London Indymedia

Why to Vote and How to Make it Count

The Democrat Diarist | 04.03.2005 12:38 | Analysis | London

Why voting is a duty as well as a right, and some suggestions on how to make best use of it.

“The argument was familiar. I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but ‘regrettably necessary’ holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?”
From “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72” – Hunter S Thompson

These familiar frustrations, when manifested in a low turnout, are often misinterpreted by the political classes as ‘voter apathy’. Given the chance to actually vote in favour of something we might suspect that voter interest in the coming election would be rather higher. In fact, since many smaller parties exist, it’s probably the option of voting for a candidate that stands any chance of making a difference that people feel is missing. So is it worth voting at all? Does voting matter?

So as to be as uncontroversial as possible let’s use the starkest, most obvious example of how governments make a difference to peoples lives and why its therefore worth, in however small a way, trying to influence who forms those governments: Iraq.

Through war and sanctions the present UK government’s policies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. Whether or one regards the price as worth paying the fact remains that these deaths are the shared responsibility of everyone in this country. We live in a relatively free and democratic society; there’s no secret police to kidnap and torture us if we speak out or organise in opposition to our government. Whether by voting or by abstaining, by taking direct action or by staying at home, the net result of all our political activity or non-activity is the government of this country, no matter how poor our electoral system or how narrow our choices. Since how Britain is governed is literally a matter of life or death, any contribution we can make to influence this, however small that contribution may be, is something we should take very seriously indeed. When we’re talking about one of the most powerful governments in the world small differences can make for significant outcomes.

Of course voting is just one way we can influence how our societies are governed. What we can contribute to organisations, pressure groups or charities like Amnesty International, Oxfam or the Stop The War Coalition can be just as important. There are four to five years between national elections and plenty we can do in between times. But the election plainly influences how our country is run so the question is how to make best use of it.

Whatever your political inclination, and indeed whatever voting system you’re faced with, the tactics a voter should employ are pretty much always the same. You vote for the candidate or platform that’s closest to your own views and most likely to have an impact. When choices are at their narrowest you vote for the candidate or platform you find least abhorrent to stop a yet more abhorrent candidate from prevailing. Thanks to the UK's ludicrous first-past-the-post system, and to the difficulties in presenting a less than totally corporate friendly set of policies in a capitalist economy, the choices we’re presented with are severely limited. What sort of genuine democracy could replace this grotty little pantomime is a question that urgently requires an answer. We have vast amounts of time between elections to work towards getting there. But for one day every four years we must work with what we’ve got.

Unlike a grown-up democracy the UK voting system does not throw together a varied range of politicians representing the myriad of political views that make up a diverse civil society; representatives who must then work together and compromise much as we all do in our day to day lives. Rather we elect one group to dominate the scene. Under our system a party must win the most votes in a regional constituency to have a representative in parliament. The result is that parties with a degree of support across the country but no actual majority in any one place (e.g. the Greens) have no representation whatsoever in government. Many voters who understand this dynamic then abandon the small parties they might otherwise have voted for, holding their noses and voting for the ones they know can win. The system under-represents the small parties and over-represents the large ones, which in turn encourages voting behaviour that exaggerates this disparity further. The outcome is parliaments dominated by one party, as opposed to ones that represent a balance of all views. The dominating party might have the support of less than two fifths of the population, and many of them may have only supported it for what they perceive as pragmatic reasons.

So the progressive vote may not be able to change the course of government at one fell swoop. But, by first accepting this reality, it can then use the voting system to win that victory in increments, election by election. Instead of individuals voting centre-right (Labour) to keep out the hard right (Tories) a concerted and collective effort could be made by progressive voters to abandon party loyalty and concentrate voting behaviour on moving British politics in a progressive direction. In a marginal seat that’ll mean voting for the most progressive candidate of those that have a chance of winning. In a safe seat it means voting entirely with your conscience and so demonstrating that there are votes to be had in a progressive set of policies. The latter is as important as the former, though the results are less tangible. Moreover, a high turnout from hitherto frustrated progressive voters is essential. Whilst the success of this method of tactical voting is not guaranteed, staying at home is an absolute guarantee of failure. If we accept the need for patience that is required we can now consider ourselves to be voting for something: increasingly progressive government.

Put very simply, this would mean applying the following formula:

If your seat is marginal Conservative/Labour, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Labour
If your seat is marginal Conservative/Lib Dem, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Lib Dem
If your seat is marginal Lib Dem/Labour, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Labour
If your seat is completely safe for any of the main parties, vote Green or Respect
If you live in Wales or Scotland, lucky you. Vote nationalist and have a cigar.

