Feels like I’m going around in circles now but… if, IF, negative votes don’t work mathematically, so you don’t get the satisfaction of marking a candidate down, do we even need multiple votes?
Much of the argument for AV is to match the allocation of seats to the popular vote. Having dispensed of the parties, is that even a concern?
Of course it is.
Of the five candidates, I can’t say I’m particularly enamoured of any of them, tbh … a pox on all their houses, frankly … but, if one of them has to represent me then, so long as it isn’t that psychopathic bitch, Thatcher … or that sociopathic monster Rees-Mogg … then fine, whatever. But I don’t want any of them getting the idea that, just because they were seen as the best of a bad lot and won as a result, they or their views are held in any regard, so I’m voting negatively for all of them, on the basis that, if we all do that and they cone out with negative results, they might figure that they have work to do, if they don’t want to be beaten by someone else next time.
It isn’t that negative votes don’t work mathematically, nor even that votes per se don’t work mathematically, but that, as soon as you introduce a system based on the principle of “one person: multiple votes” rather than “one person: one vote”, the chances of a tie increase.
It’s not that big a deal … after all, even with the current op:ov system, ties are possible, it’s just that op:mv means there are more numbers floating around the system … and more numbers tend, on average, to produce a bell curve, meaning the chances of there being multiple median values increases — which means the chances of fatigue setting in due to multiple rounds and runnoffs increase.
I’m still worried about participation without the parties.
I force myself to read the manifestos, but it’s a real chore. Most don’t bother, and the participation I witness is tribal, about beating the others, getting the Tories out or whatever. Little regard for the actual policies at stake.
That is not entirely, but in no small part, a product of the party system. People don’t bother to vote for all kinds of reasons but the ones you hear most often are either “Why bother? They’re all the same.” and “There’s no point — I live in a safe seat and my vote won’t make any difference.”
Look, what I’m proposing re the mechanics of voting and governance isn’t going to eliminate all the problems. There is a history of local bigwigs (the major employer, major landlord, whoever) wielding far too much influence and, as a result, people voting for them because they fear losing their jobs or being turfed out onto the street, if they don’t win. And that needs looking at and eliminating too. But that’s nothing to do with the mechanics we’re looking at here and requires an overhaul of our socioeconomic structures. There’s only so much we can do at a time, so … as far as I’m concerned … one step at a time is the best approach. We ‘fix’ one thing then look at the next and, if a thing might go some way to ensuring that other thing also has less of an impact then, imo, that’s a better place to start than trying to overturn everything at once. We aren’t going to re-educate everyone in a top-down manner … the glorious peasant/proletarian revolution isn’t going to happen because a bunch of Leninists march in and reorder society in their image (thank fuck). People need to get used to unconsciously thinking a particular way, so that the next change already has a foot in the door. I’m an evolutionary, not a revolutionary.
I have no idea whether we’ll ever eliminate tribalism, so I can’t guarantee that … in the various localities … people won’t simply form ‘teams’ to support specific candidates rather than parties … our champion versus theirs … but that’s nothing new either and I used the phrase “That nice Mr Disraeli” deliberately to highlight that we’ve always had cult of the personality politics — people didn’t vote for the Tories, they voted for Maggie …
But, by eliminating the possibility that, if they can’t vote for their wet-dream directly, because they live in the wrong catchement, they vote for their ‘team’ and thus ensure that someone who has no interest in serving them rises to power, so much the better.
Moreover, if there isn’t a party and leader to promote on the basis that they’d be good for the country then it’s much harder for the likes of Murdoch to push their poisonous, sociopathic agenda. He can promote one candidate as much as he likes but it’s of no concern to me, because my vote won’t elect them. And it’s gonna be a lot more expensive … and a lot more complex (and hence error-prone) … for him and his ilk to promote a favoured candidate in every constituency across the nation.
If you aren’t in a position to mindlessly cast your vote for a ‘team’ … or nihilistically vote for the least worst option of one of the other teams, because the LimpDumbs (or whoever) have no chance, so what choice do you have? … even if you don’t pay detailed attention to the manifestos of the candidates, you’re going to pay more than you did under the old system — and that’s the start of your forming the habit of paying attention to manifestos rather than mindlessly casting your vote for the coloured flag you most like or least dislike … not a revolution. (sorry, but I couldn’t arrange that, even if I wanted to), but at least an evolution.
Equally, once you are looking at individual candidates who aren’t part of a party and whose voice in government can’t be silenced by being whipped into line … nor, more significantly, by being forced into ‘opposition’ and, even thought they won by being elected, lost because they were on the losing team … you realise that your vote does actually make a difference — who you want representing you matters now … because theirs does.
I agree with what you’re saying about responsibility, I just don’t know how universally it applies.
I’m not sure people want responsibility, and they’re kind of expecting to get bitten on the arse whatever happens.
I’d like to be wrong about that
Pitiful though it may be, we have made progress over the course of our evolution as a species.
Yes, it’s pitiful that women in Switzerland weren’t granted the vote until 1971 — holy shit … and people talk about ‘civilisation’ (they’re having a laugh!).
Yes, it’s pitiful that Scotland … in 2021 … will become the first nation in History to stop penalising women for having been born female, by making sanitary products free — how can anyone ever have talked about ‘equality’ with a straight face whilst 50% of the population were financially disadvantaged by virtue of a characteristic over which they have no control?
But …
We now have universal suffrage in a not insignificant part of the World, anti-discrimination practices by law, state welfare provision, universal healthcare in a number of nations … we have evolved, so there might yet be hope that we can do so further.
Can we fix it? I don’t know. That would take discovering a way to ensure that all human beings have a minimum mental capacity (and at that point we’re entering a realm of eugenic possibility with which I’m not sure I’d be comfortable) and that Society were structured in such a way that the problems I outlined here are eliminated — the dismantling of Capitalism as we know it and the formation of … something else.
People are people and always will be.
You’re not guaranteed to win, if you do, but … if you don’t run in the race, you’ve already lost anyway, so what have you got to lose?
I’d rather run and come last than miss out on the Gold medal awaiting me if only I’d had the courage to discover I was the best after all.
So … who’s gonna win your race?
You?
Or the nihilism that tells you not to bother, people are all the same and you can’t make a difference, so why bother?
