On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:01:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1]

Really? I thought 'ethics' were your thing?

Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?

It's not a belief it's a fact (because spoiled papers *are* actually
counted). But irrespective of that, if you don't use something you can
lose it so ...

(I could perhaps understand the logic if there was a legitimate "none of
the above" voting option
There is, you add NOTA on there yourself? See, real democracy isn't
just a matter of choosing from what you are offered but maybe changing
how / what is offered?

- but with the current system, ISTM the only
message it sends is "I am a tit"!)

Yes, to you obviously because you are happy to tick the box not think
outside it?

If you don't want to vote for *any* candidate specifically, vote for the
one that you think will do you least harm,

Oh, that make perfect sense (not). We are supposed to vote *for*
something we want, not against something we don't (unless that was the
question). Why do all banners / flyers state in large letters, 'Vote
FOR xyz'?

or the one you think will
form the most effective opposition to the one you expect to win.

Any how would I ever get to fully understand exactly who / what that
might be? Say one of the 'other' candidates was a vegan and that was
the *only* thing amongst any of the candidates, should I vote for them
on that alone, even though they may not or may not be able to do the
best against animal suffering and exploitation?

but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Well that is the way a democracy is supposed to function - it needs an
opposition to ensure there are checks and balances on the governing party.

Yes, sure, I know how it's *supposed* to work but I was hoping to ask
those who *are* interested in all this what the real world chances
were of it actually being the case, especially in the example of a
borough obviously supports just one party (all but one isolated ward)?

eg, Is any opposition likely to stymie good stuff along with the bad,
just because they are likely to oppose *everything*?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...)

Well there are still plenty of "straight" ones out there that will at
least do what they think is the best thing (although that may still not
agree with what you think is the "best").

It's not what I think is best that counts (democratically and
especially being an outsider to it all). It's what those who voted for
them think and by definition that could be 50% + 1 in this weird
system we use.

or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

Indeed - if nothing else it stops the administration getting complacent,
reduces the chances they will make legal errors, or try to act beyond
their authority etc.

OK, well if that *is* the case and as long as it doesn't negatively
impact any of the good things.

But what if the underdog are less able to do that compared with all
the other candidates / parties that don't even gain one seat (or
whatever).

A 'world champion' runner isn't likely to be the fastest person in the
world, the chances are they are only the fastest person of those who
have / had the opportunity / interest to take part.

It seems (as a political outsider) we are quite happy to simply accept
the system as it is, it's something we have always done this way but
not questioned if it could be done better?

The very fact that someone can get into power simply for their own
interests (eg, not the best interests of the people they are supposed
to represent) allows me to say 'I'm out' very early on.

They get into power by being voted in by a number of people who don't
know them personally but just happen to represent the tribe they (or
their family) have always supported because it matches their
fundamental beliefs (irrespective in most cases of what the practical
outcome is).

I wonder how many people here have *always* voted the same way all
their lives?

Cheers, T i m