« Orwell's law | Main | In the dark »

May 01, 2005

Comments

Snafu

Stumbling, I totally agree with your sentiments and feel unable to endorse the one party to whom I should be a "natural core voter". However, I am still undecided as to whether I should vote for them just to keep the Liberal Democrats out in my local constituency.

ghytred

Very nicely put. Me too!

Ronnie Horesh

I suggest we express policy goals in terms of targeted social and environmental outcomes. That would close the gap between public and politicians. See my website.

dearieme

I give my wife a proxy so that she can vote for me. This relieves me of a great burden of responsibility.

Steve T

Why not spoil your ballot paper? This would indicate that it wasn't apathy, just that none of the candidates were worth your vote. Start a campaign (bit late now) for people to write 'noe of teh above' or some such slogan.

Paul Davies

Worthy sentiments indeed and ones that echo my, and I'm sure many other people's thoughts.

May I humbly suggest that those who agree with said thoughts, rather than voting for a party/candidate/man in a monkey suit vote instead for a change to the cause of all the above mentioned problems - the voting system.

you can do so here: www.makemyvotecount.org.uk and read about it in all sorts of interesting ways by clicking on my name that accompanies this comment.

willchill

nicely written post, and sentiments I share at a certain level, but i have to disagree with your overall argument.

politcal parties are coalitions of political interests and you can't expect to agree with any one party 100%. in a parliamentary system coalitions are an inevitable feature of the system, and in a more proportional voting arrangement the coalitions end up being between parties rather than within them, but in either event there is horse-trading and tendencies towards the mean voter when governments get formed.

the political process then is essentailly one of forming effective coalitions, and just because the slogans of these coaltions at election time are crude - e.g. "cleaner hospitals" etc. - this does not mean that there are not substantial differences between them, and that their political message is not in fact a lot more nuanced. we do know what michael howard is really thinking beyond just his headline pledges, and fortunately most people seem not to like it very much.

it is a wishful illusion, i think, to imagine that disaggregating voting preferences across a greater number of issues, parties and voting occasions would lead to a better democracy, instanced by the likely rejection by the british public of the european constitution, due more to the influence of a hostile media than a real appreciation of its merits or otherwise.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad