2014 European Parliament elections

[Liquid]

Here's the election hangover from a British perspective, courtesy of English comedian David Schneider.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently there's no longer a responsibility to report spoiled ballots - so we have no idea how many people just didn't vote (through apathy or time constraints) and who turned up to exercise their right to vote and voted against the entire system.

That's true, but there is a responsibility (very obviously) to report the number of counted ballot papers. (Counted papers) - (Registered Voters) = Turnout.

When time allows its normal for counting stations to start counting the number of uncollected (or unreturned) ballot papers to verify counts.

 

[Famine]

I was under the impression it was a legal requirement, but in the last general election the reported turnout for each constituency was simply the tally of candidate votes cast.

At least as reported by the BBC...

 

[Roger the Horse]

I was supporting the Greens, and personally I feel good about myself in knowing that I actually managed to encourage some otherwise apathetic individuals to get up and vote for the fourth party (now ahead of the "third") and make at least a little contribution to the seat they got in my region. The combination of apathy and stupidity surrounding this election was disturbing.

What do you want from EU?

I want them to get tougher on the US in trade deals. As individual nations we're puny against them. Ultimately the UK and France have a small smidgen of influence on them due to military power, and that's it. As a whole, we are equals. The EU needs to exploit this fact more.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I was under the impression it was a legal requirement, but in the last general election the reported turnout for each constituency was simply the tally of candidate votes cast.

At least as reported by the BBC...

I know, I think they themselves are sometimes misled by projections rather than an actual count.

On page 9 of this doc (a good read overall) it describes Turnout as number of votes against number of registered voters, expressed as a percentage.

Here's something from the electoral commission itself (Word Doc, I just opened it and it seems okay), demonstrates counting of unused papers for validation. I also recall a recent local election article describing such a count, I'll try to find it

I used to be so pro-BBC, in general they disappoint me more and more. I'm glad I don't pay the fee

 

[Famine]

I'm glad I don't pay the fee

Me too.

 

[Dotini]

I want them to get tougher on the US in trade deals. As individual nations we're puny against them. Ultimately the UK and France have a small smidgen of influence on them due to military power, and that's it. As a whole, we are equals. The EU needs to exploit this fact more.

The voting indicates the EU is tearing itself apart from the extreme right and the extreme left. Being disunited, it will be unable to get tough on the US in trade deals, and remain a puny political power, despite the 500 million population totals.

 

[Touring Mars]

It remains to be seen how much of an effect the inclusion of more far-right MEPs will have on the European parliament, other than being a vocal nuisance. In order to have any real effect, they will need to join one of the existing political groups within the parliament - not likely, or attempt to build a new one and make new alliances with other right wing groups - also not likely. UKIP, for example, are being compared with France's Front National but they are very different. UKIP have their eye firmly set on the 2015 UK general election and cannot be seen forging alliances in the European Parliament with the National Front, lest they wish for their support to disappear as quickly as it appeared. In fact, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has already stated categorically that UKIP will not join with the National Front: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...p-wont-unite-with-Frances-Front-National.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

Being disunited, it will be unable to get tough on the US in trade deals, and remain a puny political power,

I think the US might overrate itself as a trading power/necessity at times. I expect Europe will hold little sway in US policy but that's a small part of the world and the overall West European, East European, Asian, African and Austraocealasianalian markets. America needs to stop thinking she's the only game in town, in my opinion

Also, as @Touring Mars says, they don't hold parliamentary powers at national government level.

I'm interested to see how such an anti-European parliament actually implements its duty as a European parliament.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I want them to get tougher on the US in trade deals. As individual nations we're puny against them. Ultimately the UK and France have a small smidgen of influence on them due to military power, and that's it. As a whole, we are equals. The EU needs to exploit this fact more.

As an American, I am happy to report that we have our own trade problems with China, and the manipulation of the Yuan in the global currency markets. I'm not trying to be anti-EU or anything since I do see the benefits of a good relationship with the EU, but it just so happens that we have our own fish to fry, and our President isn't helping the matter.

 

[AlexGT86]

The voting indicates the EU is tearing itself apart from the extreme right and the extreme left. Being disunited, it will be unable to get tough on the US in trade deals, and remain a puny political power, despite the 500 million population totals.

