vote

i'm going to steer well clear of politics, don't worry.

but since there's a general election underway, and while democracy is still the least worst option, it would seem, that we have for what passes as a political system, and most particularly as this year's voting round may, for the first time in ages, produce what the libdems have taken to calling a 'balanced' (as opposed to a 'hung') parliament, i reckon it's worth pondering one particular thought:

what would happen if we voted purely on policy, instead of according to which party's brand image we have come to vaguely (or even strongly) identify with, instead of the personalities we've come to like, love, or, more often than not, loathe, instead of the tradition that may or may not run in the family or the community, and especially instead of who we think can actually win our seat.

if there is a significant chance of a balanced parliament, or even a hung one, for that matter, then this latter consideration - who can actually win my seat - does in fact largely pale into insignificance. unless you want to positively vote one party into government, or actively want to remove a party from government, you can consider the question who wins your seat, and therefore by extension who wins most seats, no more than perhaps technically relevant (in as much as which party will field how big a contingent and therefore have how much clout in a coalition) and concentrate much more on who will get your snippet of the share of the vote. and on this occasion, share of the vote may matter more than it usually does, because if there is a hung parliament, and therefore a coalition, it will very likely lead to a reform of the voting system to either full proportional representation or to something relatively close to it. the greater the discrepancy between seats in the house and share of the vote, the more compelling the argument for a voting system that more accurately reflects voters' wishes.

but even if you're not interested in a hung parliament, even if you'd just find it refreshing and thought it would make sound political sense for us to vote in accordance with policies we actually support, rather than with how effectively the campaign machinery bludgeons us into buying the party leaders' message, then luckily, help is at hand:

on voteforpolicies.org.uk you can find out precisely who you should vote for, based purely on the policies six parties are putting forward. the site has no political affiliation, it doesn't try to sway or persuade you, it doesn't try to sell you antyhing and it doesn't come with any bias or hidden agenda. it just presents you nine major policy areas, of which you can choose any that interest you, from a minimum of four to the maximum nine. and then it tells you in brief bullet point summary what each party's policy is on that issue. except, and herein lies the brilliant thing, it doesn't tell you which policy belongs to which party. it just asks you to choose the policy you most agree with, and then you move on to the next issue. after you've made a selection for each of the issues that interest you, it spends a few seconds computing the result and then, ptaa!, reveals who the policies that you've gone for belong to.

obviously, you can then make up your own mind who you're actually going to give your vote to. just don't be surprised if the result surprises you...

this is how parties' policies stood after 59,411 completed surveys, on 8th april 2010:




to complete the survey and find out whose policies are up your street, go to voteforpolicies.org.uk - it may be the most eye-opening ten minutes you'll spend in this election.


sebastian's website sebastian on facebook

obama

america is voting. within the last couple of hours, the state of alaska has opened its polling stations, the last of the united states to do so; it will also be the last one to close them tonight. by then, we should have a fairly clear idea of who will be the 44th president. every indication suggests it will be barack obama: history is being made. 

clearly, the american people do not need me or anybody else to tell them how to vote. which is one of the reasons i'm writing this on the actual day of the election. (although i don't in all earnest believe that this blog is read by so many people stateside that it could be of any significance to the outcome of the election in any way. my delusions of grandeur are way more subtle than that...)  

but for the sake of history, we - those five and a half to six billion of us who do not get to vote in this election, but who will nevertheless live with the consequences of the outcome every day for the next four years and possibly long into the future - must hope and trust that today america is making the right decision, by chosing change.  it's a mantra obama and his team have been repeating for as long as their campaign has been going, and it's one i'm prepared to have faith in.  

america stands very literally at a crossroads: one way is embracing a new politics, a new type of politician and a new language of politics; the other is effectively more of the same, in a somewhat changed dressing. one way points towards restoring the united states' standing in the world as a country that possesses both democratic and ethical authority, the other points towards a country that is becoming introspect, wrapping itself in patriotism and self-interest. one way promises a road towards harmonisation externally and domestic unity, the other will bring about more alienation from the rest of the world and a pronounced rift in american society.  

the latter not because john mccain is an inherently divisive figure - i don't think he is - but because by now the hope and promise of a new departure is so strong and so real in those who long for that change, that mccain pipping obama to the post would be nothing short of catastrophic. whether or not obama will in fact make a better president than mccain is by now almost no longer entirely relevant. i personally believe he would. but then i'm inclined to say so, because my politics, such as they are, are naturally at home on the liberal social democrat end of the spectrum.  

but at stake today is not a simple, straightforward trade-off between republicans and democrats. between slightly left of centre or slightly right of centre policy. what's at stake today is the heart and soul of the most powerful nation on this planet, and still the only superpower. what's at stake is how america will understand itself over the next generation, present itself, how it will behave and how it will feature within the fabric of the community of nations. and indeed how it will be understood. how the world will see and relate to this giant in its midst. 

obama, as the first african american president, as a young man with a young family, as an intelligent, educated and articulate leader, will restore our faith in america as a country leading the way: the nation that has made such a pivotal contribution to the twentieth century will regain its position as a land that - no matter how 'conservative' in many respects much of its people are - looks forward, shines a light on the road ahead and then strides there, courageously. a land, essentially, of progress. a country where hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets to hear a civil rights leader declare 'i have a dream' may mean that barely two generations later, that dream can actually be fulfilled. 

a president obama will embody, personify and represent to us, the rest of the world, much, if not all, of what we have either forgotten or, in the course of the 'with us or against us' rhetoric of the bush era, over years of swagger and posturing by a man incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together, over the staggering offences against democracy, international law and human rights that are the iraq war, guantanamo bay, extraordinary rendition and sanctioned torture, over the jaw-dropping agonies of pregnant chads and broken voting machines, we have been forced to push out of our minds altogether: that america has the potential to be a credible force for good in the world. that america is - at heart - our friend. 

and a president mccain? well: a president mccain, by now, would drive home no message so clearly as this: that america is afraid, that america would rather have a rest from its role of responsibility in the world than a change, that america does not have the confidence to vote for a black president even though it has been telling its pollsters that it was willing to do so, that america is no longer ready to look forward and outward, but is focusing inward and backward. that america has - alas - had its day.

that, to my mind, is what's at stake.

apparently, the bookies in england make obama a 16:1 favourite to win this election. the bookies in england are fairly astute. i hope, i so hope that they're right. not because i have a tenner riding on him - i don't - but because the world has an entire version of its future riding on him.  

and my prediction: i go with the bookies. i predict barack obama will win this election, more narrowly than expected. i predict he will be the next president of the united states. he won't solve all of the country's problems, let alone those of the world. but he'll make his country a much, much better place, for the fact alone that it has elected him. and if the strongest country in the world is a better place, then consequently, by definition, so is the world.

good luck and - if you believe in him - god bless america.

 

sebastian's website sebastian on facebook