(no subject)

[vyvyanx]

The responses to this are interesting, and more varied than I'd expected. To explain a bit further why I posted it, I'd gone through my life assuming that, when people said (to me) "People died so that you could have the vote", they were referring to Suffragettes dying so that I (as a woman in Britain) could vote (e.g. throwing themselves under horses [OK, only one horse!] or going on hunger strikes). More recently, I've heard similar things said to mixed groups, and wondered why people thought that Suffragettes had died so that men could vote! Then, on one of the BBC Have Your Say things, I realised that at least some people were referring to WW2 when they said this (and some of your responses support this idea). This hadn't occurred to me before; I thought we went to war basically because Poland was invaded, not because we feared we might lose the right to vote (though I suppose it might be a plausible consequence of Britain being occupied and run under a Nazi regime - was this even one of Hitler's goals?). The additional suggestions, that people are thinking of those who died in 19th century actions aimed at extending the vote to a greater proportion of the (male, British) population, or that Americans who say this are referring to their War of Independence, are also very plausible, though - thanks.

(I'm still not sure it's a very convincing argument for casting a vote, whoever you think died for it. No one died so that people would be obliged to vote, after all - only that they had the option to do so!)

Comments

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

There can't have been very many women who died while on hunger strike... the Cat and Mouse act was brought in pretty quickly, after all. Just musing, anyway :) I also find the WWII explanation seriously dodgy.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

The wikipedia link I gave for that claims that "several" women died as a result of force-feeding, when on hunger strike; this could, I suppose, be taken as an (indirect) way of dying for the sake of female suffrage. I agree, though - Suffragettes who died in some way as a result of their militant actions for the vote do not seem to have been at all numerous - it's just that I couldn't think of anything else people were likely to have meant by this claim, in the past. It's the sort of claim I feel reluctant to challenge people about, though, in case I come across as uncaringly ignorant of some obscure act of self-sacrifice carried out on my behalf in the past!

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

IMHO, a good argument for casting a vote is so that fringe parties such as the BNP (which tend to be very good at getting their supporters out to vote) don't end up with an exagerated share of the vote...

-roy

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I do think this is a good argument. (Don't worry - I have myself always voted, in general, local and European elections!)

Do you think that someone who doesn't support any of the candidates available, but who doesn't want e.g. the BNP to get an unrepresentative share of the vote, ought to turn up and vote for a different party - or simply turn up and spoil their ballot paper, given that the number of spoilt ballots is also recorded and made known afterwards (and may provide some measure of public dissatisfaction with all the options)?

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately although spoilt ballots are counted, and the number may be declared by the returning officer (but doesn't seem to always be), it isn't typically included in 'share of the vote' calculations.

In a proportional election (such as the European elections) I think it's a good idea to vote for your favourite (or least hated) of the candidates that are plausibly electable, to avoid the risk of a BNP member being returned.

In first-past-the-post elections, such as those we'll be voting in on 5th May, this is less of an issue.

In general, I think spoiling a ballot is a far more productive thing to do than simply failing to vote, because it makes it clearer that it's a principled abstention, rather than just apathy (which would otherwise inevitably be assumed).

But IMHO it's always more productive to cast a meaningful vote that (you hope) will steer the country in the right direction if you can. I realise that some people will find all the parties policies sufficiently objectionable that they're unwilling to vote for any, but I think they're in a fairly small minority...

-roy

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, Cambridge is probably going to remain a safe Labour seat, but just might end up being a Labour/LibDem marginal.

What ward are you in for the County elections? If you're in Petersfield, that's likely to be a Labour/LibDem marginal, too, I suspect.

-roy

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

We were in Petersfield until February, but are now in Romsey, which has been Labour in the County elections since at least 1964 (according to the earliest records I can find readily), and has had the same councillor (a certain Jozef Gluza) since 1981, rather surprisingly. However, his majority in 2001 was tiny - only 40 votes more than the LibDem candidate - so things might change this time.

TBH, though, I only vote LibDem when there isn't a Green candidate. I was thinking the other day, though, how would I vote if given straight choices between various pairs of parties? I think my ranking would go: Green > LibDem > Labour > Tory > UKIP > BNP (although I suspect that if my only choices were UKIP and the BNP in a general election, I might just give up in disgust and emigrate instead...)

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

So you will be voting in Petersfield (based on the forms that you filled in last autumn) unless you chose to update your electoral registration (and did so before 11th March).

So you're basically faced with a choice: vote tactically for LibDem at least in the local elections, and perhaps in the general elections too (if you believe that Cambridge might be marginal) or make a principled vote for the Greens.

You might also want to consider casting a strategic vote for the LibDems in the general election, if you think there's any possibility of achieving a hung parliament. In this scenario, the LibDems are likely to hold the balance of power, and that's probably the best chance of getting proportional representation which will, of course, benefit the Greens in the long run.

On the other hand if you think a Labour win is inevitable (either locally or nationally) you may prefer just to place a principled vote in order to suppor the Greens...

-roy

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, the 2001 County elections aren't directly comparable, because of boundary changes, so it's worth looking at the 2004 City elections which were fought under the new boundaries. As far as Romsey goes, the LibDems won with a fairly safe majority, though Petersfield (where I imagine you'll be voting) was a Labour/LibDem marginal.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, we are voting in Romsey, because I rang up the council right after we moved and requested a new voting form, which I returned a couple of days before the deadline! A rep. for Anne Campbell turned up a few days ago, and confirmed, incidentally, that we were registered for this ward. (He was very charming; I felt almost sorry to have to tell him I wouldn't be voting for his lot.)

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Well, that was a mistake :)

Given the choice I always prefer to vote in a marginal where my vote might actually make a difference...

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

It seems better to me to be able to vote for the person who actually represents the area where I live. That said, I didn't actually look up the marginality of Petersfield and Romsey before ringing the council in late February; I just did it as part of the general moving-house admin, because I was worried that I might lose out on the right to vote at all otherwise.

In 2002, when we moved to Mill Road, I rang up the council about voting forms because they had only sent one to the entire building, in the apparent belief that there was only one household there. One of the consequences, aside from getting our own voting form, was being reassessed for Council Tax (our landlord had "omitted" to inform the council that he had divided the property into three household dwellings), resulting in a 150% increase in our Council Tax, and me having to pay about 80% of my income on housing costs :-( I still think I did the right thing - voting is important, IMO.

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

I just did it as part of the general moving-house admin, because I was worried that I might lose out on the right to vote at all otherwise.

There's no need to do so unless you prefer to vote in your new location. You remain on the electoral register at your old address until the next set of annual forms are sent out. Making use of rolling registration to change your registration mid year is entirely optional...

resulting in a 150% increase in our Council Tax, and me having to pay about 80% of my income on housing costs :-(

Ouch!

-roy

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

There's no need to do so unless you prefer to vote in your new location.

That's what the council person told me too; but I preferred to vote where I was going to be living.

Ouch!

Indeed. My survey here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/vyvyan/124114.html) suggests that, although most of my friends pay a substantial proportion of their income in housing costs (compared with, say, typical costs 30 years ago), I am still out on a limb.