I would assume the EU tearing itself apart between the extreme right would make negociations with the US easier. They can relate better.

 

[Carlos]

Spoiling your ballot paper is the only valid protest vote - the only real power we have.

An empty paper will count as no vote and if write anything down on it it will be invalid. And in general, votes of people who didn't vote will go to the biggest party.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An empty paper will count as no vote and if write anything down on it it will be invalid.

That's true, but what @Famine means (I think) is that the only way to show a protest vote is to turn up and spoil your paper. Not turning up has the same effect overall but without the satisfaction.

I'm not sure that in the UK our spoiled/unused votes go to the biggest party although one could argue that the benefit does.

 

[Famine]

An empty paper will count as no vote and if write anything down on it it will be invalid. And in general, votes of people who didn't vote will go to the biggest party.

Uhh, no. FPTP votes cannot be transferred.

Votes cast with no marks or with marks made incorrectly are spoiled and must be counted as "Rejected". They go to no-one - they are votes cast for no-one.

Voters who do not turn up are enumerated in the turnout. Their votes go to no-one - they are votes not cast.


A vote not cast can be considered apathy - a vote cast for no-one cannot. A vote not cast can be considered satisfaction with the status quo - a vote cast for no-one cannot. Ensuring your vote is cast and cast for no-one is the only valid protest vote.

In an election where 70% of people don't turn up the results can look like this:

Blue: 35%
Yellow: 20%
Red: 15%
Green: 10%
Orange: 10%
Purple: 5%
Grey: 5%

Blue wins with 35%, even though only 10.5% of people actually voted for them. Now look what happens when 70% of people turn up and spoil their ballots:

Rejected: 70%
Blue: 10.5%
Yellow: 6%
Red: 4.5%
Green: 3%
Orange: 3%
Purple: 1.5%
Grey: 1.5%

Now that is a protest.

 

[DK]

I wonder Famine, would you ever consider voting for the likes of the Pirate Party?

 

[Famine]

I'd need to agree with all of their policies.

I took an online test of which party's policies I agreed most with and I got 83% UKIP. I checked the results and the 83% was lifted from the Libertarian playbook - which is unusual given that UKIP are, in essence, Conservative xenophobes. It goes completely against the ideals of the party and its members.

The fairly obvious conclusion is that the 83% is no-brainer stuff that they have stuck in there as vote winners with no intent of following through on, while the 17% that is vile, venomous, anti-freedom arsewater - and consistent with the party's membership - is what they actually want to do. I'm not going to give them a mandate for that by putting my vote behind the 83% I agree with.


I'd need a party with whom I agreed on everything before I voted for them. Otherwise I'm giving them my approval to do something I don't agree with - and when they do it, I can't complain because that's what I gave them approval to do.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd need to agree with all of their policies.

Have you found a party whose policies you agree(d) with 100%? That's not a request to name them, of course.

I wouldn't need to agree with all of their policies. In the UKIP example (and without drilling into their manifesto, I have no goggles or mask with me) let's say I too agree with 80%. I couldn't personally vote for them because of the VVAF Arsewater you pointed out in the other 20%. That and what seems to be obvious; they are incapable hatred-filled buffoons.

If I compare that to the Green party I know that I agree strongly with about 80% of their manifesto and find the other 20% a bit meh, a bit too leftist or a bit green-headline grabbing and unenforceable.

I could vote Green, but not UKIP... despite agreeing with roughly the same number of policies. I suppose one has to take a more balanced view, I definitely think that if you were to wait for parties who you agreed with 100% you might never vote

 

[Dotini]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-crisis-on-its-hands-than-a-British-exit.html

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard plumbs the depths of the EMU crisis.

 

[Famine]

Have you found a party whose policies you agree(d) with 100%? That's not a request to name them, of course.

Nope.

If I compare that to the Green party I know that I agree strongly with about 80% of their manifesto and find the other 20% a bit meh, a bit too leftist or a bit green-headline grabbing and unenforceable.

And if they try to enact them, you gave them mandate to do it, regardless of whether it's too anything for you.

When you vote under FPTP, you vote 100% - you approve everything. If a party promises to do literally everything you want, with the rider that they'll take your first-born into slavery you can't whine when they start taking kids when they get power - nor can you complain that all the other parties start adopting this as a policy for their campaigns too.

