Thursday 6th May

[fleetfootmike]

I'm sure someone's expecting this post, so...

Vote, folks. It's your right.

(readers from countries who do not have an election today need not apply; may contain nuts; candidates measured by volume, nit weight; the value of your vote may go up as well as down (but is worthless if you don't use it).)

Comments

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Already voted (Postal, recovering from a fracture, again...)

Looked at the list here, and there wasn't really any choice. Well, the sitting Labour MP is a decent bloke, and I'd be happy to see him elected, but four right-wing authoritarian parties on the ballot is getting a bit excessive.

Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really
really really wanna zigazig ha.


[GRAMS] Footsteps receding into distance. Creaking door. BLAM! Music stops.


And if the BNP come around with their imaginary Spitfire, I have an imaginary Anarchist fighter squadron flying CAP. With an AWACS Zeppelin.

(No, this election campaign hasn't driven me crazy. Yet.)

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"We're willing to vote as you want us to vote / When you do what we want you to do."

It is almost certain that my vote will be wasted anyway -- last election Tory 49%, LD 27%, Labour 18%, UKIP 5% (and the Tory percentage has risen for the last two elections). Unless the sitting MP drops dead (or resigns) today there is no chance of my vote doing anything at all.

(I will vote, but still have no idea which way, I dislike all of them. "A plaque on all their houses"; one of those blue ones saying "Freedom died here" and the date...)

[filklore-on-lj.livejournal.com]

You do realise that if everyone who thought "my vote would be wasted" voted anyway, they would stand a not insignificant chance of kicking out the incumbent? Aylesbury in 2005 had a turnout of 62.4%, and although the Conservative got almost half of the votes *cast*, he only got 30% of the total possible votes.

Anyway, no vote is wasted. Your vote - whoever you vote for - sends a message that the candidate/party of your choice has support in the area. The more people who send that message, the less likely that people will be saying in the *next* election "my vote would be wasted".

As for who to vote for, if you dislike all the parties equally, I suggest you vote for the local candidate you think will do best for the constituency (although you have left it a bit late to do your research, google is your friend).

A very quick check on your candidates suggests that neither the Labour or LibDem candidates have been "parachuted in", which is to their credit. The Labour candidate was born and brought up in Aylesbury, whereas the LibDem is a sitting district councilor for Coldharbour. Google them, read their webpages/blogs, try to get an idea about them.

[filklore-on-lj.livejournal.com]

Aside from anything else, the General Election is the one thing I can bet on where I can actually legally influence the result. Admittedly, not by much, but any advantage is an advantage.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"You do realise that if everyone who thought "my vote would be wasted" voted anyway, they would stand a not insignificant chance of kicking out the incumbent?"

I doubt it -- there is no evidence which way they would vote (they could easily have the same proportions as those who do vote). As I said after the last election, IF everyone who didn't vote turned up and IF they almost all voted the same way (not Tory and not split) then there would be a good chance of changing it. If that 37.6% were equally split between LD and Labour (and none of them voted Tory) then the LibDems would just get in. In practice, however, I would be pretty certain that a reasonable proportion of those who didn't vote would vote Tory (and don't bother because he's going to get in anyway), making it hard for anyone else to get in.

(The only thing which can actually be said with any authority about those who didn't vote is that they didn't vote. How they might have voted is completely unknown. The most likely thing, statistically, is that the proportions would be the same as in the rest of the population under consideration, but that too is an assumption.)

Actually, if I vote for the person who I think would do best for the area then I would vote for the incumbent[1]. I'm pretty sure that's why he gets in, because he's seen as a "good bloke" who does work for the local area and things of concern to the locals.

[1] I rule out the Labour one as no way do I want Labour to get in, no matter how much I might like the person standing.

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

(The only thing which can actually be said with any authority about those who didn't vote is that they didn't vote. How they might have voted is completely unknown. The most likely thing, statistically, is that the proportions would be the same as in the rest of the population under consideration, but that too is an assumption.)

And that's where I think we differ. I /don't/ think those proportions are the same, because the two sets of people self-select into those groups, and choosing to vote or not does NOT, IMO, have zero correlation to which way you would vote if you believed your vote mattered.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Evidence? In the absense of any actual studies on it (I don't know of any) I assume that those who do poll research at least know something about their subject in assuming that those who don't reply have a similar distribution to those who do reply. 62% is a massive proportion of a population compared to the usual few thousand out of a country for statistical purposes.

Of course, having zero correlation is also unlikely, but I never said that. But in order to get a win for the LD (I don't think Labout have any chance here) the correlation would have to be pretty massive, and I see no evidence for that.

Yes, it is possible that everyone who didn't vote will all vote the same way contrary to those who did vote. It's also possible that all of the molecules in a girl's clothing will all move in the same direction at once and expose her, but lacking an Infinite Improbability Drive (and the requisite cup of hot tea[1] to power it) I doubt that either is likely.

[1] The stuff they have here is obviously out of the Sirius Cybernetics Corp. and wouldn't power anything.

[bardling.livejournal.com]

nit weight
Oooh, now I'm wondering what knit weight measuring looks like. "Tear or cut ballot into narrow, even strips, then knit up with needle size of your choice..." *grins*

I shall go vote, yes.

[aunty_marion]

I was thinking *hair* nits (lice eggs), actually, but your imagery works for me!

(I went to a knitting exhibition at the Arts Council once - they had some paper knitting where someone had carefully shredded old books into strips, joined them together and knitted them up...)

