What do you think about UKIP?

[Shove Piggy Shove]

I like Essex for the most part, although that might be because I'm in the only non-Tory part...

You are quite lucky then. John Whittingdale, the homophobic Thatcherite is my MP. I'm half-tempted to try and steal his seat in the next election but I know that is an impossible pipe dream >_>

Would you stand as an independent or seek affiliation with one of the minor parties (I'm assuming that the major parties will already have candidates in place)? Either way, it couldn't hurt to try

[Greater-London]

Think about this if Farage wants out of the EU why is he in Brussels with politicians who are even worse than our own?

Well you've just responded to what I said with a completely different point but okay. Whilst I think its bad that a number of UKIP MEP's have gone native I think something that we Britts understand is that leaving your seat vacant comes to nout - Sin Feinn don't take their seats and what good has it done them? sod all. UKIP take their seats beacuse they are fulfilling their role as a representative and are their to challenge EU dogma and help restrict the influence the EU has. You can debate about wether or not thats a good thing or how well they do it but thats WHY they are their.
Even if you don't like Mr Farage he is probably the only person who makes the tedium of the peoples assembly in Brussels worth paying atention to.

[Imperializt Russia]

I like Essex for the most part, although that might be because I'm in the only non-Tory part...

You are quite lucky then. John Whittingdale, the homophobic Thatcherite is my MP. I'm half-tempted to try and steal his seat in the next election but I know that is an impossible pipe dream >_>

You don't know how much I'm tingling at the thought of an NSer as MP.

doitdoitdoitdoit

[Ostroeuropa]

Firstly I dont go in for the batman shit - If you must know I just do a big cross on my sheet of paper.

Does it achieve much? No i'm under no delusion, but I don't want to vote for anyone offered to me so what else can I do?

The answer is stay at home but I am passionate about democracy and my right to vote. I feel I owe it to the people who don't have that right to get of my arse and go to the polling both.

I sense you were having a go, and I don't quite understand why? I'm not trying to be edgy or clever, I just think what I do is less apathetic than someone saying "hmppff don't like them but I don't want the bloody Torries".

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

If the number of spoiled ballots exceeds the number of votes required to win, it's an almost automatic recount and extra scutiny applied.
A spoiled ballot, in that view, is a good thing to do in areas where voter fraud is high, to force the opposition to demand recounts.

[Alf Landon]

You are quite lucky then. John Whittingdale, the homophobic Thatcherite is my MP. I'm half-tempted to try and steal his seat in the next election but I know that is an impossible pipe dream >_>

You don't know how much I'm tingling at the thought of an NSer as MP.

doitdoitdoitdoit

I actually did a thread awhile back asking NSers if any of them had ever stood in an election, and quite a few said they had. Including myself. Of course, no-one said they'd ever run for Parliament. Or were in Parliament. At least none admitted so.

[Arkinesia]

They're full of minarchist, isolationist idiots.

[Shove Piggy Shove]

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

If the number of spoiled ballots exceeds the number of votes required to win, it's an almost automatic recount and extra scutiny applied.
A spoiled ballot, in that view, is a good thing to do in areas where voter fraud is high, to force the opposition to demand recounts.

I wasn't aware of that, still seems like a pretty big 'if...' though.

[Imperializt Russia]

Look at you, so edgy.

Big whoop, you writing in "Batman" at the top of your ballot sheet doesn't achieve squat. Might as well have stayed at home.

Firstly I dont go in for the batman shit - If you must know I just do a big cross on my sheet of paper.

Does it achieve much? No i'm under no delusion, but I don't want to vote for anyone offered to me so what else can I do?

The answer is stay at home but I am passionate about democracy and my right to vote. I feel I owe it to the people who don't have that right to get of my arse and go to the polling both.

I sense you were having a go, and I don't quite understand why? I'm not trying to be edgy or clever, I just think what I do is less apathetic than someone saying "hmppff don't like them but I don't want the bloody Torries".

Because the system isn't brilliant but that's the best we can do. If you don't cast a vote (which is exactly what you're doing) then you are contributing to whatever shit-ass party gets elected.

Young voters vote the least and old voters vote the most. Old voters are typically right-wing voters and young people typically left-wing.
You not voting lets that older right-wing demographic dominate with its frequent voting habits.

Because in the system we have, it doesn't matter for shit how many votes a party gets, nationally. It's how many won seats. And won seats is a thing that favours older voters with their right-wing slant, by going out and being consistent voters.

That's why I'm having a go.
At least the intended principle behind tactical voting is that you compromise your own political beliefs in order to achieve something that better approximates them, not IWANTIWANTIWANT "well, I'll just deface my paper".

