Regarding the "I don't vote" camp, while I agree that not voting doesn't invalidate your opinion, surely it's better to at least vote against the party you don't like, i.e. the lesser of two evils?

Currently, I don't really align myself with any party in NZ (for various reasons specific to each party), but I still voted Labour in the last election mostly 'cos I didn't want National to get in. That said, it didn't work and now National are busy opening up protected conservation land to mining. :(

Australia has compulsory voting, but since we also have instant-run off it's easier to cope in situations where no-one is stellar. You can simply rank the options in order from least worst to most worst. [wink]

I'd also like some way to dissolve the party factor. I think if there was more interaction between a local MP and his or her electorate, people would be more inclined to vote for the MP's personal qualities rather than what party they represent.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
Regarding the "I don't vote" camp, while I agree that not voting doesn't invalidate your opinion, surely it's better to at least vote against the party you don't like, i.e. the lesser of two evils?

Currently, I don't really align myself with any party in NZ (for various reasons specific to each party), but I still voted Labour in the last election mostly 'cos I didn't want National to get in. That said, it didn't work and now National are busy opening up protected conservation land to mining. :(

Voting for "The lesser of two or more evils" is still "Showing support for Evil". Why should I help Anyone I dislike get into office? "They're not as bad as the other guy!" doesn't cut it, they're still bad, they get NO vote from me on principle.



And now I want crumpets. Or more pancakes.

Well, it looks like Gordon Brown just fell on his sword to open up a formal Labour-Lib Dem coalition discussion. Drama.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
And now I want crumpets. Or more pancakes.

How about some oatmeal pancakes?


It's interesting given what was said over the weekend. Several commentators were suggesting that for a Labour-LibDem coalition to exist the LibDems would demand that Labour ditch the unpopular Brown. Which triggered some angry Labour MPs saying that the LibDems don't have the right to chose their leader. The timing would suggest that they've quickly pushed Brown out so that they can say it's their own decision, and to clear the air for some more productive discussion.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev

Quote: That's what I wrote, "no one party holds a majority of seats". A majority happens to be 326 but the number could be different depending on how many seats there are.

Well yes you did write that but then you also came to this conclusion using incorrect logic which I was trying to correct, maybe I should have quoted all the text.

Quote:
I thought you voted for your Member of Parliament and then Members of Parliament vote to determine the Prime Minister. So that the party holding the majority of seats picks their top guy to be PM and the PM then forms a government and so on. And that the problem now is that no one party holds a majority of seats making the selection of PM problematic.

The problem of the selection for the PM you could say is a side effect of not yet deciding on the governing party. As I stated the leader of the governing party will become the PM.

I am not trying to be arsey if it sounds like that then I am sorry.

Well, you do sound arsey, especially when your rebuttal involves accusing me of using faulty logic when the case looks more like you simply didn't understand what I wrote.

Quote: Original post by phantom
And it's not the people/parties either, its the whole system; I do not believe that democracy, in its current form, is the best method of running a country. The problem is any time you mention this idea someone trots out that old Churchill quote and then acts like they have 'won' the arguement.

Democracy in any form isn't the best method of running a country (setting aside the definition of best for the moment). If running the country is the goal, then what you want is a dictatorship that can make decisions without consulting the public and without needing to build consensus to gain public support (you'll need regularly scheduled ultranationalist rallies to do that).

Quote: Original post by phantom
I have considered a number of times forming my own party, however I then take a look around and decide that if I got it off the ground chances most people wouldn't vote for it any, mostly because the major issue in said party would be the dismantaling of the current day democracy in favour of a better solution.
That said, for all my thinking I still don't have a 'better' solution and given that is one of my key objectives it does somewhat prevent the formation of the party anyway.. but I still spent time thinking about it and trying to come up with a better way to do things.. but, end of the day, I'm a (nearly) 30 year old game developer, social-political theory isn't the strongest thing in my knowledge base.

Here are a few books to consider reading in your spare time.

"The Republic" by Plato (I'm partial to the Raymond Larson translation)

The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.

"The Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine
"Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke

(Reflections on the Revolution in France & The Rights of Man)

"Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind" by Marie Jean Antoine de Condorect (extract)

The thing is, you're not the first person to want to tear it all down and start over. It might be that you haven't "found" a party because you're not clear about your ideas and where they fit in history and in the current system.

Quote: Original post by phantom
This is why I would like a 'none of the above' option which is counted in the outcome, because it would give a chance for people like myself to have their voice heard where under the current system it is denied; unless you agree with one of the people standing then you effectively have had your voice taken away from you.

NOTA gives the voter a kind of direct "no confidence" vote. It would allow the voter to say "I don't like any of these candidates so get new candidates and try again."

Quote: Original post by OrangyTang
It's interesting given what was said over the weekend. Several commentators were suggesting that for a Labour-LibDem coalition to exist the LibDems would demand that Labour ditch the unpopular Brown. Which triggered some angry Labour MPs saying that the LibDems don't have the right to chose their leader. The timing would suggest that they've quickly pushed Brown out so that they can say it's their own decision, and to clear the air for some more productive discussion.

The Guardian editorialized as much: To seize this historic moment, the Lib Dems must turn to Labour

Quote:
...
To ensure the country's support, Gordon Brown must announce his plans to step down
...
The problem is Mr Brown. Whatever convention says about his right to continue as prime minister, the campaign has flayed his authority. The Lib Dems could not plausibly enter a coalition with Labour if the administration that emerged were seen as a rickety continuation of the one that has just been punished by voters. Any ensuing referendum on electoral reform might be construed as a plea to rubber-stamp Gordon Brown's prolonged hold on power – and be rejected.

If a Lib-Lab pact is to have any chance of survival, Mr Brown must signal unequivocally that he seeks to continue only for as long as it takes to get a new constitutional order in place. He must give clear advance notice of his resignation, stating that he will continue as prime minister in a caretaker capacity only. He must accept a timetable, no longer than two years, for a referendum on electoral reform and a new general election, in which Labour will be led by someone else.

Combined, the Liberal Democrats and Labour have the affinity on policy, the electoral mandate and the unique historic opportunity to usher in a new era of fairer, better governance for Britain. Mr Brown must offer Mr Clegg partnership in an administration of real national renewal and make the vital concession needed to secure it – a guarantee of his own departure.
...

I find their analysis quite astute.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The thing is, you're not the first person to want to tear it all down and start over. It might be that you haven't "found" a party because you're not clear about your ideas and where they fit in history and in the current system.

Yeah, I'm not under any illusion that I'm the first to think this or realise there is a problem so you've pretty much nailed it there I feel.

I will give some serious thought to those books, if nothing else they might prove intresting to read...

I used to think about starting my own party as well, but remember: In order to be taken seriously as a political party, you need to have a complete policy platform. You need positions on every issue related to government. You also don't just need to have positions, but you need to be prepared to defend them, too. If you're really only focused on a couple of issues, you'd be better off forming or joining a pressure group.

This is one of the things that's wrong with a lot of the small parties such as UKIP: there's really only a couple of things they care about, but they have to spend a load of their time answering questions about their other, 'filler' policies. If they were a pressure group instead, they could focus purely on persuading people that leaving Europe is a good idea, and the more they persuade people, the more the major parties will be interested in offering it as a policy in order to get votes.