I suppose one has to take a more balanced view, I definitely think that if you were to wait for parties who you agreed with 100% you might never vote

Unless there's a physical barrier, I always vote. For no-one, so far.

It's the only way to show that my approval has not been gained and that parties will need to change their policies to gain my approval.

 

[TenEightyOne]

When you vote under FPTP, you vote 100% - you approve everything. If a party promises to do literally everything you want, with the rider that they'll take your first-born into slavery you can't whine when they start taking kids when they get power - nor can you complain that all the other parties start adopting this as a policy for their campaigns too.

I think that in most case one balances the "other 20%", as you say that might include something extreme that one wouldn't give a ride to. With the Green party manifesto my feeling of disagreement is about the same as the feeling of being savaged by a lettuce. Although I'm mixing my parties there I think.

I'm prepared to compromise in order to give a relevant vote... but I don't always. On those occasions I do the same as you

 

[Famine]

I'm prepared to compromise in order to give a relevant vote...

I'm not - and still give a relevant vote.

Compromising and voting for policies that would be rights violations - it doesn't have to be child slavery - simply because you agree with the other 80% is how rights violations keep getting passed.

 

[Liquid]

The fairly obvious conclusion is that the 83% is no-brainer stuff that they have stuck in there as vote winners with no intent of following through on, while the 17% that is vile, venomous, anti-freedom arsewater - and consistent with the party's membership - is what they actually want to do. I'm not going to give them a mandate for that by putting my vote behind the 83% I agree with.

This is partly the problem with political propaganda / window dressing.

I've seen a copypasta do the rounds on Facebook about how "all Nigel Farage stands for is this:" and then follows a medium essay spouting Libertarian philosophies which, as you say, they have no intention of following through and ignores the xenophobic aspect of the party.

1) It's completely unofficial. It literally says something like "Nigel Farage MEP stands for..." with no links or references whatsoever.

2) I bet most people who agree with the Libertarian philosophies don't know what Libertarianism / classical Liberalism is.

3) It's ridiculously easy to share stuff on Facebook which means...

...that people will believe this kind of tripe. I don't know what can be done, but people are far too easily convinced of election promises and not looking into real issues and real candidates.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not - and still give a relevant vote.

Compromising and voting for policies that would be rights violations - it doesn't have to be child slavery - simply because you agree with the other 80% is how rights violations keep getting passed.

I could understand that view more if you are limiting yourself to talking about party list elections such as the European parliament elections, but not in the case of a General Election, where the views of individual candidates may differ considerably (on specific issues) with those of the party at large. In that instance, you may vote for a political party whose views on certain subjects do not necessarily reflect your own but with a clear conscience.

I don't accept that voting for a member of a political party means that you endorse everything that their political party may do (or even want to do) if they are elected. The larger a political party is, the more likely it is that there are factions within that party that hold different views on certain topics.

 

[Liquid]

I don't accept that voting for a member of a political party means that you endorse everything that their political party may do (or even want to do) if they are elected.

While this is true to an extent, it would stop me from joining a political party.

 

[Famine]

I could understand that view more if you are limiting yourself to talking about party list elections such as the European parliament elections, but not in the case of a General Election, where the views of individual candidates may differ considerably (on specific issues) with those of the party at large. In that instance, you may vote for a political party whose views on certain subjects do not necessarily reflect your own but with a clear conscience.

No, you can't. Well, you can, but your conscience isn't necessarily influenced by reality.

The candidate you vote for may be your representative, but their position as your candidate depends not on their views and your support but on the views and support of their party. The local party - often made up of activist ideologues - can deselect them, particularly if their parliamentary voting record is contrary to party politics. And that's just in free-voting - I won't even being to cover the ludicrousness of the Whip.

Their first duty is to support their party in legislation - your blue guy will vote blue, your red guy will vote red, your purple guy will vote purple*. Later on they may remember that their second is to their constituents.

I don't accept that voting for a member of a political party means that you endorse everything that their political party may do (or even want to do) if they are elected. The larger a political party is, the more likely it is that there are factions within that party that hold different views on certain topics.

