General Election 2010

[Park Life 70]

I wouldn't mind, but the local council wards are safe Green too.

 

The only vote this year where I have any kind of power is for the elected Mayor of Lewisham. And he doesn't have much in the way of power, so...

 

The main problem with democracy innit?

[ChezGiven 0]

Is anyone going to report what the wifey from Rochdale said?

[maggiespaws 0]

0.08 - ultra safe. Still wont vote Labour though.

[Craig 6321]

Is anyone going to report what the wifey from Rochdale said?

 

Paraphrasing, she started to heckle Brown on reducing the deficit. Press were congregating around her so his advisors pulled her to one side so they could have a discussion. Broached many subjects including immigration which is said to be what annoyed him.

 

At the end of the discussion she was interviewed by Sky News, confirmed she'd been a life-long Labour supporter, would be voting Labour again and hoped that Gordon Brown would lead this country for many years to come.

 

When she'd been made aware of his comments, she's claimed that the postal vote that is sitting waiting to be filled in will now be left unsent.

[NJS 3992]

It comes down to her saying there were too many Eastern European immigrants.

[Happy Face 29]

I wouldn't mind, but the local council wards are safe Green too.

 

The only vote this year where I have any kind of power is for the elected Mayor of Lewisham. And he doesn't have much in the way of power, so...

 

The main problem with democracy innit?

 

whatever the system...

 

Why Vote?

 

Within the economics departments at certain universities, there is a famous but probably apocryphal story about two world-class economists who run into each other at the voting booth.

 

"What are you doing here?" one asks.

 

"My wife made me come," the other says.

 

The first economist gives a confirming nod. "The same."

 

After a mutually sheepish moment, one of them hatches a plan: "If you promise never to tell anyone you saw me here, I'll never tell anyone I saw you." They shake hands, finish their polling business and scurry off.

 

Why would an economist be embarrassed to be seen at the voting booth? Because voting exacts a cost - in time, effort, lost productivity - with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your "civic duty." As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, "A rational individual should abstain from voting."

 

The odds that your vote will actually affect the outcome of a given election are very, very, very slim. This was documented by the economists Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter, who analyzed more than 56,000 Congressional and state-legislative elections since 1898. For all the attention paid in the media to close elections, it turns out that they are exceedingly rare. The median margin of victory in the Congressional elections was 22 percent; in the state-legislature elections, it was 25 percent. Even in the closest elections, it is almost never the case that a single vote is pivotal. Of the more than 40,000 elections for state legislator that Mulligan and Hunter analyzed, comprising nearly 1 billion votes, only 7 elections were decided by a single vote, with 2 others tied. Of the more than 16,000 Congressional elections, in which many more people vote, only one election in the past 100 years - a 1910 race in Buffalo - was decided by a single vote.

 

But there is a more important point: the closer an election is, the more likely that its outcome will be taken out of the voters' hands - most vividly exemplified, of course, by the 2000 presidential race. It is true that the outcome of that election came down to a handful of voters; but their names were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. And it was only the votes they cast while wearing their robes that mattered, not the ones they may have cast in their home precincts.

 

Still, people do continue to vote, in the millions. Why? Here are three possibilities:

 

1. Perhaps we are just not very bright and therefore wrongly believe that our votes will affect the outcome.

 

2. Perhaps we vote in the same spirit in which we buy lottery tickets. After all, your chances of winning a lottery and of affecting an election are pretty similar. From a financial perspective, playing the lottery is a bad investment. But it's fun and relatively cheap: for the price of a ticket, you buy the right to fantasize how you'd spend the winnings - much as you get to fantasize that your vote will have some impact on policy.

 

3. Perhaps we have been socialized into the voting-as-civic-duty idea, believing that it's a good thing for society if people vote, even if it's not particularly good for the individual. And thus we feel guilty for not voting.

 

But wait a minute, you say. If everyone thought about voting the way economists do, we might have no elections at all. No voter goes to the polls actually believing that her single vote will affect the outcome, does she? And isn't it cruel to even suggest that her vote is not worth casting?

 

This is indeed a slippery slope - the seemingly meaningless behavior of an individual, which, in aggregate, becomes quite meaningful. Here's a similar example in reverse. Imagine that you and your 8-year-old daughter are taking a walk through a botanical garden when she suddenly pulls a bright blossom off a tree.

 

"You shouldn't do that," you find yourself saying.

 

"Why not?" she asks.

 

"Well," you reason, "because if everyone picked one, there wouldn't be any flowers left at all."

 

"Yeah, but everybody isn't picking them," she says with a look. "Only me."