[Ostroeuropa]

If the number of spoiled ballots exceeds the number of votes required to win, it's an almost automatic recount and extra scutiny applied.
A spoiled ballot, in that view, is a good thing to do in areas where voter fraud is high, to force the opposition to demand recounts.

I wasn't aware of that, still seems like a pretty big 'if...' though.

Well ask yourself this.

You lose an election by 100 votes.
5000 ballots were disqualified.
Are you going to demand a recount?

If you suspect that one party is rigging elections, engaging in mass ballot spoiling can draw attention to it and make people go
"What the fuck? That's a lot of spoiled ballots."
Including international organizations.
And then investigate.
In the process of discovering that your ballots are actually legitimately spoiled, they may also come across evidence of rigging, which even if the person doing it would have won without it, is an incredibly damaging revelation.

[Greater-London]

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

Some constituencies in the UK have a NOTA party. Some ballot papers in some countries also include a NOTA option.
(None of the above. The UK NOTA party commits itself to resigning if elected.)
None
Of
The
Above

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

Certainly ballot spoiling is better than donkey voting though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote

In areas like Oz with compulsory voting, there should probably actually be a government campaign telling people to ballot spoil instead.

[Greater-London]

Because the system isn't brilliant but that's the best we can do. If you don't cast a vote (which is exactly what you're doing) then you are contributing to whatever shit-ass party gets elected.

Young voters vote the least and old voters vote the most. Old voters are typically right-wing voters and young people typically left-wing.
You not voting lets that older right-wing demographic dominate with its frequent voting habits.

Because in the system we have, it doesn't matter for shit how many votes a party gets, nationally. It's how many won seats. And won seats is a thing that favours older voters with their right-wing slant, by going out and being consistent voters.

That's why I'm having a go.
At least the intended principle behind tactical voting is that you compromise your own political beliefs in order to achieve something that better approximates them, not IWANTIWANTIWANT "well, I'll just deface my paper".

But if I vote for the "shit-ass party" that gets elected then I'm responsible for the programe they follow. So I guess I could always vote for the party that's not the favorite to win the seat, fair enough but that's just the same as spoiling your ballot. Lets say I want to keep the Torries out and I live in a Torry safe seat, voting Labour/LibDem will have the same effect as spoiling my ballot. Strategic voting is bollocks anyway when you have FPTP for the reason you pointed out, its all about seats and not popular vote. Strategic voting just leads to less of the popular vote but needn't affect the number of seats you win.

I understand why your having a go, But I would rather stick to my principles than endorse either a labour or conservative government as they would inevitbly follow similar programms and I don't want to be a part of that.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see how - at least someone who has made a tactical vote has made a decision and done something which could have an impact. All that happens when you spoil your ballot is that it gets thrown away and you get to feel like you've "stuck it to the man" or whatever, it has absolutely no impact on anything - so why bother?

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

I can argue that, because it is. You're putting forwards a vote.

Critically, you're also introducing that basic tenet of multi-party systems which is compromise.
You can't have what you want. You don't want "your" opposition to have what they want. You go for a middle ground or its nearest approximation.

How is that not less apathetic?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

I can argue that, because it is. You're putting forwards a vote.

Critically, you're also introducing that basic tenet of multi-party systems which is compromise.
You can't have what you want. You don't want "your" opposition to have what they want. You go for a middle ground or its nearest approximation.

How is that not less apathetic?

Assuming someone IS apathetic, and there is compulsory voting in place, surely you're in favor of ballot spoiling compared to donkey voting?

[Imperializt Russia]

I can argue that, because it is. You're putting forwards a vote.

Critically, you're also introducing that basic tenet of multi-party systems which is compromise.
You can't have what you want. You don't want "your" opposition to have what they want. You go for a middle ground or its nearest approximation.

How is that not less apathetic?

Assuming someone IS apathetic, and there is compulsory voting in place, surely you're in favor of ballot spoiling compared to donkey voting?

The UK, where UKIP holds political power, does not have compulsory voting making the question redundant.

You're also implying that donkey voting isn't already a thing. Why do you think the BNP chose to have their party name listed as "BNP"? They appear first on the ballot.

[Ostroeuropa]

Assuming someone IS apathetic, and there is compulsory voting in place, surely you're in favor of ballot spoiling compared to donkey voting?

The UK, where UKIP holds political power, does not have compulsory voting making the question redundant.

You're also implying that donkey voting isn't already a thing. Why do you think the BNP chose to have their party name listed as "BNP"? They appear first on the ballot.

I know. I was asking about it in general.
In that case then, do you think there should be a government campaign encouraging people who don't actually care to stay home and/or spoil their ballot instead?

[Greater-London]

I can argue that, because it is. You're putting forwards a vote.

