2015 Election

[CAM]

They are about! @Official_MRLP on Twitter.

[GREED]

They are about! @Official_MRLP on Twitter.

 

Just not in my area...

[Garacesh]

It's a bit of a shame that there's such a demand for a no-confidence vote, and because there isn't one available, we have to set up ridiculous, bogus parties instead.

[GREED]

It's a bit of a shame that there's such a demand for a no-confidence vote, and because there isn't one available, we have to set up ridiculous, bogus parties instead.

 

Petition the new government to hold a referendum is about the best we have...

[Garacesh]

Yeah, sure, like that'll work >.<

 

With so many different political parties around it's clear that the people of this country, as a collective, can't agree on how it should be run. There'd never be enough people badgering for a referendum to actually achieve anything. I just think 'No Confidence' should be a viable, legitimate, on-the-ballot-paper vote. If nothing else, we'd get better statistics and put an end to the argument about why a lot of the no-voters don't vote.

[Gatt]

Shame we can't vote for Vetinari...

[GREED]

But that requires people to vote No Vote... half the problem is people just can't be bothered.

 

Are we ever going to get to the stage of online voting? I mean we can do just about everything else official online, pay tax get a passport...

[sonofsanta]

Shame we can't vote for Vetinari...

 

A vote for Vetinari implies the possibility of a vote against Vetinari , and as such cannot be comprehended. Vetinari just is.

[pcstru]

As a vote is performed in the polling station, isn't that always the case then?

I think the key is that they, as the publisher, would have to have obtained the information while they, the publisher were inside the polling station. My choice to vote Green is not information that was obtained in the polling station, nor is me saying that I voted Green information that was obtained (by the publisher) in a polling station, even if the act of me voting green occurred in a polling station. There is also a slight issue that you only have my word for what I did in the polling station.

 

If I happened to look over your shoulder and saw that you had voted Magnolia and I published that, then I would fall foul of the law because I obtained that information inside the polling station.

 

If the situation was as tight as you describe, exit polls would be illegal.

[GREED]

To be fair, if you are unhappy with the government, other countries in the past few years have found ways of making popular change!

 

I'm in no way condoning violence... let me be very clear on that... but mass strikes and marches on parliament, and not just token strikes but indefinite ones would make a difference quickly. People coming together and support a change

[Garacesh]

But that requires people to vote No Vote... half the problem is people just can't be bothered.

Precisely the debate about no-votes that I'm talking about. You don't know.

Why can't they be bothered?

 

Is it because it requires putting on pants? Leaving the house? Going out in public? Interacting with other people?

Or is it because there's no faith left* in the electoral system and the political parties currently being represented?

 

* Speaking on an individual level.

[LeMarchand]

Oh, also, just a word of warning to all - I believe there are some laws against publishing who anyone voted for (including yourself). News site comment sections are under strict moderation today, so I don't know how it would affect us here but its probably best if no-one posts who they voted for until after the polls close.

 

I shall be vague then and say that my area will, without a doubt, go to the Tories. As there is a candidate standing on a "create interest in the process amongst young people" platform I'm probably going to give him my vote in the hope he'll get his deposit back.

 

The IMF themselves have declared austerity to be a failure. Why do all our politicians keep insisting they know better?

 

It might fail the majority, but seems to be working for those that the politicians actually care about.

[sonofsanta]

Here's some interesting stats related to an ongoing discussion in this thread, as taken from one of my links earlier:

 

Fraud:

 

In 2012-2013, fraud only accounted for 2.1% of the welfare budget. In other years the figure is as low as 0.7%. People who make the fraud argument are deeply misinformed about the basics of this debate. Research shows that on average, British voters think that 27% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud, which is wildly inaccurate.

[GREED]

Precisely the debate about no-votes that I'm talking about. You don't know.

Why can't they be bothered?

 

Is it because it requires putting on pants? Leaving the house? Going out in public? Interacting with other people?

Or is it because there's no faith left* in the electoral system and the political parties currently being represented?

 

* Speaking on an individual level.