One complicating factor is of course that political parties, despite the best efforts of their leaders, are not homogenous groups. Take the marginal Lib Dem/Labour seats. In one seat we might have an anti-war, anti-privatisation Labour MP versus a pro-privatisation Liberal Democrat who was only anti-war until the shooting started. In another we might have a Blairite android who’d cheer Bush on if he invaded Canada versus a Liberal Democrat who’s shown real bravery in standing to tabloid hysteria on asylum seekers. Using the vote to inch Britain away from the neo-Thatcherism of Blair and Howard will require us to take a close look at the individual candidates in our own constituencies. That is especially true when one issue dominates the scene.

The factor that sets this election apart is of course the war. Plainly the election of a government involves a wide variety of considerations. Hospital waiting lists, quality of education, improvements in public transport, whilst all important factors, are things many Iraqis would love to be the extent of their concerns. The slaughter and devastation visited on that country by our backing of Saddam in the ‘80s, the vicious sanctions regime, the massive aerial bombardment from two wars and the hellish anarchy that has held sway for the last two years are not a secondary issue to better public services in the UK. Nor is the launching of a war of aggression, i.e. attacking a country that poses no threat to us, an act the Nuremberg judges described as the supreme international crime. British governments have committed unspeakable acts abroad in the past, but this barely concealed return to western military colonialism, which has cost so many thousands of lives already and could well be a mere prelude to far greater disasters in Syria and Iran, is of a greater order of magnitude than any domestic concern and must be dealt with urgently. How can we use the vote to achieve this?

Whilst some Conservatives opposed the war, a Tory candidate that is acceptable to a genuinely anti-war voter will be extremely hard to come by. The question of voting anti-war will more clearly arise in marginal Lib Dem/Labour seats, but again that will depend on the candidates in question. The difference from the formula mentioned above is in safe seats where the sitting MP voted in favour of the war. Earlier, in the case of safe seats, I recommended a clear vote with your conscience. However, in certain cases a concentrated effort around a single progressive anti-war challenger could seriously worry, or even bring down some very senior figures responsible for the invasion. If Martin Bell can unseat Neil Hamilton for corruption can a couple of senior Blairites not be unseated for waging an unprovoked war? Craig Murray, the former Ambassador to Uzbekistan who was removed for speaking out against the brutality of our allies there, is standing against Jack Straw in his Blackburn constituency. If the anti-war vote could unite around his candidacy, others could step aside to give Murray a clear run, and if this could be repeated in Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon’s constituencies, a clear message could be sent, by targeting the ringleaders, that left-liberal voters had drawn a line in the sand; indicating the limits of what they would accept. In fact there are already plans afoot to field such a candidate in the Prime Minister’s Sedgefield seat. Claiming any one of those three, or even giving them a decent scare, would be a massive victory for the anti-war movement. The political cost of war is raised by every vote for an anti-war candidate in every constituency, and by raising those costs further wars might just be prevented and thousands of lives saved. Isn’t that something positive to vote for?


The Democrat Diarist
- e-mail: democratsdiary@yahoo.co.uk
- Homepage: http://democratsdiary.blogspot.com/

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Ummm.

04.03.2005 14:45

You advocate voting Labour in a tight Lab/Lib marginal. Is this a typo, or do you really think that this government is any way progressive? You focus on the war - so how can you advocate a vote FOR Blair's party and a shoring up of his majority? This doesn't seem to make sense given the rest of your article...

Matt

Matt S


quick reply to matt

04.03.2005 16:44

Matt - Thanks for your comment. Please have another read of the article if you can. In the paragraph after the broad formula for tactical voting I go on to say that in the case of Lib Dem v Labour marginals it will very much depend on the candidates involved.

You might well have an anti-war (and indeed anti-New Labour) Labour candidate standing against a neo-liberal Lib Dem who saw anti-war sentiment as a political opportunity.

I was unsure about setting out that formula in case it over-simplified things. I intended for it to be taken as a very broad suggestion, heavily qualifying it with the obvious point that "political parties are not homogenous groups". If we're to use the system intelligently come the election then we're going to have to judge individual candidates on their merits, not just vote by party.

Democrat Diarist
mail e-mail: democratsdiary@yahoo.co.uk
- Homepage: http://democratsdiary.blogspot.com/


reply to matt

04.03.2005 16:58

Matt- thanks for your comment. tried to reply before. not sure that it worked. if it did apologies for the repetition.

Have another read of the article if you can. Straight after the broad formula I proposed my next paragraph qualified it heavily by saying that, especially in Lib Dem / Labour marginals, a lot will depend on the nature of the individual candidates. If you're choice is between an anti-war (even anti-New Labour) labour candidate and a neo-liberal Lib Dem whose was against the war until the actual shooting started, then you'll be helping send politics to the right by voting for the Liberal. Despite New Labour's efforts Labour is not a homogenous party stuffed with neo-thatcherite androids. If we're serious about being anti-war and politically prorgessive then those Labour MPs that resisted Blair ought to be rewarded for it.

democrat diarist
mail e-mail: democratsdiary@yahoo.co.uk
- Homepage: http://democratsdiary.blogspot.com/


Don't vote.

