3 ms·
Didn't down vote but, on the point of the electorate being responsible, you are correct. What many observers fail to realise however is that, in our two-party
by dazc 4y ago
Didn't down vote but, on the point of the electorate being responsible, you are correct.
What many observers fail to realise however is that, in our two-party system, we are usually voting for the least worst candidate rather than the ideal.
Next time around we have a rather unique situation where the 'least worst' is going to be hard to pick and many voters will, instead, simply abstain.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoThanks. I'd rebut by saying the two party condition actually isn't - there are several inc. middle-ground lib-dems for example. That they are a small party is - I think - because of the tribalism of the electorate who self-polarise. So that's still a problem with the electorate I'd say. About 'ideal' there's no such thing for everyone. To some Truss was ideal, to others, Corbyn. They're not my ideal. BTW I'd say Truss was clearly going to blow things badly cos she was plain stupid, but she got picked anyway. There were less-worse candidates available.
- dazc 4y agoYes, there are other parties, but, aside from tactical voting, most people accept you're going to get a labour or conservative government no matter what. A recent exception may have have been the Con/Lib coalition but it was a union of unequal partners at the best of times.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoWhere you see some inevitability "...you're going to get a labour or conservative government no matter what", I see choices not taken. It's if you're implying political free will doesn't exist. It's very hard for me to understand where you're coming from (no offence!).
- dazc 4y agoYes there are choices not taken. It's more a case of voter apathy than pure logic though.