*danger* Generic Political question

[bunburyist]

Keeping in mind our rules on political engagement with each other, I've been giving some thought to how people come to find themselves on the political spectrum.

Using the UK as an example, as it's topical and one I know reasonably well.

There are two main parties, the Conservatives and Labour. Traditionally the former has been right wing, the latter left wing. Nowadays the difference is much less distinct but it's still there. Whilst similar respectively to the standpoint of the Republicans and Democrats in the US, the Conservatives (Tories) have traditionally been viewed as the the party for the wealthy, Labour for the working man, very broadly speaking. Think Thatcher/Reagan vs Clinton/Blair.

Now, the question I've been going over is why people vote the way they do. Some background - in the UK we've had 13 years of Labour in power (Tony Blair then Gordon Brown), and in my opinion they have failed by virtually any metric you care to use. Education (lowering grade standards so everyone 'has a chance'....result - straight As everywhere), Welfare (hugely excessive imo), Defence (if you must take the nation to war, ffs do it properly, not this international police patrol nonsense), Healthcare (marginally improved at phenomenal cost), habeus corpus, crime, immigration etc etc but most importantly the economy. Total, utter, unmitigated disaster for the country's finances. 50% income tax and inflation here we come with generations worth of debt.

Yet amazingly, in this year's election Labour pulled in 258 parliamentary seats not too far behind the Tories with 306, thus forcing the Conservative coalition with the Lib Dems (distant 3rd party) we see today.

Why did so many people vote Labour? I'm pretty sure if you asked the average joe in the street to differentiate, or even highlight the main point of their party's manifesto they'd struggle. I suppose you could argue that it doesn't matter what they say as politicians have a habit of telling lies and not keeping their word.

I think most people vote the way they do because of a) their parents, b ) where they were born, c) cultural/religious affiliations and only last d) because of actual political preference of one party over another.

It's sort of a perversion of democracy really. Not sure if there's much you could do about it, other than have a super simple mini-exam before you're allowed to vote?...probably too complex and may not achieve anything. One thing I would change is have strict limits on the amount any party is able to spend 'campaigning'. Winning votes through advertising (effectively propaganda) has always seemed wrong to me.

Guess I've just made more of a statement/rant rather than a question... but do people agree with my a,b,c,d? Or do you think I'm being arrogantly dismissive and most people do give quite a bit of thought to where they place their vote?

[El Presidente]

Danger indeed

No probs with the question as long as no one descends into Republican/Democrat shots. Those posts will be deleted immediately no questions asked, no quarter given.

As to your question, my thoughts.

People are a composite of the the way they were raised and life's experiences. People also tend to align themselves to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The tougher the times, the more they gravitate to base requirements.

Times are tough in the UK. Just getting by is a struggle for many so they will support the part which meets/protects best their base needs.

In the last Australian Election, the country was humming economically. People gravitated to those needs at the top of the piramide. They threw out an economically successful government in search of more altruistic beliefs (Global warming, more tolerant refugee policy etc) knowing/thinking the base was secure.

The "Left" and the "Right" skew to differing levels of the Piramide. I suspect the closeness of the UK election (in terms of seats) reflects the fact that a significant number of people weren't sold on the fact that the Tories would protect their individual economic base as well as labor would in difficult times.

I am generalizing here trying to run a line through motivations of the "average" person.

[el.barbudo]

Judging from the lack of replies it seems that people have learned to keep it civil, or there have been some very, very, very busy moderators!

The issue of unlimited campaign contributions / unlimited add expenditures is surely to be interesting. I don't know what sort of regulations apply in Australia or UK, but it seems pretty unanimous that there is going to be a lot of cash flying here in the USA since the Supreme Court's ruling. If there is freedom of speech, and money is speech, then the more money one has, the more speech? Further, what makes something an add, and something else an editorial?

As for your comments about the way parents vote. I vote in opposition to my father, as does my sister. Others I know vote the same as parent (regardless of party) and others have siblings that split. This relates to the GOP and Dems.

Lack of knowledge of party manifestos, or names of representatives extends to both major parties here. As I'm willing to bet it does there. That video of ignorant Americans didn't supply party affiliations, but it would be silly to believe they were all one or all the other.

Since we have had some obscenely low turn-outs at the polls in the last few decades, I suspect that many who don't know, don't vote.

I hope that is the case.

