It’s more a kick up your own arse than anyone else’s. Parties see non-voters as write-offs. They’ll reckon that if you couldn’t be bothered voting to stop the BNP from getting in, FFS, you obviously don’t care about politics and therefore you’re not worth them caring about you.
I guess we’ll find out just how the country really feels about the BNP come the next general election. Do people care enough to actually vote or will we still have a pathetic ~60% voter turnout?
I blame the UK democratic system, which is too much geared towards the two big parties, that any third or fourth party have little chance of getting political influence. Most of the people voting BNP are probably not racist, but simply want to curb immigration, crack down on crime, protect UK jobs and such. All views which could be included in a traditional Social Democratic program. If the UK democratic system left any room for such a party that had such views, but excluding the racist ones, and a chance for political influence in national elections, I’m sure it would attract many votes. Instead people are forced to vote for one of the two main parties, or see their vote go lost. I think it alienates many votes or at best make them indifferent, and has a negative influence on the whole democracy. And indeed the UK turnout was so absurdly low (34%) that it hardly can be counted as a democratic process. Denmark by comparison, which has a parliamentary system which leaves space for many different parties to have influence, had a turn out of almost 60%. Far from impressive, but still almost double. BNP and the rest of the extremist parties will have no influence in the EU. However extreme these parties are, that is another dangerous course. The EU has enough of a democratic legitimacy problem, without alienates those voters by disregarding their vote.
The European turnout for EU elections has fallen an average of 3.125% per election the last 30 years. It has steadily fallen in every election, even as the parliament has gotten more power. Following these trends, in 2039 we’ll have a EU voters participation of a whooping 24.49%. And that’s even helped by Belgium (& Luxembourg?) making voting mandatory. So how low can we go before we declare EU democracy a failure? In 2069 5.74% will vote.
The parties couldn’t even make the effort to post a leaflet through my door, so fuck 'em, for the time being. If they want to get someone interested in politics,who previously had voted for them on every occasion, perhaps now they’ll get someone to ask me what happened. You know, knock on my front door, like they used to do!
Walking in Eternity, thanks for your gracious response.
Perhaps you should volunteer to knock on some doors? You are, after all, a citizen and not just the member of a party.
They’re more likely to make the effort to win back people who actually voted, but voted for other parties. This often means looking at their policies with an eye to making them more palatable to people who voted for other parties. So not only did your non-vote help to get the BNP elected, it may have encouraged the other parties to move towards the BNP’s platform. Well done :rolleyes:
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a Tab? Is it some kind of insult?
Where I live tab is slang for either cigarette or TA Bastard (by regular army folk).
Oxford Uni slang for those from Cambridge Uni.
So, you think the party I’ve voted for all my life should be more interested in me if I’d voted for the BNP, than if I hadn’t voted at all? Interesting theory, but I beg to differ.
Vote for the other major party. Vote for the Lib Dems. Vote for the Communist Party, or the Greens, or whoever you want. Vote for yourself (is there a write-in option?)
But for fuck’s sake, don’t think that your “vote for a kick up the arse” gives you the right to criticize anyone else - you said it yourself, people get the government they deserve.
You didn’t vote - that means you deserve whatever you get, and what you got is Nick Griffin. Hope you’re happy.
Much though I too wonder at ivan’s rather odd view of his (her?) own position, to be entirely fair to him, a vote for the Lib Dems, CP, or the Greens would, most probably, not have changed the result of this election (unless a very large # of disaffected voters had chosen the same protest vote). The problem that ruadh laid out in #183 is applicable here. What Britain could use, IMO, is some kind of instant run-off voting procedure that would allow someone like ivan to make any kind of protest he likes for a non-Labour minority party (preferably not the BNP!) while making Labour (or the Tories) his secondary vote. Over time that kind of system does allow minority parties at least to exert pressure on major parties–hopefully to the long-term detriment of ultra-right fascist parties like the BNP.
