Jump to content

None of the above.


Guest Dark Sotonic Mills
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would. Really finding the idea of voting this year quite a dilemma. Though in fairness if i was to vote in my current constituency or home constituency (yes im a student) would make both little difference as both are strong holds of labour and tory respectively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting 'none of the above' or spoiling the ballot paper is not a "lazy" vote.

 

You'll find that people that do this have typically thought MORE about it than those who simply pitch up and go through the motions of voting for one of the candidate through some arbitary sense of duty.

 

I would urge anyone who doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates to go along and spoil your ballot paper in order to send out a positive message to politicians rather than deliver an apathetic message by not turning up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because if I felt like that I wouldn't bother turning up at the polling station. There is a party for everyone and those who don't vote are simply lazy.

 

It's not a case of not voting it's case of sending out a clear message that the parties on the bollot paper do not represent your views.

 

You'd have to go along to the polling station to register your "none of the above" vote.

 

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting 'none of the above' or spoiling the ballot paper is not a "lazy" vote.

 

You'll find that people that do this have typically thought MORE about it than those who simply pitch up and go through the motions of voting for one of the candidate through some arbitary sense of duty.

 

I would urge anyone who doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates to go along and spoil your ballot paper in order to send out a positive message to politicians rather than deliver an apathetic message by not turning up.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

In my case it's a combination of the fact that I don't currently feel that there's a party available to me and our "first past the post system".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a case of not voting it's case of sending out a clear message that the parties on the bollot paper do not represent your views.

 

You'd have to go along to the polling station to register your "none of the above" vote.

 

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

There was no need for the sarcastic parting comment. The point i'm making is that imo it's a misconception that those who don't vote aren't doing so to make a point, the vast majority (again imo) that don't vote choose not to do so because they basically can't be arsed to use their legs and walk to the polling station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no need for the sarcastic parting comment. The point i'm making is that imo it's a misconception that those who don't vote aren't doing so to make a point, the vast majority (again imo) that don't vote choose not to do so because they basically can't be arsed to use their legs and walk to the polling station.

 

But the point is that "none of the above/spoiling your vote" is actually different to not voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point is that "none of the above/spoiling your vote" is actually different to not voting.

 

I take on board the difference, but still maintain that having this option wouldn't increase turnout - and that is the real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take on board the difference, but still maintain that having this option wouldn't increase turnout - and that is the real issue.

 

I'm not sure that was the point of the thread but you may be right and you may not - we'll never know. What would increase voter turnout is making voting more accessible. Internet or phone voting for example would probably massively increase the turnout. It'd be a nightmare to ensure there's no corruption though (but that's a different issue). Incidentally if that was introduced would there be an option to "spoil your vote"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no need for the sarcastic parting comment. The point i'm making is that imo it's a misconception that those who don't vote aren't doing so to make a point, the vast majority (again imo) that don't vote choose not to do so because they basically can't be arsed to use their legs and walk to the polling station.

 

You've still not grasped this very simple concept.

 

It's not about not voting but about casting a vote which sends out the message that none of the parties on the ballot paper are representative of your views.

Edited by View From The Top
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take on board the difference, but still maintain that having this option wouldn't increase turnout - and that is the real issue.

 

Turnout is falling due to politicans themselves.

 

Smary, self serving career politicos who deal only in presentation & sound bites, ignore what the ordinary folk want dealt with and are only worried about focus groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turnout is falling due to politicans themselves.

 

Smary, self serving career politicos who deal only in presentation & sound bites, ignore what the ordinary folk want dealt with and are only worried about focus groups.

 

Which is sadly why the BNP have gained ground - it's a failure of mainstream politicians to offer genuine choice and instead concentrate on presentation.

 

I do think that accessibility is also an issue - sadly when we're used to phoning in, pressing our red button etc for reality TV programmes then the idea of actually going to a polling station is just too much for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is sadly why the BNP have gained ground - it's a failure of mainstream politicians to offer genuine choice and instead concentrate on presentation.

 

I do think that accessibility is also an issue - sadly when we're used to phoning in, pressing our red button etc for reality TV programmes then the idea of actually going to a polling station is just too much for some people.

 

The Far Right is growing, and will continue to grow, because of the sheer number of migrants we're letting in. It's often said that they are needed because British people won't work for a pittance, but if migrants weren't allowed in employers would have to pay the market rate and British people would do the jobs. Also there is the argument that British people won't do hard work and this is simply wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Far Right is growing, and will continue to grow, because of the sheer number of migrants we're letting in. It's often said that they are needed because British people won't work for a pittance, but if migrants weren't allowed in employers would have to pay the market rate and British people would do the jobs. Also there is the argument that British people won't do hard work and this is simply wrong.