[MIKA27]

I have an opinion but I know it may offend and as such, will not post even though my intention is neutral and well meant.

[el.barbudo]

A considered opinion with truly neutral intent? How could someone take offence at that?

The worst outcome is that Rob would have to wake up and delet the posting, right?

Don't see how a PM can be 'relegated' or red-carded. So if you feel the need, then send away...

Just because freedom of speech doesn't allow one to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, doesn't mean you can't whisper it to the person sitting next to you, does it?

As for the UK's "13 years of Labour in power...Total, utter, unmitigated disaster for the country's finances." I think that is an over-simplification of cause and effect. While Labour (equivalent of Dems here)had the executive, or power, in UK the GOP (UK's Tories) was at the helm here. Outcome to the economy was the same.

If I don't save in times of plenty, then I have to borrow in lean times. And it's always more expensive to pay interest than to recieve interest....

[bunburyist]

Times are tough in the UK. Just getting by is a struggle for many so they will support the part which meets/protects best their base needs.

Not yet, but the pain is certainly on the way. I feel truly sorry for all those people who bought their one and only property with a mortgage they could barely service. Mortgage companies should be ashamed of themselves.

In the last Australian Election, the country was humming economically. People gravitated to those needs at the top of the piramide. They threw out an economically successful government in search of more altruistic beliefs (Global warming, more tolerant refugee policy etc) knowing/thinking the base was secure.

How true is that of human nature. People everywhere seem to have short memories.

The issue of unlimited campaign contributions / unlimited add expenditures is surely to be interesting. I don't know what sort of regulations apply in Australia or UK, but it seems pretty unanimous that there is going to be a lot of cash flying here in the USA since the Supreme Court's ruling. If there is freedom of speech, and money is speech, then the more money one has, the more speech? Further, what makes something an add, and something else an editorial?

100% agree. More airtime = more votes. It may be free, but it's not fair.

As for your comments about the way parents vote. I vote in opposition to my father, as does my sister. Others I know vote the same as parent (regardless of party) and others have siblings that split. This relates to the GOP and Dems.

Of course lots of people don't follow what their family and peers do, but a UK election map:

and the US version:

are similar in that it looks pretty much the same every election, bar minor changes. For sure people from certain areas tend to vote the same way, hence my assumption about people in general doing what their parents did.

[dcse]

I would like to add that the outcome of the UK elections must also be considered in the context of the UK electoral system, favouring the larger parties. In addition the party in government have the opportunity to tailor the borders between the constituencies to ensure they stay in power. With labour in office for most of the post WWII era, they have been in a position to take full advantage of the electoral system and have, on several occasions, adjusted the constituency borders to their advantage. With the Liberal Democrats holding the key to government stability, I guess the UK is heading towards a major reform of the electoral system. The outcome is likely to be a development towards a true multiparty democracy and a higher turn-out. The downside is the prospect of having fringe parties on the far right and left winning seats in Parliament, but overall I believe the UK political system would gain from an overhaul of the electoral system.

[Kangaroo495]

My vote goes with my parents' votes. I started voting when I was 18, and I figured that I probably had no reason not to vote for either of the two big parties... as an 18 year old I didn't really care, and no matter who won the election it wouldn't have made a great difference to my life.

But my parents, being adults, having debts, mortgages, children to feed, jobs etc needed my vote much more than I needed it. So I just voted for the party that they chose.

Now I'm living abroad and voting my absence, I've continued to support the candidate they support. When the time comes, and my wellbeing depends on it, then I might choose to swap sides.

[mazolaman]

our form of democracy is dead.

Not one of our political parties told us during the run to election gave us any details of their policy(except the lib dems,who are now going back on them).

We are now voting for a photogenic game show host.There are no policies.People are unaware of why they are voting,while they state inaneities like"time for a change".

there is no real polar difference between the two main parties,as "new Labour" looked to get the middle ground vote.

But then,there is little industrial union vote,as Margeret destroyed the industry,and the labour backing.

T.Blair was margeret thatchers offspring,and he continued her awfull industry destroying policies,with an assortment of fat cat backers.

Is Lord Ashcroft paying any tax yet?

The elephant in the room,that no party addressed at all,and will not,is the city and the bankers,the people who's gambling and selling of imaginary and rancid debt packages,who sold people ridiculous mortgages,knowing they would make more money when the debt turned bad.

nobody has the balls to call these idiots to book.

