilst all must have a say, some opinions are simply far better informed than others, in the same way that a concentration camp victim has a far better informed view on naziism than some skinhead hoodlum with a swastika tattoo. One will still only be permitted to vote for one candidate, but votes will be weighted according to experience and awareness. This starts getting weird for me. With an aging population it would mean that the old would inevitably overburden the young and I know enough 60 year olds I would trust sending to a shop with a shopping list. At 18 years of age, one receives one vote. At 30 years of age, one receives two votes, and then accrues a further vote for every additional 10 years of experience, to a maximum 5 votes at age 60 or over. Less than 5 GCSEs at C or above, will result in no further vote. Milestones for educational levels will then be used to determine between one and five additional votes. I wouldn't have got a futher vote. I left school at 15 and I was 29 before I went to art academie and that was in Holland, I've done a degree and a Masters since blargely due my Dutch diploma and experience and I still haven't got 5 GCEs. Though I have three As. Persons serving prison sentence of five or more years in each ten year rolling period, will suffer loss of one vote for each year served over 4 years. Thus at age 30, a GP might receive 2 votes based on experience, and 5 votes based on awareness - 7 votes. A 25 year old PhD student would receive 1 vote for experience and 5 votes for awareness - 6 votes. A 40 year old with no qualifications would receive 3 votes for experience and 0 for awareness - 3 votes. Education and qualifications aren't wisdom or social functionality and many entrepeneurs are self made. I really think this is a step backwards to something like a modified version of property voting rights. DESIRED RESULTS Everyone takes part in elections which give them a voice. Campaigns are judged by the electorate on the policies, not on the amount and quality of advertising. People are empowered to choose candidates without interference from lobby groups. People are given the consideration they deserve, rather than being treated as all as stupid/clever as one another. Somehow I feel politicians will find a way round desired results.

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 9:20:33 AM)
Hi MC Thanks for your comments. As for the issue you raised with weighted votes, I take your point, although only in relation to the current system. The compulsory voting will raise turnouts and since many non voters are young people this will provide some degree of counterbalance. It will also be one of several drivers on the young, to gain qualifications in order to gain more voting power. As for the aging population, their comparatively weightier votes will then be matched by well qualified younger people. This factor was something I have taken into consideration - that with weighted votes and an aging population, we could well see permanent Tory rule - something as unacceptable to me as it would be disastrous for the country. This is the reason to make this a package of measures in which PR also plays a part, in splitting solid Tory votes (and solid votes for any party for that matter), across many parties by way of the removal of tactical voting and the good chance that a vote for a better choice for the average Tory voter, will count for something. As for your own vote, it would be debatable whether you would be permitted one at all, as an overseas resident. The national election is for the administration of this country, and if someone doesnt live here, then why should they have a say over what the rest of us get as a government? Were you here though, then your qualifications as they are now would be verified and your vote adjusted accordingly - as a Masters holder, you would certainly achieve 5 votes for your educational achievement. I agree that educational achievement is not necessarily an indicator of social functionality or wisdom. Wisdom comes through the age weighting, based on experience. Educational achievement however, displays that someone is able to understand argument better, and evaluate policies more acutely. I do not have a degree - the highest qualification I have is a professional one in international trade and transport; something which would likely earn me only 4 votes rather than 5. I'm 39 in December (how that happened, I dont know!), so I would have only 2 experience votes compared to Adrian (my sort of boyfriend) who is 40 and would have 3. But overall, he would still only have the 6 votes that I have. As for the self made men and women of the country, it would be difficult to achieve a system which reflected their abilities to comprehend the arguments and policies in an election, since their success as entrepreneurs is extremely variable - one year theyre up, the next down. Linking weighted votes to age (experience/wisdom) and to education (comprehension/awareness) is the only way I can think of to do it with any degree of certainty. Linking it to their (or anyone else's) financial status would certainly be retrograde and totally unacceptable. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 10:20:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen As for your own vote, it would be debatable whether you would be permitted one at all, as an overseas resident. The national election is for the administration of this country, and if someone doesnt live here, then why should they have a say over what the rest of us get as a government? Were you here though, then your qualifications as they are now would be verified and your vote adjusted accordingly - as a Masters holder, you would certainly achieve 5 votes for your educational achievement. Well thanks and er....thanks.[:-] Actually I don't vote now because I don't feel I have the moral right with living outside the country. It pisses me off big time that people can sit on the Costa Brava sunning their tits and vote for a government whose decisions won't affect them. Actually the more the EU grows in influence, the more one really ought to vote no matter where they live in Europe.