 

So my point being how can voting be made more accessible? It will address part of the problem. The other is the age old thing: if you don't like a party then I won't vote for anyone. It is different for voting No Vote. Would people go and vote for 'no one' just to show their displeasure? I don't have the answer just saying it is a voting culture issue for decades now

[Garacesh]

Personally, I reckon yes, they would. Not all of 'em, sure, I bet a decent chunk of them would say "Yeah, I bet that box is just there for show.. Cross it and your vote still goes in the bin." but I suspect if a valid 'no vote' vote was implemented a lot of the no-voters would actually attend.

 

Online voting is certainly not something I think we're going to get any time soon. Government websites are bloody awful, a polling website would A) Stop everybody from voting 'cause nobody could find the option to. B) Suffer serious authentication issues and C) Get DDoS'd

[GREED]

Personally, I reckon yes, they would. Not all of 'em, sure, I bet a decent chunk of them would say "Yeah, I bet that box is just there for show.. Cross it and your vote still goes in the bin." but I suspect if a valid 'no vote' vote was implemented a lot of the no-voters would actually attend.

 

Online voting is certainly not something I think we're going to get any time soon. Government websites are bloody awful, a polling website would A) Stop everybody from voting 'cause nobody could find the option to. B) Suffer serious authentication issues and C) Get DDoS'd

 

All true! Perhaps if you had voting over a week (postal votes?) That might counter some issues, but yes it would need to be a decent website let's face it. I just think it is rediculous thay we still do this sort of thing on paper!

 

On the No Vote yes it would need heavy publicity to say this is a vote to say you do not want any party... then who sponsors that? No party will even mention it, so it has to be an independent body... and who is truly independent let's face it?

[Andrew_C]

Shame we can't vote for Vetinari...

One man; one vote.

[Garacesh]

On the No Vote yes it would need heavy publicity to say this is a vote to say you do not want any party... then who sponsors that? No party will even mention it, so it has to be an independent body... and who is truly independent let's face it?

Nobody needs to 'sponsor' it (in the financial sense). It's just an extra box printed on the ballot slip. You're right, no government would ever introduce this of their own volition. The change for this would have to come from people protesting at whoever the current government is.

[korifugi]

Shame we can't vote for Vetinari...

 

One man; one vote.

 

He's the man - so he's got the vote.

[Quackers]

Almost sure who I'm going to vote for, but its 2 parties I'm playing with. I thought i would just have a glance at Labours manifesto as they are usually my default party, although not my choice at all this time round. What a mess their manifesto is. All i wanted to know what their policy is on income tax, the manifesto is not laid out very well at all, its dire, and all i could find is they wanted to revert their own changes from last time they were in power and bring back 10p starting tax.

[Andrew_C]

I want to vote for a party that will raise MY tax payment (not too much) and use the revenue to sort out the NHS, Sure Start, Schools, Old Peoples' Services, etc. I'm not proposing to pay for all of it myself, but anyone in my position, or better off, can damn well afford it. And quite a few who think they aren't as well off too.

[localzuk]

I want to vote for a party that will raise MY tax payment (not too much) and use the revenue to sort out the NHS, Sure Start, Schools, Old Peoples' Services, etc. I'm not proposing to pay for all of it myself, but anyone in my position, or better off, can damn well afford it. And quite a few who think they aren't as well off too.

 

Agreed. My thoughts too.

[sparkeh]

I want to vote for a party that will raise MY tax payment (not too much) and use the revenue to sort out the NHS, Sure Start, Schools, Old Peoples' Services, etc. I'm not proposing to pay for all of it myself, but anyone in my position, or better off, can damn well afford it. And quite a few who think they aren't as well off too.

Depends where we are on the Laffer Curve: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Raising tax does not always bring in more money, in fact it can leave us worse off.

Sometimes, lowering taxes raises more money.

 

Its not as simple as a party saying 'We'll increase tax to pay for more things'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11308768/Want-to-raise-more-money-Chancellor-Then-cut-taxes.html

 

(If you subscribe to this theory of course! )

Edited May 7, 2015 by sparkeh

[sted]

Depends where we are on the Laffer Curve: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Raising tax does not always bring in more money, in fact it can leave us worse off.

Sometimes, lowering taxes raises more money.

 

Its not as simple as a party saying 'We'll increase tax to pay for more things'

 

surely closing off loopholes would be more effective anyway

[sparkeh]

surely closing off loopholes would be more effective anyway

Yes, collecting more of the tax that is due is a good idea