 

In the old days, there were more pragmatic incentives to vote. Political parties regularly paid voters $5 or $10 to cast the proper ballot; sometimes payment came in the form of a keg of whiskey, a barrel of flour or, in the case of an 1890 New Hampshire Congressional race, a live pig.

 

Now as then, many people worry about low voter turnout - only slightly more than half of eligible voters participated in the last presidential election - but it might be more worthwhile to stand this problem on its head and instead ask a different question: considering that an individual's vote almost never matters, why do so many people bother to vote at all?

 

The answer may lie in Switzerland. That's where Patricia Funk discovered a wonderful natural experiment that allowed her to take an acute measure of voter behavior.

 

The Swiss love to vote - on parliamentary elections, on plebiscites, on whatever may arise. But voter participation had begun to slip over the years (maybe they stopped handing out live pigs there too), so a new option was introduced: the mail-in ballot. Whereas each voter in the U.S. must register, that isn't the case in Switzerland. Every eligible Swiss citizen began to automatically receive a ballot in the mail, which could then be completed and returned by mail.

 

From a social scientist's perspective, there was beauty in the setup of this postal voting scheme: because it was introduced in different cantons (the 26 statelike districts that make up Switzerland) in different years, it allowed for a sophisticated measurement of its effects over time.

 

Never again would any Swiss voter have to tromp to the polls during a rainstorm; the cost of casting a ballot had been lowered significantly. An economic model would therefore predict voter turnout to increase substantially. Is that what happened?

 

Not at all. In fact, voter turnout often decreased, especially in smaller cantons and in the smaller communities within cantons. This finding may have serious implications for advocates of Internet voting - which, it has long been argued, would make voting easier and therefore increase turnout. But the Swiss model indicates that the exact opposite might hold true.

 

But why is this the case? Why on earth would fewer people vote when the cost of doing so is lowered?

 

It goes back to the incentives behind voting. If a given citizen doesn't stand a chance of having her vote affect the outcome, why does she bother? In Switzerland, as in the U.S., "there exists a fairly strong social norm that a good citizen should go to the polls," Funk writes. "As long as poll-voting was the only option, there was an incentive (or pressure) to go to the polls only to be seen handing in the vote. The motivation could be hope for social esteem, benefits from being perceived as a cooperator or just the avoidance of informal sanctions. Since in small communities, people know each other better and gossip about who fulfills civic duties and who doesn't, the benefits of norm adherence were particularly high in this type of community."

 

In other words, we do vote out of self-interest - a conclusion that will satisfy economists - but not necessarily the same self-interest as indicated by our actual ballot choice. For all the talk of how people "vote their pocketbooks," the Swiss study suggests that we may be driven to vote less by a financial incentive than a social one. It may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.

 

Unless, of course, you happen to be an economist.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine...nted=1&_r=1

[ewerk 26769]

The BBC are running a live text page on 'Bigotgate'. Seriously, if an off the cuff remark about some old bint from Rochdale has any effect on the election then it's very sad.

[Craig 6321]

The BBC are running a live text page on 'Bigotgate'. Seriously, if an off the cuff remark about some old bint from Rochdale has any effect on the election then it's very sad.

 

It will do, the Tories are going to jump on it. And for that matter, Labour would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed.

[PaddockLad 14863]

It comes down to her saying there were too many Eastern European immigrants.

 

Just heard it on the radio....she spewed out every Mail/Express scaremongdering headline in the last 10 years. No wonder he was frustrated, and it's the sort of comment anyone whos just had a tricky encounter with someone in the workplace would make when it was over and the other person was seemingly out of earshot. It does show Broon's complete contempt for the electorate though, but as a politician he's hardly alone in that

[Guest alex]

A lot of what you might class as old skool Labour supporters are bigots who lap up the Daily Mail's bile imo.

[ewerk 26769]

It does show Broon's complete contempt for the electorate though, but as a politician he's hardly alone in that

 

If someone is a wanker then I'd expect him to say they're a wanker when in private. I just wish a few of them would say it in public.

[Guest alex]

Funny how North Tyneside is such a safe Labour seat yet it's a Tory-controlled council (just).

[Christmas Tree 4003]

 

 

 

:icon_lol: :icon_lol:

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

 

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

 

 

Labour picks on Grannys.....Shame on them.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2010 by Christmas Tree

[Craig 6321]

 

 

 

:icon_lol: :icon_lol:

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

 

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

 

 

Labour picks on Grannys.....Shame on them.

 

 

 

Torygraph are having a field day....

[Craig 6321]

Nick Robinson's take on it...

