This is going to be off-the-cuff, chaotic, and angry.
I posted this on Twitter earlier, and it got retweeted more than anything else I’ve ever said:
If I want the Lib Dems to win, I’m voting Lib Dem. If you’re so scared of a hung parliament, maybe YOU shouldn’t vote Conservative.
I still don’t know nearly enough about the political system in this country to justify how much I’ve been talking about it lately. I’m not a political blogger, and I’d need to become way more informed before I ever could be, which isn’t all that likely judging by my usual level of interest in such matters. But this is one thing that’s been really annoying me about some of the public discourse lately.
For longer than I’ve been alive, the real race in the general elections in this country has always been between Labour and the Conservatives. It’s always been one of them that was going to win. But for the first time in a while, a third party is polling well, and is in with a non-negligible chance of winning (even if it’s not all that great), and is unquestionably playing a substantial role in our system of government.
This has made a lot of people very unhappy and been widely regarded as a bad move.
In particular, some people want us to be scared of a “hung parliament”, in which no one party gets enough of a majority to “win”, and after all the voting’s done they have to sort it out amongst themselves how they’re going to run the country. Or something. Yes, the First Past the Post system is ridiculous, however limited my understanding.
Quite what the effects of a hung parliament would actually be is one of the many things in all this that remains beyond me. But if it’s a natural and unavoidable result of people simply voting for who they want to win, then maybe this adds to the case for serious electoral reform.
What it doesn’t imply is that voting for the Liberal Democrats is irresponsible and dangerous, and that an entire third of the electorate ought to give up on what they actually want for the sake of a nice, comfortable compromise.
The Conservatives are calling a Liberal Democrat vote “a vote for the Hung Parliament Party“, and are full of scary rhetoric as to why this should be feared and avoided.
And it all strikes me as intensely cynical and profoundly unfair, and I can’t sum it up any better than I did in my tweet up there.
There are polls out there in which Nick Clegg is winning this race. It’s by no means a strong or unambiguous lead, but the Lib Dems are not hopeless stragglers these days. People would actually like to see them in power, and they’d vote for it if they thought it could happen.
So it is staggeringly patronising for this substantial swathe of the population to be told that they shouldn’t vote for the party or candidate who they would most like to see win the election, because of the administrative difficulties this will cause. The problems of a hung parliament are a product of the electoral system, and of everybody’s votes in conjunction with each other.
If every Lib Dem vote were counted for the Conservatives, it’d be a landslide. But the same goes the other way. And it really pisses me off (enough to use lots of italics for emphasis) when other people assume that I’m the one who shouldn’t get to have my say for who I want, as if everyone else’s votes were already fixed and immutable and I’m ruining everything by making my own damn decisions.
If you’re terrified of a hung parliament and are desperate to avoid it at all costs, then you can either lobby for electoral reform, or you can be against the concept of people voting honestly. At least be up front about which it is.
…And just as I wonder if I’m done, superior blogger Martin Robbins says some of the things I want to say rather well, and embeds the full Conservative “Hung Parliament Party” video. It’s really, really awful. The video, not Martin’s post. Obviously.
So. Who knows more than I do about hung parliaments? (Hint: It’s quite possibly you. Seriously.)
As I get older, these kinds of arguments (about why you shouldn’t vote in a certain way because it will impede the ‘mechanics’ of government) make less and less sense to me. Here’s the way I see it: if you vote for what you want, and that makes things ‘difficult’ for the political system, then surely that’s a democratic method of addressing shortcomings in the political system itself. What, are we supposed to care more about an ‘easy to run’ government than actual good governance?
Down here we have the basic dual choice of most modern democracies. You vote for one party or the other. I fail to see how that is a good thing. In our country what that now amounts to is that you vote for a conservative party or a slightly less conservative party. There is no real policy anymore, just a vote-buying contest where politicians try and figure out the best way to appease the most people in the most expedient way.
If you should suggest, as I do, that you vote for one of the lesser parties, the response is almost always ‘but they don’t have the experience with the economy’ or some such guff. People really don’t have a clue. The parties don’t run the country – the vast structures of public servants run the country. The government just steers them. I think the view is that if the Green Party, say, got in power here, that the wheels would fall off and the country would grind to a halt. But of course it wouldn’t.
