The end of (UK) democracy - political

[fifty5]

Did anyone watch Election Unspun (Why Politicians Can't Tell the Truth) on Channel 4 last night (Monday)?

It was horrifying! Basically, it said that 'professional politicians' now ignore those who are unlikely to vote at all (e.g. young people) and those whose vote can be taken for granted. Only the 'floating voter' matters - and computer databases can identify pretty accurately just who that is. Focus groups, chosen from the floating voters, then determine which issues should be addressed. Nothing else matters (if the party aims to win the election). Issues that are important in reality (long-term health care for the elderly, house prices for the young people who want to get on 'the property ladder', the effects of cheap air fares on global warming) are unmentionable: put any of them into published policy and the party loses votes. All three parties at the top of the list (and I'm ashamed of my own, the Liberal Democrats, even though I can't blame them) have policies that are almost exactly the same. Almost only the form of words is different.

This is horrific - but inevitable when scientific analysis is applied to the requirements of winning elections.

How the hell do we break out of that vicious circle?

 

[TheEarl]

F5: The Lib Dems are actually making a huge recruitment drive to try and get students on their side. As a party who's opposed to the complete pile of wank that is top-up fees, they've got a good start over Labour and they've noticed that Labour is in a precarious position in a lot of university towns. So we're currently being wooed.

My vote's still going to the Conservatives, but it's nice to know that somebody is paying attention to student issues.

The Earl

 

[elsol]

It happened in the states, until recently.

The Democrats specifically targeted the young vote and it got them elected.

In the last election, the Republicans specifically targeted the 'heart' of their core constituency to get the votes needed to get GWB re-elected.

Basically somebody from one party has to see those votes as 'available' and 'non-competitive' for the cycle to break.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

This is also the most important of all reasons to vote. In the United State, no one is allowed to know what you voted, but whether you voted is a matter of public record. If you're a member of a demographic that doesn't vote, you're screwed. The most important thing any group can to in order to increase its political power is vote.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is also the most important of all reasons to vote. In the United State, no one is allowed to know what you voted, but whether you voted is a matter of public record. If you're a member of a demographic that doesn't vote, you're screwed. The most important thing any group can to in order to increase its political power is vote.

But in most states, you have to register as one party or another. Especially if you wish to vote in primaries. Kids don't vote as much as they should, but when they do, they generally register as Dems. they aren't a demographic the GOP goes after. Fortuneatly for the GOP, the 18 to 25 demographic simply don't exercise their franchise in significant numbers.

 

[Huckleman2000]

But in most states, you have to register as one party or another. Especially if you wish to vote in primaries. Kids don't vote as much as they should, but when they do, they generally register as Dems. they aren't a demographic the GOP goes after. Fortuneatly for the GOP, the 18 to 25 demographic simply don't exercise their franchise in significant numbers.

Very true. You can register as an independent, but then you can't vote in your primary. I remember my first election, the Wisconsin primary in 1976, and it was (at that time) an open primary, so there was crossover voting to try and mess up the other side's primary . It was very exciting, just the strategery involved

More to the current point, the lines trying to vote at Kenyon College in Ohio in the recent Presidential election are a good illustration of both Colly's points - that kids haven't voted, historically, and that GOP isn't going to make it any easier for them.

As someone who's job involves market research, I can empathize with the revulsion you greet this state of affairs. It's not really "fair", or even conducive to governance that might be termed "best practices" in consulting-speak. However, in terms of democratic elections, it does seem to be the market-efficient way to garner voting blocs, and broader awareness of this technique is the only way it's going to be successfully overcome.

The unfortunate downside is that the strategy seems to be subtle enough that many voters don't grasp the nuances; and the devil, as always, is in the details. thus, we get the situation where a minority pipedream can be exploited by savvy politicos to gain power to implement an ancillary agenda. Most obvious recent example, the push to put corporate-friendly judges on the bench by equating their views with religious conservatives. As long as you vote anti-Roe v. Wade, you can limit corporate liability for a multitude of egregious sins committed by your financial supporters, and still enjoy support from the very people your non-Roe decisions hurt.

The political technique is straight cost-benefit analysis, and that is beyond most voters; in particular, the ones who are most easily exploited by the politicians who are most embracing of the cost-benefit cynicism.

 

[matriarch]

Good god!!

You have to declare a party interest to get a vote??

Overe here, you just have to be 18 to get on the electoral roll. You party afiliation is no-one's business but your own.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Good god!!

You have to declare a party interest to get a vote??

Overe here, you just have to be 18 to get on the electoral roll. You party afiliation is no-one's business but your own.