 

'That was a disaster'

 

Never has Gordon Brown spoken truer words. He was describing his encounter with the soon-to-be-very famous Mrs Gillian Duffy of Rochdale.

 

It was, though, not the public encounter itself but the prime minister's private comments about it which were so disastrous.

 

On camera he handled himself and Ms Duffy's questions well leaving her so pleased that she was happy to tell reporters she'd be voting Labour.

 

Off camera but still on microphone the prime minister showed another face entirely - dubbing Mrs Duffy a bigoted woman and criticising his aide Sue Nye for fixing for them to meet.

 

The apology that followed in Jeremy Vine's radio interview was scarcely better. Perhaps unaware that he was being filmed, as well as heard, Gordon Brown could be seen with his head in his hands.

 

There are at least three reasons that this will have caused Gordon Brown and his advisers such dismay.

 

It highlights a huge gap between the prime minister's public and his private demeanours.

 

It catapults the issue of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Mrs Duffy had expressed concerns to him about the high level of East European immigration and her feeling that her home town was becoming like "a third world country".

 

Finally, the leader of the Labour Party has insulted one of the very type of voter it's so vital for his party to hang on to - older, white and traditionally Labour.

 

Of course, many may have some sympathy with the prime minister who had no idea that his private remarks would be heard let alone broadcast.

 

Some will say that words said in the heat of the moment in private at a time when he is tired and under great strain matter little.

 

Others will insist that it is Gordon Brown's judgements and actions and not his words and attitudes that matter.

 

My hunch is that is very very unlikely to comfort him as he fights for his political life.

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/20...was_a_disa.html

[Guest alex]

Brown having a Weston. To me Labour are to blame for us being in Afghanistan, being in Iraq and for chipping away at civil liberties since 9/11. And that's just for starters. Fuck knows how much they'd take the piss if they got another 5 years. Not that the Tories would have done much differently.

[Park Life 70]

Brown having a Weston. To me Labour are to blame for us being in Afghanistan, being in Iraq and for chipping away at civil liberties since 9/11. And that's just for starters. Fuck knows how much they'd take the piss if they got another 5 years. Not that the Tories would have done much differently.

 

These are my issues with NEW Labour, or perhaps the way Billy Liar dragged the party sideways and to the right.

[NJS 3992]

Mrs Duffy had expressed concerns to him about the high level of East European immigration and her feeling that her home town was becoming like "a third world country".

 

If she thinks a few Poles have turned Rochdale into a third world country then I'd say a bigot is fair enough - though of course getting caught saying it is beyond stupidity.

[Craig 6321]

Mrs Duffy had expressed concerns to him about the high level of East European immigration and her feeling that her home town was becoming like "a third world country".

 

If she thinks a few Poles have turned Rochdale into a third world country then I'd say a bigot is fair enough - though of course getting caught saying it is beyond stupidity.

 

Some Labour MPs saying that it's unfair to judge Brown on comments that should have remained private as they were intended. Oh I'm sorry, who's fault is it he was still wearing the microphone again?

[Guest alex]

Brown's a walking PR disaster anyway tbh. This was always on the cards. Or some other fuck-up, anyway. He's so uncomfortable with the general public.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alex

[Meenzer 14136]

Funny how North Tyneside is such a safe Labour seat yet it's a Tory-controlled council (just).

 

Same thing in Newcastle with the Lib Dems, I suppose, though I think Newcastle North will go yellow this time. Probably not the others though.

[NJS 3992]

Brown's a walking PR disaster anyway tbh. This was always on the cards. Or some other fuck-up, anyway. He's so uncomfortable with the general public.

 

He reminds me of what I was saying when we discussed Michael Foot - you could argue both men are unsuited to the modern world of politics despite what talents they may have had.

 

Say what you like about Blair but he was a PR wizard and I think the Tories thought Cameron could "easily" be as good and are now finding out its not so easy.

[Craig 6321]

Brown's a walking PR disaster anyway tbh. This was always on the cards. Or some other fuck-up, anyway. He's so uncomfortable with the general public.

 

Both main parties have their weak link IMO. Brown for Labour, Osbourne for the Tories. Surprise, surprise guess which Tory was first to point and laugh Nelson Muntz stylie....

[Craig 6321]

Say what you like about Blair but he was a PR wizard and I think the Tories thought Cameron could "easily" be as good and are now finding out its not so easy.

 

Totally agree on both counts. What I find laughable though is that Labour are berating Cameron for being a 'PR wizard'. As you point out, that particular strength helped Blair massively back in '97.

[Christmas Tree 4003]