If people vote for convenience, then they get mediocrity. If I ruled the world, I’d make every country have a forced period of dictatorship every, oh, ten years or so. Good or bad, it wouldn’t matter; good, you’d get things done, bad, it would point out the value of their vote when the democracy returned.
And I’d spend lots of money on getting people educated.
Yeah, the question of how much things like the political experience of a handful of elected representatives actually matters is one I’m not really equipped to address. But I agree that there’s ample competent infrastructure to ensure that no one group capable of getting in power has much chance of grinding the entire place to a halt within days of being elected.
First of all, while I still can’t help but notice a gaping hole in the interior design-part of your blog, these kinds of posts make me v. happy. Even though I honestly can’t relate to it at all (I tried).
Cross the channel! Not only do we have self-baked chocolate chip cookies, as any civilised country should, AND movies in which a crown prince dresses up as a symbol for colonialism & slavery and has premarital relations with Tom Cruise’s wife in Valkyrie, we also seem to be headed for a four-party coalition this election season.
What more can you possibly want :)
Wait… your chocolate chip cookies bake themselves? Are you sure that’s what you meant to say? Or are you trying to allure me with unrealistically utopian promises again? :P
I don’t understand how you people even have four parties and can’t make up your mind which one’s the best, let alone plan to give them all a chance to have a go working together. Everything that almost every British politician has ever told me implies that your entire country should be some post-apocalyptic wasteland by now. (And what the American politicians are saying implies that you’re all socialists, which is basically the same thing.) I should maybe try and figure out how you guys are making it work someday.
From the top of my head, the parties with a decent chance to make government are from right to left VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, GL, SP and also PVV (which should be before VVD if not for everyone shunning them). Then there are three to five parties with only a few seats (out of 150).
For the easiest translation, CDA (the Christian Democrats) and PvdA (Labour) would fill the roles of the Conservatives and, er, Labour. They’ll each get between 25 and 40 seats. Then whichever of them is the biggest will form a government (having the two together, we just found out, means Worlds Of Pain in nonfun ways). Basically people show off their arithmetic and social skills until there’s 76 seats represented in the government.
They make a contract stating which party will disappoint its voters in which way, and then they stick with that for four years unless a) reality bites AND b) ministers of party A decide ministers of party B smell funny, and they yell a bit about the contract being broken and quit.
I’ll be voting Conservative but I want to say a massive Hooray! for your tweet and post. Democracy should be about hearing all of the people. We badly need electoral reform and maybe a hung parliament is just the impetus that’s needed.
http://thelaughinghousewife.wordpress.com
Hooray indeed! Thanks for being with me on that. What should the electoral system be reformed to, though? I get the impression you’d be going against the bulk of the Conservative base if you’re in favour of a Proportional Representation system.
James
Excellent post – well said. You are correct, we live in one of the oldest democracies and so i think it goes without saying: we should all vote for the people we want to be in power.
Tactical voting to keep one of the two big parties out is not really democracy and if there are going to be ‘administrative problems’ due to a hung parliament then there is going to have to be reform.
Seems a little obvious that it’s the system that needs to change – but seeing that it is not in the interest of the two parties holding power what should we expect?
I found this blog via Marcus Brigstocke’s retweet in which he says that this entry is the best thing he’s read in a while. I have to agree, and having had the misfortune of watching that awful scaremongering PPB by the Tories yesterday, it’s a relief to find sensible people speaking out in defiance against such vile propaganda.
I’m voting Lib Dem because I prefer their policies to the other parties, and I have always voted for them even when they had no chance of winning. Why? Because I don’t agree with people who vote strategically just because the party they REALLY want to win has no hope. I believe in making a leap of faith in the face of cynicism, because in the long run it could make a difference. It may take years, but you’ve got to do what you believe in – right?
Anyway, that’s all changed now, and the Lib Dems are in a very exciting position. And if we get a hung parliament? Well I don’t know what that will mean either, but let’s face it – it can’t be any worse than giving David Cameron ALL the power.
We should scrap Thought For The Day and replace it with you. Most sense I have heard all week.
Wow, I’m really not sure I’m ready to be given that kind of authority. Actually I totally am, so long as everyone’s okay with my abusing it recklessly.
Totally agree with what you say above, will be voting Lib Dem this time.
And have you seen this on Hung Parliaments> http://bit.ly/aIBJH7
Hi James
I also found this through Marcus Brigstocke’s tweeting. You’re absolutely right, of course.