Well, that's just in the primary elections.
Even if you register as an independent, they can't keep you from voting in the REAL enchilada.
However, it does have an impact on the types of candidates we get, and the campaigns they run. In the primaries, they have to play to the registered party voters, and then shift to the center after they gain the party nomination. Unless they think turning out their "base" overwhelms a center-shift.

The actual business of politics here is SO MUCH more cynical than the press will ever report.

 

[ishtat]

How 95% = 1%

In Australia voting is compulsory 95% plus turnout. Guess what, it doesn't help. Both parties identify the floating vote, about 5% of the whole and concentrate on that vote in the marginal constituencies only. Thus government is decided by a minority of less than 1% of the whole electorate.

 

[snooper]

... Thus government is decided by a minority of less than 1% of the whole electorate.

That isn't affected by compulsory voting. The vast majority of constituencies in any first past the post system are dead certs anyway (give or take the odd Kidderminster*).

The problem with proportional representation is that it multiplies the fringe parties to the point where coalitions are inevitable. If you want to see the effect of that, read the political history of Italy in the second half of the last century.

* For our foreign friends, Kidderminster is a UK constituency where the junior Health Minister lost his seat (an hence his post as a Minister) to a single issue candidate who campaigned to keep the local small hospital open. The present Foreign Secretary may lose his seat this time over the Iraq war because there are 20% Muslims in his constituency.

 

[silversword]

I have to say fifty that i don't think anyone will have failed to notice how similar all the parties are, it almost makes you want to not vote but where would the benefit in that be.

This whole canpaign has just been a sort of slanging match but with all sides throwing the same argument back at each other with different statistics, my only conclusion therefore it that they're all lying.

I does make you question the whole system, I mean what the point of having an opposition if it shares the same view as the government.

The only argument seems to be we would do exactly the same thing, but we would do it better, which frankly I don't beleive.

What this country really needs is shakeup and one of the smaller parties that has perhaps less mainstream views to win a few seats, perhaps then the mainstream parties will start to take notice.

 

[oggbashan]

I see the end of UK democracy as apathy and unwillingness to participate in the political process. The turnout, except in targeted marginals is likely to be the lowest ever because potential voters in other seats 'know' that their vote won't make a difference.

When I was young (in this incarnation) my local town had active youth branches of all three main parties. The Young Socialists = Labour were keen activists discussing political theories until the early hours. They would be out canvassing during an election and generally pissing-off potential voters because they were so convinced of the rightness (should that be leftness?) of their cause. The Young Liberals were full of naive young people that would nowadays be called nerds. They had daring whist drives and behaved like 10 year olds, not adults. During elections they would canvass in groups because they were afraid to be out on their own. The Young Conservatives were a social organisation, with dances, quizzes, walks, pub-crawls and didn't do much about politics unless pushed when a few of them might distribute leaflets. If they canvassed they would be off-hand about it - 'You don't like our leader? How about the party?'. If the voter's response was (expletive deleted) the Young Conservative would politely thank them for their opinion. A Young Socialist would try to argue. A Young Liberal might burst into tears.

Now? I don't know where the nearest branch of any of them are. The only canvassers I have seen for any party are in their seventies.

The political parties registered membership is at an all time low. The total membership of all of them wouldn't fill a medium-size city. That worries me.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

The problem is that most people are greedy and lazy. Most people don't give a damn who is in power as long as it doesn't cost them anything in time, money or thought.

The general attitude is 'What's in it for me?' If society burns down around their ears but they think they'll come out OK, most people are cool with that.

It's happened before, and the results weren't pretty.

It's happening again, and the results will be the same.

 

[LottieJones]

Did anyone watch Election Unspun (Why Politicians Can't Tell the Truth) on Channel 4 last night (Monday)?

It was horrifying! Basically, it said that 'professional politicians' now ignore those who are unlikely to vote at all (e.g. young people) and those whose vote can be taken for granted.

i'm a young voter (student, first time general election voter) and i had a knock at the door, it was the friendly local labour MP. He introduced himself, asked if i "had voted for labour in the past", i said no. he then asked if i would "consider voting labour?" i replied probly not. With that his face dropped, said "Good day" and walked off.

Aren't politicians at least supposed to put forward a few arguments to persuade you? I could have been a border line voter, just needing a few pushes in the right direction.

 

[Op_Cit]

How the hell do we break out of that vicious circle?

Unplug from the matrix.
Stop voting. If you stop deluding yourself, it won't be as easy for them.
There is no cheese hidden in some dark corner.

Oh, and, Rick's Cafe also offers a variety of spirits, and Sam's fine musical stylings...