missturbation -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 1:08:10 PM)
COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. Ok so you think i should go to a polling station just to abstain from voting when i can stay at home and do the same thing? Not gonna happen, you cant force anyone to vote. Ban me the following year? Feel free - in 15 years i havent voted once.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 1:29:08 PM)
Lady E, you are Socialist at heart, Under your system I'd have so many votes I'd have to do something bad to lose a few. .Lets think now what could I do.......No matter what you do in the UK its virtually impossible to serve 4 years in jail. Proportional Represention would let the Lib Dems in. The biggest disaster of the lot, in my opinion. Dont know why I say that cos' I havn't got a clue what they stand for.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 1:40:39 PM)
Meatcleaver said It pisses me off big time that people can sit on the Costa Brava sunning their tits and vote for a government whose decisions won't affect them. How about MPs from Scottish constituencies voting on issues that only affect England where the reverse is not possible. Mind you to compensate I think we send lots of tax revenue to Scotland, and N Ireland and Wales, so that balances things up I suppose. The English made a major financial contribution to the Scottish parliament building that ran so disastrously over budget. I also believe people from Southern Ireland can vote in the UK. People on the Costa Brava lose increments to their state pension I believe so we save a few quid there ! The City of B'ham having spent millions over the years building resevoirs and aquaducts to route water from Wales so upset the Taffys they demanded their water back ! Now there's gratitude for you !

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 1:51:28 PM)
Is this wine stronger than I thought or has Misterbation had a face transplant ?

meatcleaver -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 2:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Meatcleaver said It pisses me off big time that people can sit on the Costa Brava sunning their tits and vote for a government whose decisions won't affect them. How about MPs from Scottish constituencies voting on issues that only affect England where the reverse is not possible. Mind you to compensate I think we send lots of tax revenue to Scotland, and N Ireland and Wales, so that balances things up I suppose. The English made a major financial contribution to the Scottish parliament building that ran so disastrously over budget. I also believe people from Southern Ireland can vote in the UK. People on the Costa Brava lose increments to their state pension I believe so we save a few quid there ! The City of B'ham having spent millions over the years building resevoirs and aquaducts to route water from Wales so upset the Taffys they demanded their water back ! Now there's gratitude for you ! Well, Blair and his halved baked constitutional settlement. Need I say anything else. In Elizabethan times many people in the south of England thought there was a sea between England and Scotland, now there's a thought and all that money wasted on the channel tunnel, just think how wide that sea could have been made. As for the Taffys and their water, I'd send it back but I'd piss in it first.[:)]

missturbation -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 2:31:39 PM)
Waiting for my new pic to be cleared so you have a breather from my ugly mug with this pretty fairy lol.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/13/2006 6:01:18 PM)
Weighted votes - element of how much you doe and have contributed (not just money) into the system should be incorporated into this element. Proportional representation - provided you accept that unpleasent extremist will get a visible voice. member of the BNP in parliament etc, then Campaign funds - seems ok I would add an element of luck with a totally random selection of people being drafted into parliament - both houses - so you actually have the chance of at least a few non slimy power hungry lieing gits, in the legislative system. O yes - any 10% of politiciams should be sent to fight in any war zone - selected at random.

