Given that both in the country where I live and in the country where I get to vote in the national elections, there are national elections coming up, it's no wonder that much of my news consumption and informal conversations currently concern said national elections. There's a couple of things I've been thinking about in the past few weeks, and they may be worth putting out in the open. It's too much to put into a single blog post, and I don't have much time tonight, so I'm going to split it up into three parts:
- How do you decide what party to vote for?This post is about the first topic: how on Earth do you decide what party you vote for? I'm going to assume that you actually have a full choice -- this may not necessarily be the case in all electoral systems, but we'll get to that at some point -- so that your choice isn't restricted a priori.
- Should everyone be allowed to vote in the first place anyway?
- What is the ideal electoral system?
I suppose a major part of what party to vote for is to do with what party your parents vote. Not necessarily because they have indoctrinated you to any significant extent, but because you've been brought up with certain values and behaviours that match those of your parents, and therefore the party that best matches their ideas is probably the party that best matches yours.
I witnessed (and not really participated in) a discussion between NG and SK, and the gist of their conversation was that it's more sensible to vote for parties' moral stances than for any economic plans. In general, government has relatively little influence over the internationalised economy. If anything, it's the other way around. Unless the vast majority of the electorate vote communist, the economy is run by big business, and any tax incentive is probably only going to help increase bonuses, not employment. Also, whatever happens to the United States economy is infinitely more important to the UK economy than who's currently living in Number 10. (This goes to an even larger extent for the Dutch economy and 't Torentje.)
So, voting for moral issues. In most of the Dutch elections I have been able to vote in, I have voted D66. The reasons for this are actually much more moral than economical: they are to do with D66 being the driving force behind the legislation of same-sex marriage, them realising the importance of education, them opposing Artikel 23 (supporting educational integration rather than segregation); and in general trying to find a balance between individual responsibility and opportunity, and taking care of the weaker groups in society. (And there's a cute picture on page 11 of their manifesto.)
Trying to translate this to the UK situation, the obvious place to look is D66's sister party, the Liberal Democrats (UK & Local). Which is what I have voted for in the elections that I have been eligible to vote for here (Council and Holyrood). Partly, this was simply a translation of my Dutch vote to the new context, but also it seems to have been the best choice out of the parties that it is worth voting for in the British constituency system. If I'd have got to vote for Westminster as well, I would probably vote LibDem too. This is a Labour/LibDem marginal constituency. No matter what the Tories say, vet boy doesn't stand a chance -- and I wouldn't vote Tory anyway given they go against pretty much everything I've said I would vote D66 for. An added bonus of a good LibDem result on Thursday would be good data on the language of proficient semi-speakers (and -- Easter egg -- on the confusion between voiced and voiceless velar stops).
Obviously the ideas here need more work, but the 'vote for ethics, not economics' idea is worth putting up, even if ineloquently.
4 comments:
So by your reasoning, does the vote for morals, not economics work in the U.S. too? I have definitely seen a connection between economic policy and my life, especially in things like funding for education and social services. While the economy as a whole might be more dependent on the world situation, internal issues still matter.
I told you it wasn't entirely well thought out... I think what I meant was that you should probably let moral issues count more than other stuff, but obviously the economy can still play a role in your decision. I think that economic policy might be more important in the US, given that the US economy actually matters and is more or less self-governing (unlike, say, the Dutch economy). There's also the point that many major parties aren't very different at all when it comes to their main economic policies. Details, yes, but they're all courting the political centre...
I guess the moral vs. economical choice has to be made in one-dimensional political systems, like the ones in the UK and the US. However, in the moredimensional political environment like the Dutch one, there are also parties who are morally progressive and economically conservative (VVD), or morally conservative and economically progressive (ChristenUnie and SP).
In my opinion, the second dimension in Dutch politics could also be labeled as individual - collective. The third dimension I consider in Dutch politics is about integration issues.
Which is dominated by 1 party on the one end of this dimension.
Anyway, to find out your favorite political party, you can use www.stemwijzer.nl. You can see whether you agree with the parties on 30 subjects.
It was quite shocking to me that there was not a single party, with which I agreed on more than half of the subjects! The best one scored 14 agreements.
So, am I a fool or the politicians in The Hague ?
I know I'm coming late to the party, but...
I'm not sure how easy it is to separate moral and economic policy in the way you suggest. At least not if by "economic policy" you mean stuff like taxation and welfare. Because that's about making sure poor people can get a roof over their heads and everyone can go to school. Which is a moral issue as much as an economic one.
--IP
Post a Comment