General Election - 4th July 2024

[bluethrunthru]

Is this the Minister for Veterans who defended Sunak skipping D-Day commemorations? "Fucking wanker" is about right.

Thats the badger - he is terrified of the loss that awaits him - he is up against a former marine who recently left the Forces and went into politics - Fred Thomas. Thomas was on special ops and secret operations so- having signed the OSA can't talk about his service and when and where he served doing what. So Mercer desperately challenged him at the hustings his response was that he couldn't and then which Mercer then decided this made him a Walter Mitty who lied about his service. Truth is Thomas said he was in the Marines just hasn't gone into detail so he can't have lied if he said nothing. People are coming out of the woodwork today confirming they served with Fred Thomas but they too can't go into details forcing Johnny Minge into a rapid deployment of the " no, no I didn't mean it like that defence

 

[hilts]

I would say, 2010. My LibDem vote helped give the LibDems enough seats to enter a coalition Govt with the Tories. Now, looking back, am I proud of this? Well, no. With great power comes great responsibility and I regret to say I did not use that power wisely.

So, are you arguing no votes have consequences, therefore there is no point in voting? If so, why are you taking part in a thread on a matter which for you has no consequence?

In my view, your and my vote is part of a collective. If no individual takes part in voting for that collective then there is no collective. If individuals opt out of the voting process then that collective is diminished. Voting is an expression of the will of society at a precise moment in time. A snapshot into what society is thinking and feeling, be it for good or ill. Each vote has consequence because it forms part of that snapshot in time. Add those snapshots together and you can detect trends, see where the society, of which we are all part, is heading.

I can grumble about the voting system and where I live etc, but I still vote, because my vote is my expression, my contribution to what I think is important. Your belief in the value of nothing is too nihilistic for my tastes.

And as expected you cannot give an example of when just your vote had a consequence to the outcome.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And as expected you cannot give an example of when just your vote had a consequence to the outcome.

Is your argument based around a vote not mattering unless there is a majority of 1?

 

[hilts]

It's essentially a philosophical argument about democracy - not something that is absolutely right or wrong.

Clearly very few general elections are decided by a single vote, so most people's single vote doesn't change the result. No-one will really disagree with you about that.

But also, who people vote for in a democracy does have consequences, and the only people voting in a democracy are individuals. Therefore it's also true that individual votes affect the outcome of a general election.

I assume both yourself and @BobKowalski would agree on both those points.

I'm not suggesting that your influence on a sub-forum of Bluemoon, will encourage enough people to change the way they individually vote, that it makes a difference in a general election. I don't think anyone would. I'm suggesting you are not the only person in the world who thinks this way.

It's not an uncommon argument, and I think we see the result in many elections. Thousands of people vote for a party that they don't think has any chance of winning, even if it means that their least preferred option gets in. In every election their will be cases where those votes make a difference to the result.

That's why I argued that the more people who agree with you, the more likely their votes will impact an election. I am not suggesting that 'agreeing with you' means literally everyone who thinks this way has to know hilts on the bluemoon forum. I am suggesting that the more people who come to this conclusion, via whatever route, the less it makes sense.

Very few? Name one. All I'm saying and this is really more of a struggle than it needs to be is this.

Say you have a Labour supoorter who wants rid of the Tories but is uncomfortable with Starmer allowing in Akehurst as an example. He doesn't feel right voting Labour on this occasion.

He sees the polls
He knows his own constituency
He knows he has no control over the public
He knows no general election or seat has been won by one single vote in modern times ever
When he walks into the booth he knows his one vote will have no consequence to the result.


The Tories will thankfully be gone and Labour will be in. Why would he vote Labour?

And more importantly why do posters on here feel the need to defend everything a certain party does? We get I like the Lib dems but I really want the Tories so I will have to vote Labour, no you don't stop being so bloody silly.

Are they really that sad that they need to be seen voting for the winners?

 

[BobKowalski]

And as expected you cannot give an example of when just your vote had a consequence to the outcome.

No one can. In the event someone was elected by a single vote then all the people who voted for that candidate could lay claim to that single vote that won it. And any one claim would be simultaneously true and false. It would be a Schrödinger's vote.

 

[BobKowalski]

Very few? Name one. All I'm saying and this is really more of a struggle than it needs to be is this.

Say you have a Labour supoorter who wants rid of the Tories but is uncomfortable with Starmer allowing in Akehurst as an example. He doesn't feel right voting Labour on this occasion.

He sees the polls
He knows his own constituency
He knows he has no control over the public
He knows no general election or seat has been won by one single vote in modern times ever
When he walks into the booth he knows his one vote will have no consequence to the result.


The Tories will thankfully be gone and Labour will be in. Why would he vote Labour?

And more importantly why do posters on here feel the need to defend everything a certain party does? We get I like the Lib dems but I really want the Tories so I will have to vote Labour, no you don't stop being so bloody silly.

Are they really that sad that they need to be seen voting for the winners?

And if enough people followed this chain of thought, then Labour would not win. To actually win an election it does require people to vote Labour. That’s kind of how elections work in case you were hazy on the process.

 

[kaz7]

Are we there yet , time is dragging , want it over with. A big swing is needed here to get tories out but there has never been a chance like this before , hope the oldies stay at home

 

[bluenova]

Very few? Name one. All I'm saying and this is really more of a struggle than it needs to be is this.

There have been three in the last 150 years. One tie, plus majorities of 1 and 2, each of which was decided be a single voter. I think that's classed as 'very few', and as my post, said I don't disagree with that part of your argument.

The reason it's difficult is that your argument isn't simple. It's a well known philosophical argument about democracy, and suggesting there is only one side to the argument, and it's straightforward isn't correct.

The rest of your post appears to be addressing why someone who agrees with you would make a decision, which is a different argument.

 

[hilts]

No one can. In the event someone was elected by a single vote then all the people who voted for that candidate could lay claim to that single vote that won it. And any one claim would be simultaneously true and false. It would be a Schrödinger's vote.

The need to not be seen as wrong is something else, the poster could vote Labour and in a parallel universe lib dem. Next day everything would be exactly the same. It's as simple as that. There are no consequences. Fin.

 

[Eebo]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still funny to see the Lib Dems getting more donations than the Tories.

Not unexpected that Reform stealing cash from Tories as well as votes.

Donors probably worried that if they give money to the Tories they will take it to the casino and put it all no black.

MSN