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 5:09:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. Ok so you think i should go to a polling station just to abstain from voting when i can stay at home and do the same thing? Not gonna happen, you cant force anyone to vote. Ban me the following year? Feel free - in 15 years i havent voted once. Hi Miss Can I ask, why you havent voted in 15 years please? Is it because the candidates/parties available were not ones you would support? Was there a candidate you would have voted for but since it wouldnt have made any difference, it wasnt worth voting at all? My proposals are to be taken as a package you see. With PR you will have more candidates and your vote will count. I would agree that in the present system, there are sometimes instances when its not worth voting and there is no one worth voting for. With the package I propose though, it would be worth voting. The idea of compulsory voting, which I understand is the case in some countries such as Australia, is to make sure that everyone participates - it is after all, not an onerous thing to be asked to go and vote every few years, and there would be provision for abstention in any case - though I think you'd find far more reason to vote under my system - which incidentally, is the reason why there is resistance to PR. Those in power now, (New Labour) only have the backing of around 30% of the total electorate, and only about 40% of the votes cast - they dont want you to vote and spoil the party! My measures are designed to make your vote as valuable as it should be, considering the number of people who suffered without one, in order that you could have one. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 5:21:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Hi Thank you for your contribution Weighted votes - element of how much you doe and have contributed (not just money) into the system should be incorporated into this element. Yes, this was something I considered too - but it is so difficult to measure. Money as contribution is off the agenda, otherwise we would have rule by the rich who could effectively buy votes. I also looked at contribution, but then everyone contributes to society - or at least should, and will under a subsequent thread I shall post. There is no way to do it that I can think of - on one level, a GP contributes a lot to society, but then so does the person who collect the rubbish. In the end, I came down for wisdom and awareness as factors which could be measured with some objectivity and which would result in a more balanced system of weighting. Proportional representation - provided you accept that unpleasent extremist will get a visible voice. member of the BNP in parliament etc, then Yes - that would be the case. But then, we live in a democracy, so if they get enough votes then obviously that view must be represented. We would likely have Revolutionary Islamic Party members too. To maintain the present unfair system because it keeps extremists out, is a non argument in my view - it simply indicates that the main parties find it difficult to counter them in debate, which is odd because personally I find them easy to counter them in debate, whoever they are. Campaign funds - seems ok I would add an element of luck with a totally random selection of people being drafted into parliament - both houses - so you actually have the chance of at least a few non slimy power hungry lieing gits, in the legislative system. I love this! I could foresee a nomination system, rather like for the Lords, and then of those nominated, a jury service style selection at random, for say ten Commons members and ten Lords members to be appointed directly from the people. O yes - any 10% of politiciams should be sent to fight in any war zone - selected at random. This is see problems with - considering many of them would be unfit to serve, and by the time they had completed basic training the war itself would be over. They would also be a problem for the army itself, which cannot afford dead weight. But I do like the principle of making them subject to the decisions they make. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 5:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Lady E, you are Socialist at heart, Under your system I'd have so many votes I'd have to do something bad to lose a few. .Lets think now what could I do.......No matter what you do in the UK its virtually impossible to serve 4 years in jail. Proportional Represention would let the Lib Dems in. The biggest disaster of the lot, in my opinion. Dont know why I say that cos' I havn't got a clue what they stand for. Hi Seeks Well, a sort of Socialist, yes. But not of the ilk of certain others, shall we say. If you have experience and education behind you Seeks, then it stands to reason for me that your opinion must be better informed than others, wouldnt you? Thats not to say your opinion is correct, but it is better informed. As such, your opinion does count for more than that of some spotty eighteen year old. If such were not the case, then we would not need medical specialists for instance, since any fresh out of college doctor could do it all. We could have 18 year old generals running wars, etc etc. PR would result in a lot of coalition governments and compromises between parties. As such it would mean that everyone's voice got heard in some way or another, rather than the situation we have now, where the current government has only 30% of the electorate's backing, and yet has total power. The current system does not make for strong government, it makes for unrepresentative government which steamrollers its plans through, regardless of the 70% who didnt vote for them. The LibDems would certainly score more seats under PR - but still not enough to take outright power - in fact this would be a miracle if any one party did. That you dont know what they stand for is no surprise really - they dont need to really broadcast an agenda, as under the present system, even scoring 20% of the votes doesnt give you power, so its pointless for them to have known policies rather than flip flop and pointless for the current power brokers (media, financiers etc) to let us know either. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 5:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Meatcleaver said It pisses me off big time that people can sit on the Costa Brava sunning their tits and vote for a government whose decisions won't affect them. How about MPs from Scottish constituencies voting on issues that only affect England where the reverse is not possible. True - this must be ended, immediately. Mind you to compensate I think we send lots of tax revenue to Scotland, and N Ireland and Wales, so that balances things up I suppose. Wales and N Ireland - these are subsidized for sure. Scotland - could stand on its own, although not as well. Scotland's oil by the way, propped up England for a long time! The English made a major financial contribution to the Scottish parliament building that ran so disastrously over budget. Yep - but wasnt that just a repayment of oil revenues taken from Scotland in the first place I wonder? I also believe people from Southern Ireland can vote in the UK. Yes - and this must ended too, immediately. People on the Costa Brava lose increments to their state pension I believe so we save a few quid there ! The City of B'ham having spent millions over the years building resevoirs and aquaducts to route water from Wales so upset the Taffys they demanded their water back ! Now there's gratitude for you ! Here is where an independent Wales is a disaster, and would soon be reconquered if it were. The reservoirs of the Elan valley supply Bhams water (the pipes run a few miles from my house, through the forest). The Welsh could use this for export revenue to prop up their country, which is a good thing. But since they hate us English, they would turn it off, resulting in a new conflict that would make Edward look like a saint!

meatcleaver -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 6:33:20 AM)
Where is NG?