05.03.2005 08:36

Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

Doug.


Refferee, This isnt football...THIS IS BOLLOCKS

05.03.2005 11:01

The question we should be asking is how a anti-war anti new labour candidate runs for labour in the elections. These idiots treat this as its a football game and they must be 'loyal' to their team. If any of them had any morals theyd leave this bloodthirsty privatising party and either start their own one or find one that suits them better. They just like the power they have of being in parliament. We should vote in the elections, give the smaller parties a chance to slowly develop in order to show that increasing ammounts of people believe that there is another way for us all. In turn that may well get others voting for smaller parties in the future. Look up the Portugese elections this yr and compare it to last elections there...ul c what i mean.




Monk


Try using this formulae - Reduce the number of spineless Blairite. backbenchers

05.03.2005 15:00

What gives you the Idea New £abour has anything to do with The Labour Party? it's more
right wing than Thatcher, what about the poor , the sick ,the homeless?

Reduce the number of spineless Blairite. backbenchers

To put very simply, this would mean applying THIS following formula:

If your seat is marginal Conservative/New Labour, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Consevative
If your seat is marginal Conservative/Lib Dem, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Lib Dem
If your seat is marginal Lib Dem/New Labour, or there’s an outside chance of a challenge, vote Lib Dem
If your seat is completely safe for any of the main parties, Campgain against New Labour in another seat
If you live in Wales or Scotland, Campaign against New Labour elsewhere

A LABOUR supporter.

Bill


no vote is no protest

06.03.2005 12:55

good to see these things being talked about.

doug - who exactly are you worried about encouraging? the alienated population who feel like we have no control or power over our own lives? voting is one of the few ways we can actually have some sort of influence over the way our country is run. tactical voting can be a means of resistance, a means of showing dissent, a means of protest.

no single action seems to have the power to change how screwed up everything is. using the systems that are already in place to achieve our goals seems blindingly obvious to me.

what exactly is achieved by not voting? what is the positive outcome of that choice?

but by using our vote, we can begin the gradual turn around mentioned in this article.

voting is especially significant at this time when they are taking away other means of protest. think of brian haw.

my vote is an expression of my opinion and my individuality and i'll be damned if i'm not gonna use it. imagine if we all actually used our votes in a way that expressed our real opinions and they got so scared they DID make it illegal. then we'd have a revolution on our hands.

bec


All political parties and politicians are stupid brainwashed sheep

07.03.2005 16:11

..and so is anyone who is idiotic enough to vote for them, get off indymedia and get a clue you liberal/left fuckwits, you do fuck all but cry about shit - piss off


Don't vote - cause trouble



For Anarchism


response to my anarchic chum

07.03.2005 20:47

you're right - not voting will cause trouble. and trouble causes more trouble. nasty trouble with horrible dark consequences. but what about solutions?

brainless sheep? well...maybe it is difficult to find the right party to vote for. yes, collectively, they do seem to behave like a bunch of wankers. the majority in there at the moment seem to be as much use to the future of our world as tits on a fish.

but its a matter of choosing individual candidates in individual constituencies, not going in for a whole party. that is the problem with the way the system is being used at the moment, but it can be used differently.

not voting allows that prick tony blair to get away with everything he has done. like it or not, you and i are answerable for his actions.

there is a time for direct action and a time for protest and a time for using the system that is already in place.

vote outside the top 2 parties. vote for an independent candidate. break the pattern of choosing the lesser of two evils. i'm not suggesting that voting is the only form of resistance, i'm saying that not voting is no resistance at all.

and i ask again 'what is the positive outcome of choosing not to vote?'

bec


Hold your MP to Account

08.03.2005 20:18

Interesting debate this. I would say forget party politics and try and hold your MP to account for his actions no matter what party he/she belongs to. Politicians can't be trusted - pretty straight forward, however once they're in power and supposedly represent you there are ways in which you can hold them accountable as a constituent. Blair and the powers that be may feel beyond your reach but your MP isn't and if they support Blair's policies they're as guilty as him. The problem people have is information, most people probably have no idea what their MP is upto, local and regional mainstream news is a joke. So follow the following link to find out how your MP represents YOU and ideas about how you can hold 'em to account. We are not powerless despite their best efforts. Contribute to the salvaging of democracy at  http://www.powertothepeople.org.uk/content/gov/gov_account.htm

Read Chomsky


Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

London Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

London IMC

Desktop

About | Contact
Mission Statement
Editorial Guidelines
Publish | Help

Search :