A conservative government won't.

Gordons mistake was,he should have taken a left turn,and brought in more socialist policies,taxing these vast monetary industries who leech off us,and holding them to acount for the mess they made.

I wonder what % of tax the top 100 on the rich list pay?

Their cleaners will pay a higher amount.

These discussions are less valid now,as there is no real difference between the two.

[bunburyist]

My vote goes with my parents' votes. I started voting when I was 18, and I figured that I probably had no reason not to vote for either of the two big parties... as an 18 year old I didn't really care, and no matter who won the election it wouldn't have made a great difference to my life.

But my parents, being adults, having debts, mortgages, children to feed, jobs etc needed my vote much more than I needed it. So I just voted for the party that they chose.

Now I'm living abroad and voting my absence, I've continued to support the candidate they support. When the time comes, and my wellbeing depends on it, then I might choose to swap sides.

I'd not thought of that scenario before mate....interesting. Thinking about it there may be quite a few people who vote like that - 'lending' their vote to the family as it were.

[bunburyist]

I would like to add that the outcome of the UK elections must also be considered in the context of the UK electoral system, favouring the larger parties. In addition the party in government have the opportunity to tailor the borders between the constituencies to ensure they stay in power. With labour in office for most of the post WWII era, they have been in a position to take full advantage of the electoral system and have, on several occasions, adjusted the constituency borders to their advantage. With the Liberal Democrats holding the key to government stability, I guess the UK is heading towards a major reform of the electoral system. The outcome is likely to be a development towards a true multiparty democracy and a higher turn-out. The downside is the prospect of having fringe parties on the far right and left winning seats in Parliament, but overall I believe the UK political system would gain from an overhaul of the electoral system.

Whilst the extremists on the fringe are normally unpleasant....I generally don't see a problem with their being represented if enough people vote for them.

Violent behaviour should lead to automatic exclusion though, otherwise you end up with lots of guys in brownshirts or burqas or whatever wandering about.

[bunburyist]

our form of democracy is dead.

Not one of our political parties told us during the run to election gave us any details of their policy(except the lib dems,who are now going back on them).

We are now voting for a photogenic game show host.There are no policies.People are unaware of why they are voting,while they state inaneities like"time for a change".

there is no real polar difference between the two main parties,as "new Labour" looked to get the middle ground vote.

But then,there is little industrial union vote,as Margeret destroyed the industry,and the labour backing.

T.Blair was margeret thatchers offspring,and he continued her awfull industry destroying policies,with an assortment of fat cat backers.

Is Lord Ashcroft paying any tax yet?

The elephant in the room,that no party addressed at all,and will not,is the city and the bankers,the people who's gambling and selling of imaginary and rancid debt packages,who sold people ridiculous mortgages,knowing they would make more money when the debt turned bad.

nobody has the balls to call these idiots to book.

A conservative government won't.

Gordons mistake was,he should have taken a left turn,and brought in more socialist policies,taxing these vast monetary industries who leech off us,and holding them to acount for the mess they made.

I wonder what % of tax the top 100 on the rich list pay?

Their cleaners will pay a higher amount.

These discussions are less valid now,as there is no real difference between the two.

I love these discussions - I agree with the first half of your post Thatcher and Blair's attempt (along with most other Western nations) to effectively outsoruce poverty and low-end labour is backfiring on us big time, but couldn't disagree more with the second half. Some involved in finance do need to be brought to task, but if they're to blame, then the government is equally up to it's elbows in it. More socialist policies.....?

Anyway - do you notice the same thing back home, that people often seem to vote based on their family and location?

[mazolaman]

Yes,and also people vote according to the paper they read,ie the paper tells them what to vote.Our papers are scum.

[dcse]

Whilst the extremists on the fringe are normally unpleasant....I generally don't see a problem with their being represented if enough people vote for them.

I agree. It will be interesting to the the effect on the self-image of the British people if rabid nationalists, islamists or marxists win seats in the next elections. Equally interesting to see how this will play out on the international scene. Will the UK be more or less "European", more or less "transatlantic", more or less assertive in their dealings with conflicts around the world?

[khomeinist]

I am not particularly fond of generalizations across political systems. Parliamentary democratic and federal republican systems are not terribly similar, for example.