Apparently I studied Politics at university 20 years ago which included a section on voting systems. Apart from dictatorships, the US and the UK, virtually every country in the world seems to be OK with the idea that the government should at least vaguely represent the will of the people as demonstrated by the votes cast.
I’m voting Lib Dem despite the fact that my constituency is a nailed-on Tory seat. Because I agree with their policies, because it’s my right, privilege and duty to vote. Because if enough people vote against the two main parties, maybe it will make a difference, and put an end to their complacency.
I tried to write about the election as well on my blog…
http://theproseandthepassion.wordpress.com
In the US, it’s hard to imagine how they’ll ever be able to break away from the two-party system they have now, it’s so firmly entrenched. But over here at least, enough people do plan to vote against the two main parties. And even in the US, whether or not a vote for a third party candidate is “wasted” in any meaningful sense, compared with one cast for one of the big two, is far from obvious.
Apparently my local seat is fairly safe for the Conservatives too, but that will literally never change if everyone decides to be put off by that. I’m still inclined to vote Lib Dem too, at the moment.
How much voting can be seen as a “duty” is something I’m planning to write about later, though, once I’ve ordered my thoughts on it a little more.
Hey fatty,
A couple of years back, I was canvassed by a Labour freak who asked me who I was voting for. I replied ‘Lib Dem’ and received the amazing knowledge that ‘it’s a wasted vote because they’ll never get in.’
How to lose voters and make people want to stab you in the face even more!
That should be the title for your motivational self-help book for politicians!
Caught this after writing a piece on Hung Parliaments myself.
I’ll admit, I was quite caught up in the whole ‘hung parliaments are a bad idea’ mantra – it wasn’t going to sway my voting, but it is something that I think is going to affect a lot of people. And the Tories latest PP Broadcast probably won’t help…
This entry reaffirmed my thoughts that a LibDem vote isn’t going to be a wasted vote. I thought this was an incredibly insightful and well written entry.
Also, congrats on the Marcus Brigstocke retweet!
Thanks! I’m hoping to do a little digging into what the effects of a hung parliament would actually be and write about that at some point before the election. All I know at the moment is that there’s a campaign of sorts to explain to people that it’s really not as bad as the Conservatives say, and that many European countries seem to cope just fine with a coalition government.
Ha – as with anything like this, how ‘bad’ it’ll be depends on who you talk to. I don’t pretend to be an expert of any kind, but as I understand it from an Economic point of view, seemingly the most prominent thing will be the loss of the Pound Sterling’s value on the exchange (thereby impacting imports/exports, and the wealth of the country in general).
If you talk to the more politically minded people, the most important thing would be the ‘weakness’ of the government. Anything less than an absolute majority would make decision making in the House of Commons tricky business. All sorts of allegiances and the like would have to go on, either in a semi-permanent manner, or for each individual piece of legislation. (In fact, this argument seems to be the reason why the pound’s value is expected to drop – ie a loss in confidence of foreign investors)
The upshot of that would of course be that we’d have a more democratic system, as the smaller parties would suddenly have more power – the larger parties would need their support in the HoC.
Personally, I can see what people like about the idea of a Hung Parliament. And what with Greece and Spain in the trouble they’re in, I don’t know how how much of an issue a hung parliament would be on our economy.
But again, I’m not an expert, haha.
I look forward to reading what you make of it all!
Bravo.
What really pisses me off is people who say “I’d vote Lib Dem if I thought they had a chance of winning”.
Idiots. They’ve got less chance of winning if you don’t vote for them.
In partial answer to your partially rhetorical question, a libertarian blog I read for a different viewpoint explained one of the big things that would happen in the event of a hung parliament. The markets like certainty, hung parliament = uncertainty, therefore it would have a hugely negative effect on our fragile economy. By contrast if any single party gets in they’ll continue to spend far more money than we can afford, while making cosmetic rather than substantial cuts. This will have a hugely negative effect on our fragile economy.
Personally I’m voting Lib Dem – my vote makes no difference in my constituency, which will go Tory, but the more votes the Lib Dems get without gaining seats the stronger the case for electoral reform.
I hope you’re right on the last point. That’s one of the ways I’m justifying not giving up on the whole thing as a pointless mess.
My main question about the first bit is quite what concrete form this “uncertainty” takes, and quite how this negatively affects the markets. And if you could explain it in short words suitable for someone who doesn’t understand anything about economics, that’d be a help.