 

If by the market rate, you mean more money - in order to entice British workers. Can't really see howo this would work?

 

Not allowing in migrants to work for low wages is more likely to result in companies moving to countries where they are able to pay less wages, as opposed to raising wages in order to attract british workers.

 

This is going to be much worse for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by the market rate, you mean more money - in order to entice British workers. Can't really see howo this would work?

 

Not allowing in migrants to work for low wages is more likely to result in companies moving to countries where they are able to pay less wages, as opposed to raising wages in order to attract british workers.

 

This is going to be much worse for the economy.

 

No it isn't, because immigration has meant that more and more British families are better off living on benefits - they've looked at the menial jobs done by the single poles living in shared accomodation (long hours for the minimum wages) and thought sod that i'm better off living on benefits. So immigration has given to the employer with one hand, but taken from the state in the other hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't, because immigration has meant that more and more British families are better off living on benefits - they've looked at the menial jobs done by the single poles living in shared accomodation (long hours for the minimum wages) and thought sod that i'm better off living on benefits. So immigration has given to the employer with one hand, but taken from the state in the other hand.

 

Hmmm, not really addressed the point I made. Migrant workers or not, companies are not going to hike wages simply to get British workers. If they can't find replacement workers at the same price they will simply shut up and relocate.

 

This is damaging to the economy and has simple knock on effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, not really addressed the point I made. Migrant workers or not, companies are not going to hike wages simply to get British workers. If they can't find replacement workers at the same price they will simply shut up and relocate.

 

This is damaging to the economy and has simple knock on effects.

 

So are we to keep importing wave upon wave of immigrants indefinitely? That's a great idea, let's make the M3 a 6 land highway, let's rip up te countryside and build new towns to house these people, let's build more and more hospitals and of course bring i more and more migrants as nurses. You attitude is the same as Labours and it doesn't look to the future. Mass immigration can't simply go on and on and on because the same issues will keep arising with each generation and all we'll ultmatelybe left with is a overcrowded island, polluted because of the sheer numbers, and the recipe for a cival war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we to keep importing wave upon wave of immigrants indefinitely? That's a great idea, let's make the M3 a 6 land highway, let's rip up te countryside and build new towns to house these people, let's build more and more hospitals and of course bring i more and more migrants as nurses. You attitude is the same as Labours and it doesn't look to the future. Mass immigration can't simply go on and on and on because the same issues will keep arising with each generation and all we'll ultmatelybe left with is a overcrowded island, polluted because of the sheer numbers, and the recipe for a cival war.

 

What? You have no idea what my attitude is. I'm not saying that at all.

 

All I was saying is that what you are suggesting is more likely to be damaging to an already very frail economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? You have no idea what my attitude is. I'm not saying that at all.

 

All I was saying is that what you are suggesting is more likely to be damaging to an already very frail economy.

 

Our frail economy is a blip, continued mass immigration will destroy this island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our frail economy is a blip, continued mass immigration will destroy this island.

 

The boom's have been built on migrant workers. In fact any time this island has prospered it has been in large part thanks to us basically exploiting others. Whether it be cheap migrant workers or in days gone by rounding them up and using them as slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The boom's have been built on migrant workers. In fact any time this island has prospered it has been in large part thanks to us basically exploiting others. Whether it be cheap migrant workers or in days gone by rounding them up and using them as slaves.

 

So we keep importing more and more migrants - do you want to live in a country full to the brim with millions more houses and more and more roads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the reality of what is going to happen. This is an idea hyped up by certain parts of the media to promote certain groups political objectives and sell newspapers.

 

And is still more likely to be preferable to a ghost country empty of all business due people refusing to work for low wages. If there are no people willing to work for low wages business will not raise pay. It will move to where it can.

 

Do you want to live in a country with no business, no industry and no employers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the reality of what is going to happen. This is an idea hyped up by certain parts of the media to promote certain groups political objectives and sell newspapers.

 

And is still more likely to be preferable to a ghost country empty of all business due people refusing to work for low wages. If there are no people willing to work for low wages business will not raise pay. It will move to where it can.

 

Do you want to live in a country with no business, no industry and no employers?

 

What do you mean "that's not really going to happen" - ITS HAPPENING ALREADY!!!

 

More people = more infrastructure to cope with the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})