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

And me, I thought maybe it was a typo for 'nit wit', which seems to fit a lot of the politicians. :)

[filklore-on-lj.livejournal.com]

I have always had a knack of predicting the date of an election, by planning to be away at the time. I am currently in Brighton, on a trip planned back in November, and it came as no surprise to me when they announced a May election.

For this reason, I have a postal vote, so my vote has been already cast.

[oreouk.livejournal.com]

I have a postal vote too, by long tradition based on the fact that for local elections I leave for work before the polling stations open and don't (didn't) get home until after they had closed. Not the issue for General Elections of course but once one is in the habit it's easier to leave be. So yeah, I've voted. I'm trying out the 'if everyone who thought their vote didn't count went and voted anyway' strategy to see where that takes us.

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

"some candidates may have settled in transit?"

I'm off to do mine in a minute, and face a truly horrible choice. The best potential MP, *by far*, is a colour that I've never ticked in my life. I am facing a battle between what I know would be the right decision for the area and 18 years of my mother quoting Nye Bevin and Keir Hardie...

*sigh*

If only there was a nice Green Party Candidate I could vote for!

[aunty_marion]

We have Green Party candidates in both local and general elections (as I saw by looking at the forms an hour ago when I voted), but as they haven't actually bothered campaigning round here, I've no idea how good/bad/indifferent/raving they are...

[armb.livejournal.com]

Our (South-East Cambs) Green Candidate has apparently been sensibly spending his time helping the campaign in Cambridge City, where the Greens might get a significant percentage of the vote, rather than wasting his time here, where they won't. (He's also a City councillor who lives in the city.)
The Lib Dems might get a bit of a boost from our new local Labour candidate having been suspended from the Labour party, along with the national swing, but it's still a fairly safe Tory seat.
I'll be voting anyway.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"Our (South-East Cambs) Green Candidate"

I just managed to misread that (mild dyslexia is fun!) as "Soft Green Cannabis". I'll vote for that *g*...

[tattercoats.livejournal.com]

I would just add that 'bothering to campaign' is much easier for those with a big part machine to back them, especially with industry or union money coming in... the smaller parties, and the independents (pace the Jury Team) simply may not have the resources to leaflet many thousands of homes... and a proper Green candidate may well balk at the paper and print wastage that will ensue if they do.

Better media coverage of the minority parties and candidates would help, I feel... but I do feel obliged to defend those who have not, for whatever reason, spammed your letterbox. 'Not bothering' may really not be a fair assessment. Sorry for any offence - that's my tuppenceworth.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Someone commented recently that their local Green party had been handing out leaflets, most of which ended up as litter. I would rather they didn't. (Not that we have any minority party candidates in my area except UKIP, and they got nearly 5% of the vote last time so aren't really 'minority'.)

And actually going round to houses and standing in the town square or whatever is very expensive if you don't have the resources to employ a lot of other people to do it for you (several thousand houses a day?).

[aunty_marion]

OK, you're right. I retract the 'not bothering' bit; but I haven't seen *any* information about them anywhere. No posters in windows or anything else. One or two judicious medium-sized posters in the library or other advertising spaces perhaps would have reminded people that they do at least exist. Not everyone has the knowledge/expertise/oomph to find out where to find out about such things - I know it would take me longer than I'd feel 'worth it', though I'm sure it's possible. If I'd known they were standing and what their policies were, I'd have been able to make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for them.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

At least your mother is on the side of the saints.

[tig-b.livejournal.com]

I voted ..
but would have loved a 're-open nominations' option.

[aunty_marion]

"None of the above" would do.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I am convinced that the simple presence of a counted and meaningful[1] "None of the above" on the ballot would increase turnout drastically. People might not vote for it but the knowledge that they could use it would motivate them, I think.

[1] i.e. if it won they'd have to re-take the vote, basically forcing the incumbent to stand down and fight a by-election.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Done! My... [COUNTS ON FINGERS] ...fourth?... vote in my lifetime for the Clegglets Dribbly Lemingcrats. This time with a hell of a lot more hope of it doing some good: Our current incumbent is a yellow-bellyDripping Lemoncart, and jolly good MP, but he only won by a gnats whisker last time and of course the Tory voters in the area will be out in force this year to try and get him out... [FINGERS CROSSED]

[djbp.livejournal.com]

voted first thing this morning

[patoadam]

Could someone kindly explain to this American why Labour is expected to get about twice as many seats as the Liberal Democrats, even though they are expected to get about the same number of votes?

[keristor.livejournal.com]

OK, to explain "first past the post" (FPtP). It means that in each area the candidate with the most votes wins that seat. So in an extreme case with 3 candidates they could be distributed in proportions 34%/33%/33%, with the first getting in with only just over a third of the vote. The problem is that while Labour and Tory have a lot of geographical 'safe' seats (ones where they have a big majority) the LibDems tend to be more evenly distributed. This means that Labour and Tory are likely to divide up the majority of seats betwen them and LD left with only a few.

Take some hypothetical seats:

Tory  Labour  LibDem  Result
 40     30      30     Tory
 30     40      30    Labour
 45     20      35     Tory
===    ===     ===
115     90      95

As you can see from that, LibDem get more votes than Labour but no seats at all. Project that across 650 seats (and add a few minority parties who will take votes and not get any seats at all)...

[patoadam]

Thanks!