In the US, we do not typically have coalitions or significant political representation outside of the two mainstream parties. This being the case, the purported Maslow phenomenon is irrelevant. The typical 'swing' voter usually votes according to economic indicators, which have dictated national elections for decades.

Cults of personality, simplified debate, divisive but ultimately vacuous rhetoric.

These define politics for me. The right wants to hold onto 'theirs.'. The left wants to universalize and provincialize at the same time, ultimately making little coherent sense. The middle is uninformed, apatheic, and/or too busy adjusting the resolution of their collective HDTV.

Lol. Bottoms up folks. Malthusian future awaits.

[Guest rob]

Without referring to any particular countries, or any particular ideologies... I do find it sad that a truckloads of votes are cast based on popularity (and personality) rather than policies and politically relevant fundamentals. It reminds me of high school all over again.... but with further reaching implications.

[Cletus]

Cults of personality, simplified debate, divisive but ultimately vacuous rhetoric.

These define politics for me. The right wants to hold onto 'theirs.'. The left wants to universalize and provincialize at the same time, ultimately making little coherent sense. The middle is uninformed, apathetic, and/or too busy adjusting the resolution of their collective HDTV.

Well said, sir.

Brings to mind a favorite quote: "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

.

[cigaraholic]

Can't wait to see how much $$$ BP spends to get an oil man back in the White House

The Return of the Dark Side

[reg]

the whole idea of political parties is hugely flawed and all forms of government controlled by divided parties are amazingly inefficient and/or corrupt. the system itself is illogical

[BeeStinga]

Whilst the extremists on the fringe are normally unpleasant....I generally don't see a problem with their being represented if enough people vote for them.

Violent behaviour should lead to automatic exclusion though, otherwise you end up with lots of guys in brownshirts or burqas or whatever wandering about.

We (NZ) have a system of Mixed Member Proportional, this has lead to the frindge groups holding the balance of power and as such having far more sway on many decisions than the proportion of the public that hold a similar view. I would suggest that a voter be very careful about the true ramifications of any political reforms. This experience has been very frustrating for a majority of the voting public and there is a growing surge of calls for furher reforms (this was changed from a first past the post system some 10 or 12 years ago). Extremes are generally not a long term issue, normally if things head too far in one direction an extreme of the oposite will gradually build and things will come back to a more centrist view. This however can lead to shoeter term swings, which are not really condusive to a stable economy.

As far as voting for how ones parents voted for with no thought, to me this is a pretty simple way of looking at things. No party will ever match 100% of ones views but at least vote for the party that most closely is alligned to ones views. That way the goal post is not shifting further from your ideals (well if enough ppl did that of course). These are just my opinions, politics is one of those divisive topics.

[ARRV]

I don't think voting the way your parents voted is necessarily an indication of mindless voting. Generally speaking (of course!) most people find themselves in the exact same socio-economic stratum as their parents hence there may be very simple reasons for people to vote as their parents did as generally speaking (again of course!) political views are dependant (or at least related) on one's socio-economic background.

In very general terms I think that the similarity between the political parties is a good thing - bascially results in government by consensus - with some differences at the outer levels of policy.

This similarity of view / basic political tenents between the major parties keeps tanks off the streets. Where there is vast difference in governmental ideology between political parties the result is usually violence in one form or another.

"I think most people vote the way they do because of a) their parents, b ) where they were born, c) cultural/religious affiliations and only last d) because of actual political preference of one party over another."

I think that the first three options are basically the same thing - you are not born in vacuum and naturally your parents, upbringing and taught value system / cultural religious affiliations will play a large part in determining your political views.

Of course where there is a huge political issue at stake - an Australian example is the '73 election (i think i have date correct) which was basically a referndum on withdrawing Australian troops from Vietnam - then I think people vote more independently so to speak - a conscience vote (again probably largely dictated by background). Otherwise where there is little difference between the parties then people will vote per their background.

Of course i am no expert - and these views are probably easily countered.

[Habanos2000]

I see money as the root of all political evil and the sooner a significant limit is imposed on how much one particular candidate can spend during a campaign the more even a playing field we'll enjoy.

The more often a politician can get their name in front of you the better, but not 100% absolute, the chance they have of getting your vote. It's plain and simple in my opinion that well qualified and well meaning people simply don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected for the simple fact that they can't generate enough money to compete against the ones promising the world to the big donors and consequently don't even bother running for office.

Gov't of the people, by the people and for the people? Not in a long time unfortunately.