Yes, and I say this as someone deeply involved in party politics. People who decide not to vote at all are seen by parties as having disengaged completely, and they are therefore less of a target for parties than people who remain engaged with the electoral system. For what I would think would be obvious reasons.
The idea that they’re going to say “uh oh, people aren’t voting, we’d better get our act together” is simply romantic nonsense.
Well the Liberal Democrats want to introduce proportional representation, unfortunately if this were the case the BNP would have actually done better than now, so our outdated system actually worked to keep them out of power.
In the county I live in the BNP got 12% of the overall vote, compared to 15.5% for the Labour candidate, so with PR they would have roughly the same number of seats (6.6 by percentage) say 6 seats, whereas at present they only have 1 compared to 4 for Labour.
I honestly can’t agree, ruadh. If our major political parties are really going to disengage with the two thirds of the population who didn’t vote in elections that always inspire apathy, then they are truly stupid. It’s simple mathematics: the eligible people who didn’t vote the other week number some thirty million; those who voted BNP are a bare fraction of that. If your party really believes that pandering to the latter is a better idea than motivating the former, then British politics is in a far more parlous state than it appears.
If this result were repeated in a general election, I might agree with you, but I don’t believe we’re at the point where our main parties feel the need to pander to minority parties. This result, while concerning, far more reflects a wash of apathy than a surge in pro-BNP sentiment, and it is this that the main parties should address if they have two brain cells to rub together. EU elections are routinely spurned by the electorate, with those who bother to turn up often using them as an understandable chance to register a protest vote. Accusing non-voters of making proxy BNP votes is over the top and unhelpful, and hectoring people into voting for “proper” parties with threats that the bad guys will win is possibly the least enticing electoral strategy imaginable.
What a load of “pay attention to me” childish crap. You have to be canvassed to in order to vote? What are you, a citizen with responsibilities and opportunity in a functioning democracy you are lucky enough to reside in, or some sort of spoiled poodle who can’t be expected to eat your own food unless mummy coaxes you to your food bowl?
And didn’t need to know that BNP might get in if you didn’t vote. You just needed to vote. Had you done so, not knowing that doing so might keep the BNP out wouldn’t have been an issue. All you needed to know was that there was an election, you had a vote, and you really didn’t want one particular candidate to win. If knowing those things you didn’t vote, BNP getting in is partly your fault and you can’t escape it no matter how much you wriggle, whine, deflect and squirm.
I think you miss **ruadh’s **correctly stated proposition. Political parties pay *more *attention to voters than non-voters because their sadly minute study of the art of polling patterns etc shows that non-voters tend to be apathetes and their past non-voting tends to be a predictor of their future behaviour. “Tends”. Not “is conclusive of”.
**ruadh **didn’t say that the parties are going to “disengage” from non-voters but merely pay *less *attention to them. They have limited resources and they play the percentages. If you vote they will pay more attention to you. If you don’t they will pay less, all else being equal.
Hence the superiority of instant run-off.
I don’t think so. His proposition went hand-in-hand with an assumption that non-voters in this election are regular non-voters. Considering that the EU parliamentary elections are notoriously ill-attended, this strikes me as a particularly dubious assumption. Turnout in the last general election was some 60%, meaning there were 10 million recent voters then who eschewed the EU Parliament election. Are these chronic stay-at-homes? Hardly, and they outnumber the BNP’s tally 10 to 1. Any politician worth his salt is fully aware of this.
Moreover, anyone who has paid any attention whatsoever to American politics over the last few elections will tell you that “get out the vote” efforts have been hugely important to the victors; what are these, if not strenous attempts to convince non-voters to vote?
I’m still not sure that woud have stopped the BNP gaining any seats as they were certainly the number one choice for a large number of voters. I suppose it depends on who the subsequent choices were for and how that affects the outcome. Without knowing how people would have voted I suspect it’s impossible to say.