Welcome to the Platinum Member’s Zone!
Ah. You’re making the mistake of believing that Cameroon and his cronies are acting in good faith, and want what’s best for the country, you, your pets and elderly relatives, etc.
Nope.
Dave from Marketing wants to win. So does Gordo the Lumpen. As politicians, it’s their job – well, they think it’s their job – to use any persuasive tactic needed to make people vote their way.
Scaremongering about a hung parliament is what’s known in the business as rhetoric. It’s a persuasive tactic. It’s not accurate, true, honest, fair, decent, adult, responsible, warm-hearted, thoughtful, generous, concerned, or otherwise involved with the care and feeding of the electorate.
What it actually is, is a bare faced lie.
In reality a hung parliament is the most democratic of all possible outcomes now. It would give the Lib Dems some leverage to put FPP out to grass, while reminding the other two parties that they are – in spite of their fervently held beliefs – democratically accountable.
Like a lot of science types you seem to believe that politicians care about facts and reality-checking.
They don’t. They’re in the persuasion business. Persuasion is slippery, oily, and manipulative, by definition.
And if you find that objectionable – as reality-based people surely should do – consider that politics and the economy are run entirely by people who consider persuasion a goal in itself, and not by people who care about using testable predictions to decide policy.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think Cameron’s acting sincerely in the country’s best interests. I thought what I’d done here was rant about how cynical, manipulative, and disingenuous the Conservatives were being in an effort to claw back a victory from this election.
Like a lot of science types, I care about facts and reality-checking, and any politician worthy of getting my vote ought to be with me on those points. It can happen. Evan Harris seems like a good guy. But don’t think that I’m seeing the entire political system in these terms.
A great post, it gives me hope that a lot of people are thinking like you.
In 1997 the Tories (and various business leaders) were saying, if Labour won the election, the economy would go down the toilet the day after polling day.
They were wrong, it took 11 years, but those businesses seemed to do quite well in those years. It’s just the same now with all the scaremongering about a hung parliament.
You’d think that those expensively educated nasties at the Tory Party Media Kommando would know the difference between hung and hanged. A painting is hung, a person is hanged. A parliament might be hung, the person who signed off on this rubbish should be hanged. So their stupid little pun is wrong on yet another level, taste and relevance being a couple of other levels that come immediately to mind.
I wouldn’t normally bother narking about usage but that stupid ad really bothered me – and I was actually thinking of voting for them at one point – for the first time in my life. And they pretend that Gordon is evil for calling an old bigot a bigot? I think young Nick is going to get the vote from me. And my wife.
I’m disappointed in myself now that the grammar wasn’t the thing I found most annoying about the video, because you’re quite right about that.
Also, I’ll hopefully have some thoughts up on bigotgate tonight. (Quick preview of my current thinking: Everyone is wrong and annoying.)
Sorry, I was ranting about the PP video, I’m not normally someone who yells random stuff out…
I mean the little graphic of a noose in the PP video. Sorry.
[…] Your democracy’s spoiling my vote! This is going to be off-the-cuff, chaotic, and angry. I posted this on Twitter earlier, and it got retweeted more than […] […]
Great stuff. Perhaps the phrase ‘hung parliament’ should be driven from the lexicon as it’s been given such negative connotations. ‘Balanced parliament’ is much more fluffy and friendly, but then I guess those vested interests are not keen on that.
http://www.ibelieveinfairness.com/
Just saw Rufus Hound tweet a link to that – might have some comments later, if I’m not focusing solely on Bigotgate today.
Here in an historic Tory safe-seat, I have always been told that my LibDem vote was wasted because the Tory candidate “will get in anyway”.
But it always struck me that a wasted vote would be one cast for a party you don’t want just because their candidate will probably win.
Once you vote with the majority and not for what you want, you’re abandoning democracy, because you’re no longer speaking with your own voice.
If we all voted for the candidate who’ll probably win, they’d always win, and nothing would ever change, because those of use who wanted change never said so. That’s not democracy – that’s a wasted vote.
Now my constituency is a marginal which the LibDems could win. And it’s nice to see so many others coming round to my way of thinking…
[…] not support Electoral Reform as they’ll never ever, ever get back in power if that happens. This blog put an interesting spin on the hung parliament issue, suggesting if people are that bothered about […]
[…] Rube presents Your democracy’s spoiling my vote! posted at Cubik’s […]