On 20 Apr 2021 21:42:26 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

You should always vote, even if the person you vote for is in a no-hope seat.

What 'person'? Which of the several / many are we talking about here?
The canvasser was from the party that currently hold one ward but it's
possible that another (different to the incumbent) party might take it
so I'd have to do the same for all of them?

Equally, an opposition party should always try to put up someone against an
incumbent who regularly gets 60% of the vote.

This is probably more like 90%.

Why? Because if the said
incumbent has too easy a time of it at the election, they get complacent and
start taking the electorate for granted; they start thinking they "own" the
voters who vote for them. That is not good.

That was my question. Can they though, what can they do either as:

One ward out of many ...

or

No wards out of many (as is the case for all the other parties etc)?

You could try to figure out whether your councillor is in it for themselves or
to help their constituents.

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

Being in it for themselves doesn't necessarily
mean they're a crook. It can just mean they want the kudos and perks of being
a councillor without understanding that their job is to be someone people can
turn to for help with some local issue. Even then the councillor may not
always be able to sort it, but they should be seen to have made an honest
effort even if they fail.

But if this special effort is for 'the people' then shouldn't they be
doing it anyway and what can be done if they aren't and if it's just
for 'a person', how many individuals could / would any one councilor
be expected to help in that way?

Democracy has to be tested and people voting is the way to do it.

Of course, and spoiling your paper is better than not voting if you
don't have any particular preference, faith or (therefore) interest.

It's not supposed to be a 'lucky dip' or be based on some bogus /
personal interest (in a real democracy) and given the chances are the
vast majority of those who will vote are politically ignorant / biased
I really don't want to join in as that might indicate I actively
support any of it.

So, my question was, would a party representing say 1 ward in 15, with
the other 14 held by one single party, actually be able to make a
difference in a way that we can be sure *will* benefit the majority?
Could they also thwart positive changes / plans that would be the sort
of thing that the majority that voted for them wanted and so not being
democratic?

Even if it's all bollox, the majority will have voted them in and so
that responsibility rests firmly on their shoulders and I'm only
willing to have my 'say' if that is likely to do no more than ensure
the incumbent do what's best (I don't even care if they don't keep to
any (often bogus) promises (as times / priorities change)).

See, you believe in the system and so are keen to play, I don't and so
therefore aren't ... but I want to retain that (or a known) system
because it's probably better than *some* (but certainly not all)
alternatives.

Now, if they offered a vote for some alternate democratic systems I
might be interested to have my say. ;-)

Cheers, T i m