Critically, you're also introducing that basic tenet of multi-party systems which is compromise.
You can't have what you want. You don't want "your" opposition to have what they want. You go for a middle ground or its nearest approximation.

How is that not less apathetic?

I'm not putting forward anyone's vote. A spoiled ballot is not a de facto vote for anyone, its just a vote that COULD have been cast in opposition to whoever wins. However if you vote for someone who doesn't win beacuse of "tactics" then your vote was as pointless as mine, the only difference is I didn't compromise my beliefs.

Also rejecting all candidates given to you isn't apathy. I reject the party/parties forming the government and the party/parties forming the opposition. I have a strong opinion on the direction my countries politics should go in and I'm not willing to endorse either the government or opposition as they are both bad. How is that more apathetic?

Even if you disagree with me that tactical voting is more apathetic, I don't see how you can say that spoiling your ballot equates to apathy.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Disappointingly un-libertarian. They oppose same-sex marriage and a 31% flat tax would make no difference to lower- and middle-income brackets at all. A few of my college comrades support them, but UKIP won't be getting my vote.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

They're full of minarchist, isolationist idiots.

That's not what UKIP espouses, but even so, what's wrong with limited government?

[Ostroeuropa]

They're full of minarchist, isolationist idiots.

That's not what UKIP espouses, but even so, what's wrong with limited government?

Minimal isn't the same as limited. The US government is limited currently, but it's hardly minimal.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can argue that, because it is. You're putting forwards a vote.

Critically, you're also introducing that basic tenet of multi-party systems which is compromise.
You can't have what you want. You don't want "your" opposition to have what they want. You go for a middle ground or its nearest approximation.

How is that not less apathetic?

I'm not putting forward anyone's vote. A spoiled ballot is not a de facto vote for anyone, its just a vote that COULD have been cast in opposition to whoever wins. However if you vote for someone who doesn't win beacuse of "tactics" then your vote was as pointless as mine, the only difference is I didn't compromise my beliefs.

Also rejecting all candidates given to you isn't apathy. I reject the party/parties forming the government and the party/parties forming the opposition. I have a strong opinion on the direction my countries politics should go in and I'm not willing to endorse either the government or opposition as they are both bad. How is that more apathetic?

Even if you disagree with me that tactical voting is more apathetic, I don't see how you can say that spoiling your ballot equates to apathy.

No, I said that tactical voting [at least] puts forwards an actual vote.

[European Socialist Republic]

I can't think of a single issue where I agree with them, so my opinion of them is very negative.

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well you can't argue that tactically voting is somehow less apathetic than going to vote and spoiling your ballot. Tactically voting is far more apathetic as your voting for someone you don't care about, spoiling your ballot shows you care about the voting process but don't like the menu, far more politically engaged.

Your also being quite cynical about the reasons why anyone would spoil their ballot its not a case of "sticking it to the man". Its a case of me or anyone registering their dissatisfaction with the candidates offered but caring enough about the democratic process to go out and do it.

As for it being worthless, well I have to challenge you on that point too. Because of the electoral system your vote is worthless in almost any constituency with the exception of the marginals. Also if the number of spoiled ballots exceed the number of those who received votes then it brings the whole system into question, the number of spoiled ballots are ALWAYS recorded and published.

Certainly ballot spoiling is better than donkey voting though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote

In areas like Oz with compulsory voting, there should probably actually be a government campaign telling people to ballot spoil instead.

Here in Tasmania, Australia and in the A.C.T the "Robson Rotation" is used which randomises the names on the ballot paper so there are multiple ballot paper combinations - This results in all 'donkey votes' being proportionally split (when used on a single column paper - Multiple column papers made up of party groups and others group are allocated an order horizontally across the paper by a secret draw and as such can still favour the party who gets the 'A' column)

As an example in an election with 5 candidates (using IRV + Robson Rotation) to fill a single seat... Two separate papers may look like the following:

CANDIDATE........................CANDIDATE
_____ A________________________D
______D________________________B
______E________________________A
______B________________________C
______C________________________E

1/5 of first preference votes would go to each candidate - Preferences require many more combinations of each column (in this case there is only one)

More info about Hare-Clarke and Robson rotation Here: http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/ballot_papers_for_the_legislative_assembly

I am overwhelmingly opposed to the UKIP - I pretty much disagree with every policy they have and the shambles of nutters and loonies that represent the party are horrific - they have "Lord" Monckton for Christ's sake!

Parties like UKIP and the BNP are most unhelpful and only legitimise racism and xenophobia amongst the general population

[Nervium]

I can't think of a single issue where I agree with them, so my opinion of them is very negative.

Abolition of taxation for minimum wage workers?