 

[BlackShanglan]

The unfortunate downside is that the strategy seems to be subtle enough that many voters don't grasp the nuances; and the devil, as always, is in the details. thus, we get the situation where a minority pipedream can be exploited by savvy politicos to gain power to implement an ancillary agenda. Most obvious recent example, the push to put corporate-friendly judges on the bench by equating their views with religious conservatives. As long as you vote anti-Roe v. Wade, you can limit corporate liability for a multitude of egregious sins committed by your financial supporters, and still enjoy support from the very people your non-Roe decisions hurt.

An alternative point of view: they know very well that there is corruption, but recognize that pretty much anyone they put in power will detroy things that are important to them. They try to pick what's most important, or the party of least evil, knowing that in the end the parties are quite similar in their main principles: self-perpetuation, monopolization of power, and backhanding perks to their friends, along with a cozy retirement to a CEO-ship when they're done playing lawyers. I'd argue that some of the growing tendency for voters to splinter into single-interest voting groups is desperation; they sense that it's now in all practical terms impossible to pin down any sort of real platform for the candidate, and they feel that the only faint chance they have of holding him/her repsonsible for anything is to focus on a single issue where they might clearly be able to see if the promise has been fulfilled.

Best of luck. Washington reps are now highly adept at dodging responsibility. They've become masters of proposing legislation that they know won't pass, then holding it up as a "promise fulfilled."

 

[TheEarl]

Hey, hold on! Let's not doom the electoral voter ot his apathy yet!

I'm not in a Tory-targetted seat and a lot of the voting in this area will be driven by the fiasco that the Lib dems have been in charge of recently. Yet, I'm still voting.

I'm voting because I believe that Britain should not be as closely affiliated to Europe as we will never get a good deal from it.
I'm voting because I stand against the Euro for economic reasons.
I'm voting because I am against the complete waste of time that are Student top-up fees. Anyone who believes that they will do anything but cripple students and close the black whole by 0.1% needs a smack round they head. They won't solve anything and will create a whole new vista of problems.
I'm voting because I believe a government should serve the people, not vice versa.
I'm voting because I believe that bureaucracy is being created for the sake of bureaucracy and that the Tories' plan to cut back 'management' in public services is the best idea since sliced bread.
I'm voting because, even though my voice may not be hear, I have a voice and I'm damn well gonna use it to say that I believe Labour are bad for this country and I believe that the Tories back a lot of things that I stand for.

The political parties aren't all the same. There are several very diverse issues between them all and anyone who says that there is no difference between them is skimming the surfaces.

My vote will not win the Tories the election. But I'm voting anyway, because I back their policies and I care.

Now tell me about voter apathy.

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

In a recent survey about voter apathy and ignorance the answer which came out on top was "Don't know, don't care."

Love to argue with you about all that The but don't want to defuse youthful zeal even when misapplied.

 

[ishtat]

That isn't affected by compulsory voting. The vast majority of constituencies in any first past the post system are dead certs anyway (give or take the odd Kidderminster*).

The problem with proportional representation is that it multiplies the fringe parties to the point where coalitions are inevitable. If you want to see the effect of that, read the political history of Italy in the second half of the last century.

The point with compulsory voting is as you say in a different way, that increasing the gross number voting only magnifies the issue rather than changing anything.

Our Senate vote is proportional with the effect that only 3 governments in 100 years
have had a working majority. Before October 2004 the balance of power was held by an eccentric from Tasmania . Now the balance is held by a single member of the "Family First "Party (think Bush Family values) This guy controls the Senate with 11000 votes in a population of 20 million.

 

[TheEarl]

In a recent survey about voter apathy and ignorance the answer which came out on top was "Don't know, don't care."

Love to argue with you about all that The but don't want to defuse youthful zeal even when misapplied.

Oh, I don't disagree that a lot of people are apathetic, but the opinions which is coming through on a lot of posts is that it is pointless. People don't care and they're right not to care, because democracy is a waste of everyone's time.

I'm not apathetic and I think it's wrong to be. Even if my vote doesn't make a dmaned bit of difference, I'm still going to make my choice. If I don't then I have no recourse to complain when Teflon takes us into the Euro and fucks our economy.

The Earl

 

[snooper]

I live in a down-at-heel former mining area in South Wales where a Labour vote of less than 70% of the votes cast used to be considered abject failure.

On the bus, the other day (as it drove along Attlee Road - truly) there were two elderly men discussing the election, and one said "I am not going to vote this time, and I voted Labour all my life."
When asked why he replied "Because the ****ing Tories have taken over. Nye [Aneurin Bevan] must be turning in his grave to hear Blair and Brown both sounding like Thatcher and calling themselves Labour."

If the identity of the traditional parties of the left and right has eroded so far that a semi-literate ex-collier has noticed it, then it must be true.