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 7:27:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Where is NG? Thats a very good question MC. I cant believe after weeks of me shooting his threads down in flames, he's missing the chance to return the favour. I even posted to one of his threads and said I didnt think it fair that no one else posts ideas, just waits for him and then gives their critique, without coming up with ideas of their own. Oh well. I can only think he's in full agreement until he says otherwise? E

missturbation -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 7:46:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. Ok so you think i should go to a polling station just to abstain from voting when i can stay at home and do the same thing? Not gonna happen, you cant force anyone to vote. Ban me the following year? Feel free - in 15 years i havent voted once. Hi Miss Can I ask, why you havent voted in 15 years please? Is it because the candidates/parties available were not ones you would support? Was there a candidate you would have voted for but since it wouldnt have made any difference, it wasnt worth voting at all? My proposals are to be taken as a package you see. With PR you will have more candidates and your vote will count. I would agree that in the present system, there are sometimes instances when its not worth voting and there is no one worth voting for. With the package I propose though, it would be worth voting. The idea of compulsory voting, which I understand is the case in some countries such as Australia, is to make sure that everyone participates - it is after all, not an onerous thing to be asked to go and vote every few years, and there would be provision for abstention in any case - though I think you'd find far more reason to vote under my system - which incidentally, is the reason why there is resistance to PR. Those in power now, (New Labour) only have the backing of around 30% of the total electorate, and only about 40% of the votes cast - they dont want you to vote and spoil the party! My measures are designed to make your vote as valuable as it should be, considering the number of people who suffered without one, in order that you could have one. E Hiya, ok i havent voted because all the parties are as bad as each other - full of shit. I also havent voted because i take no interests in politics and dont keep up with them. I will add that i also dont moan about the state of my country as i feel i have no right too since i dont take part in the electoral process.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 8:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Where is NG? Last seen legging it to Iraq to point out to the Sunnis/Shias that what they are doing to one another doesn't fit in with his theories relating to the cohesion/peace loving nature of the Muslims, and is having a bad influence on the mad Mullahs in the UK, so will they please stop. Not sure I didn't see him on the TV news in Baghdad selling the Big Issue or the Socialist Worker, He forgot to have them translated into Arabic so he is not having much success ! Hope they don't take him hostage ! Either that or he is trying join Big Dave Cameron and the Tory party and he feels guilty !

LadyEllen -> RE: Blueprint for Britain; 1 - Voting reform (10/14/2006 8:13:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION Voting will be made compulsory, with ballots having a "none of the above" box, should any person not wish to support the available candidates. Not voting will be punishable with the loss of a vote in the next election of its kind. Ok so you think i should go to a polling station just to abstain from voting when i can stay at home and do the same thing? Not gonna happen, you cant force anyone to vote. Ban me the following year? Feel free - in 15 years i havent voted once. Hi Miss Can I ask, why you havent voted in 15 years please? Is it because the candidates/parties available were not ones you would support? Was there a candidate you would have voted for but since it wouldnt have made any difference, it wasnt worth voting at all? My proposals are to be taken as a package you see. With PR you will have more candidates and your vote will count. I would agree that in the present system, there are sometimes instances when its not worth voting and there is no one worth voting for. With the package I propose though, it would be worth voting. The idea of compulsory voting, which I understand is the case in some countries such as Australia, is to make sure that everyone participates - it is after all, not an onerous thing to be asked to go and vote every few years, and there would be provision for abstention in any case - though I think you'd find far more reason to vote under my system - which incidentally, is the reason why there is resistance to PR. Those in power now, (New Labour) only have the backing of around 30% of the total electorate, and only about 40% of the votes cast - they dont want you to vote and spoil the party! My measures are designed to make your vote as valuable as it should be, considering the number of people who suffered without one, in order that you could have one. E Hiya, ok i havent voted because all the parties are as bad as each other - full of shit. I also havent voted because i take no interests in politics and dont keep up with them. I will add that i also dont moan about the state of my country as i feel i have no right too since i dont take part in the electoral process. Nice new pic by the way! Yes - agreed, the current main parties are full of shit. Thats a function of the system though IMO. Change the system to enable more views to be represented, and suddenly the hangers on to the main parties find a new home which suits them better (because they still have a chance of getting somewhere), and we have better contrast between what we feel is right and what is wrong. I take your point about politics being so boring that its not worth paying much attention - I agree with you. Again, this is a function of the system, so change the system and suddenly it becomes much more interesting when the likes of the BNP, Revolutionary Communits and Jihadis have a chance at minority representations. Now if that wouldnt make politics more interesting - more about policies than about personalities, what would!? Politics affects everything in life so it is important, even if boring. The current system is what has led to the boring, personality led, ad hominem, minority steamroller politics we have now, and that in turn has led to cynicism and disinterest in what should be such an important part of life. I hope to make it what it should be, so that people like yourself, understandably disengaged through disenfranchisement, want to take part and make this country better. If the last election had been run on PR with my model, then you could be far more confident we would have made the right choice over an issue like Iraq - because the views of the people would have been represented in Parliament, rather than the views we get when so many of our people can be ignored via an unfair system. E

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125