Stop heydon windfrm..

[Mark]

Exactly. Low turnout is one of the things that allow them to get away with anything they like.

A "no candidate" option, however, would be a lot more difficult to ignore.

[Huge]

Given that politicians routinely ignore "signals" up to and including rioting in the streets, I wouldn't bank on it.

[djc]

When I was at U.Warwick some years ago the student union had some complex voting system that required candidates to be numbered in order of preference. There was an option for 'reopen nominations'. Got a lot of votes did RON. But the union hacks didn't like it when there were a dozen candidates and people voted 1. candidate_a, 2. cadidate_b, 3. RON. "Its not supposed to work like that, you either list all candidates in order, or vote RON." That's the problem with politicians, they don't want to represent your wishes, they wish to tell you what to do.

[Tim Streater]

The Libs certainly do; they're just interested in getting elected.

Another signal that things are in poor shape is the low esteem in which politicians are held (as seen by comments here), even though many work very hard.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Constituency politicians by and large do a fair job. Its the cabinet lot, and the local councils who are a total waste of space.

Or local district councillor did a huge drive to get people to put dogshit on bags.

Now the bags of dogshit are everywhere - even in places that are 'agricultural' land.

And people are so anti-dog that they have had to take on extra dog wardens to deal with all the complaints

[Mark]

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.

[Mark]

And the Labs/Tories/Greens/Unionists ....

Indeed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Sadly it doesn't work like that..

[Mark]

No. But it /could/ with AV.

[Tim Streater]

Another good reason not to have it then. It already costs a lot to hold elections.

[Dave Liquorice]

And then what do you do? Hold another election or just appoint someone?

[Mark]

You could hold another election. Appointing someone would be a very bad idea.

However I posted this idea since many posters here hate all politicians so this would give them what they want!

[Alan]

In message , Tim Streater wrote

But not for the people who elected them.

My local council has just spent £25million on road "improvements" which now makes the town centre a no-go area and makes it almost impossible to travel from one side of the town to the other in any reasonable time frame. As a result of recent their press releases the local radio station decided to report on the success of the project. The gist of the report " The sea front and railway entrance look great after all the work. It took 2 hours to get into the town to report on this."

This is the same council who ripped up native trees to plant £100,000 worth of now dead palm trees last year.

All those touting for our votes to join the council seem to have other priorities. Dog crap on pavements is one of the major campaigning issues.

[Tim Streater]

That would be the County Council then (or are you unitary?)

That would be the District/City council then (or are you unitary?)

[Huge]

So what?

Who cares which bunch of useless incompentent lying bastards are which? They all have their hands in your pocket.

[Tim Streater]

Hmm, and then we wonder why such things happen. People get the politicians they deserve, and with an attitude like yours, you'll just get more of the same.

[The Natural Philosopher]

catch 22 innit?

[Huge]

You don;t actually imagine that voting makes a difference, do you? Good grief, how naieve are you?

[Tim Streater]

It made a difference in 97, I'd say. All the suckers lined up and voted Blair.

[Huge]

That's a very good and very depressing point.