No-one remembers constituency election results when laws are passed. It's all which party has the highest percentage of votes and who has the most of the 650 seats in the lower house. I suppose the MP might remember, but he'd only remember the 40% of valid votes cast for him, not the 60% of valid votes cast against him or that it's actually only 25% of the people he represents voted for him and the other 75% didn't**.

When you return a blue* guy as your representative, you know full well he's going to vote blue* for every large piece of legislation, particularly if he's required to by the Whip. You are responsible for it.

Remember, every right is also a responsibility. The right to vote means the responsibility of your vote. It's the only power you have and shouldn't be wielded lightly.

*Other colours are also available
**I'm actually amazed this situation is allowed to continue. You CANNOT say you speak for your people when three quarters of them don't want you speaking for them. A majority should be required. I suppose no-one wants off the gravy train.

 

[Touring Mars]

The fact that MPs can (and sometimes do) vote against party lines - or simply abstain - means that the people who voted for that particular MP cannot be held responsible for every decision or piece of legislation passed by the party at large.

 

[Famine]

The fact that MPs can (and sometimes do) vote against party lines - or simply abstain - means that the people who voted for that particular MP cannot be held responsible for every decision or piece of legislation of the party at large.

Ahh, no. If you chuck your baby into a tiger's den and the tigers don't eat it, you aren't absolved of the responsibility! Though at least now you're only guily of attempted murder, not murder.

I suppose you could extend that and say that people who use their votes to approve candidates for parties knowing the parties' policies and not expecting their MP to vote for them are only guilty of attempted whatever it is. I guess on that level, Labour voters from 2005 could be said to be responsible only for attempted war.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting view, but I completely disagree. If the person I voted for votes against a bill, then I do not consider myself responsible for the resulting law or consequences if the bill is passed.

 

[Famine]

Interesting view, but I completely disagree. If the person I voted for votes against a bill, then I do not consider myself responsible for the resulting law or consequences if the bill is passed.

Remember, the law wouldn't have even reached the green paper stage if the party wasn't in power due to gaining a majority thanks to your vote*.

You may have a case during a coalition period - if you voted blue and a yellow law that isn't part of blue's policies gets passed because the blues and yellows teamed up due to not managing a plurality individually, no, you don't bear responsibility. But you are when a blue law gets passed.

It's also a little wrinkly when opposition MPs vote for legislation they'd be expected to vote against - when red guys vote for blue laws against red party policy.


Ultimately, if it's in their party's policy and you cast a valid vote that can be counted for that party, you are responsible for the policy becoming a law if it does.

The right to vote should never be removed from the responsibility of casting that vote. When it is, too many people use it as a protest or give it away cheaply - and UKIP return a bunch of Euro MPs as a result.


*Latin time. Vote (votum) means "vow". If the word wasn't already significant enough!

 

[Danoff]

*pokes head in - oh my god it's the same stuff we deal with in the US*

@Touring Mars

As @Famine said, you're responsible for the legislation enacted by representatives you vote for as long as that legislation is consistent with what they (or I guess in the UK - the party) campaigned on. As he alluded to, you're even responsible for attempted legislation that wasn't passed but that was consistent with the campaign. Basically you're responsible for what was campaigned on.

Representative says "I want to eliminate trees", among many other things. You vote for that representative for other reasons, he attempts to eliminate trees - you are responsible for that attempt, regardless of how successful it was. To test this hypothesis, just imagine that everyone running for office wanted to do something horrible - like exterminate a demographic of the population. The only moral choice is to not support any of them - not to support the one who is most in agreement with you.

Unlike @Famine, I'm a huge hypocrite because I do actually cast votes for people I don't agree with entirely, but it's entirely for the purpose of sending a signal. I know that the Libertarian candidate is not going to get elected, but I want everyone else to know which candidate most closely matched my politics. I'm not responsible for any legislation or attempted legislation because they don't get elected in the first place. Instead I just send a 90% clear signal to everyone else demonstrating exactly where my politics are. That being said, if there was anything that the libertarian candidate was campaigning on that I thought was immoral, I wouldn't vote for them. I also don't vote for anyone that I don't feel is qualified to hold office - even if I don't expect them to win. Occasionally an unqualified libertarian runs for low level state offices, and I refuse to vote for them in those instances.