Voting

[shewhomust]

I've climaxed early on this one: 36 hours before the polls open, I've already cast my postal vote (let's not go into that one). It's a curious sensation.

Three things:

1. My postal vote arrived in an envelope which had very obviously been slit open and re-sealed with sellotape. I phoned the helpline number and explained to the official at the other end (which took some doing: "So, is this envelope A or envelope B?" - "No, it's the envelope A and B arrived in..."). We checked that I had all the bits of paper I should have, and that there no votes had actually been marked on my ballot papers. Since that was in order, the advice was "Oh, well, don't worry about it." And I'm not, really; like the official, I can't see how my vote could be compromised. But it's odd, and now it's on the record, here.



2. In the discussion about trilemmas, I threatened to come back to the three party question. I still have difficulty saying this out loud, but I have, and not for the first time, voted Liberal Democrat, for the inexplicable reason that they have more policies I agree with than any other party offering a candidate in my constituency. (Yes, love me, I'm a liberal.) This is easier for me than for someone living in a constituency the Tories might actually win.
   
   But I want to make the case for voting for the party you agree with, rather than against the party you disagree with, and it's this: we are not just electing a government, we are also electing an opposition. Tony Blair believes that the opposition comes from his right, and must be wooed and placated; the left, he thinks, will vote for him whatever he does. If we can't replace him with a more left-wing government (and, don't tell the centrist Tories who might vote Liberal, but that's what the Lib Dems are), let's at least tell him that the opposition comes from the left, let's wrench the terrain of the debate over to the left.
   
   I do still think Michael Howard is worse than Tony Blair. But the crunch question is not which is worse in himself, but: is Michael Howard with a leftish opposition still worse than Tony Blair with a decidedly right-wing opposition? I hope not to find out the answer to that one.



3. I've been told often enough that all this voting for the party you agree with is hopelessly idealistic, and that you have to be realistic and compromise and get your hands dirty. Well, damnit, I'm voting, aren't I? How realistic and compromised do you want me to be?

Comments

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

I'd agree that politics belongs to those who are prepared to do something about it, and that voting in General Elections is a minimal form of "doing something"

I'm not sure how your scenario would play where I live: the City Council is already controlled by the "third party"...

And, although this isn't obvious from my original post, I'd be less likely to campaign for a party, more likely to join single-issue campaigns. There's no party which comes close to representing my views, there's only ever a least worst option - it matters more to me that the right thing is done than that the right person does it.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

Who's the third party in your City Council? I'm curious. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two most influential parties in your country are Labor and Conservative, right?)

I can understand being more likely to join single-issue campaigns, especially if there's no party that represents your views. From my perspective, however, because the parties exist, I made the choice to join the one that was closest to my views. (Although for about six or seven years there I was not registered with any party, which is termed "Unenrolled" here in Massachusetts.) In a way, that's why political parties develop; it's easier to have influence on the issues you care about if you can band more people together who generally agree on them. But, on the other hand, it does create partisanship and disenfranchisement, which I think was part of the reason George Washington was opposed to the development of political parties. (Obviously, he didn't get his way.)

The issues I have with people here voting for third parties is that I don't think they really grasp the system. We don't have any form of instant runoff voting, nor do we have any sort of parliamentary system that would allow for a coalition government. What we have is a system where the candidate who gets the plurality of the votes wins the office. That's how Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota a few years back. He only won 40% of the vote, the majority voted for either the Democrat or the Republican. But both of them only received 30% each, and so Ventura won the governorship.

I'd love to see some third parties become more influential in this country, but I think the people who support them are simply applying the wrong strategy, and it's costing them.

I'm thinking of expanding on some of this in my own journal -- maybe I will next week.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Who's the third party in your City Council? I'm curious. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two most influential parties in your country are Labor and Conservative, right?)

The third party nationwide are the Liberal Democrats, and that's who I was referring to (in Scotland and Wales the nationalist parties are also serious players). Once upon a time, of course, the Liberals were one of the Big Two, and the new Labour Party was nowhere - but that's history...

That's how Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota a few years back. He only won 40% of the vote, the majority voted for either the Democrat or the Republican. But both of them only received 30% each, and so Ventura won the governorship.

I don't see how this demonstrates that third parties don't grasp the system: Ventura "only" won 40% of the vote, but since no-one else got as much, he won.

I could follow that line of argument in all sorts of directions; I keep starting the next sentence and crossing it out. I think I'll stop here, but if you do get round to picking this one up in a posting of your own, I'll certainly be interested to see where it goes!

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this demonstrates that third parties don't grasp the system: Ventura "only" won 40% of the vote, but since no-one else got as much, he won.

Um, yeah. That didn't really make my point, did it? :-)

I'll have to ponder for a while before I post more, so my comments actually make sense. In the meantime, if you know nothing or very little about election theory, go look up Arrow's Theorem on the web. It states that there is no ideal election method for any election with more than two candidates.