Reason three comes in two parts. it stems from a quote I read recently.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams
In this interview with the Guardian, David Cameron argues that a vote for Liberal Democrats is a sure way of getting stuck with labour.
http://tinyurl.com/y6t8ay8
It's nothing more than a passing comment in the article, but it is worth looking at.
This is a classic argument of the desperate. Brown might've used the same line if Cameron hadn't got there first.
A vote for the Liberal Democrats has often been perceived as a 'wasted vote'. Indeed, a vote for third parties/candidates in other countries' elections is often seen as such too. But it isn't. It is a genuine, positive, realistic alternative. And people often vote for them in their millions.
The cliched counter-argument is that the only wasted vote is the unused one. It's an argument used so often that it's almost not worth saying anymore. And when looking at the percentage of the electorate that didn't vote in 2005 it's clearly not an argument that's very persuasive.
So I'll present another. It is obvious, but it's worth doing so anyway: rather than being a vote for Labour, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. Just as a vote for the Tories is a vote for the Tories. And a Labour vote is for Labour. If someone voted for the BNP purely because they were sick of the three main parties, you'd dismiss them as an idiot. And rightly so.
By appealing for those sick of Labour to vote for Tory rather than Lib Dem purely because a Lib Dem vote is a waste, he is appealing to people's erroneous thinking.
EXAMPLE: At festivals there are several stages; as a consequence, the acts that you want to see may clash. You have to decide who you want to see most. you can't see everyone. it gets even more complicated if you're in a group and you wish to stay together. One time, a friend said, 'let's go see BAND A!' to which a majority responded positively. I wanted to see BAND B, but kept quiet. I was young, new to the group and was anxious to make and keep friends. After BAND A's performance I said that it wasn't to my taste and that seeing BAND B might've been preferable. I was astounded to find that most of the group agreed with me, and that going to see BAND A was the worst idea of the weekend. I regret it to this day that I did not speak out sooner. No way am I doing that in the ballot booth.
So that's part one.
Part two. If Cameron had the courage of his convictions he wouldn't have to do anything besides point out his policies and argue for them clearly, offering criticisms of his opponents' ideas along the way. If he was the right man for the job he would have set out a more detailed manifesto. Instead, he's decided that 'change' is all that's needed, and that since he's the leader of the second largest party he is entitled to the premiership. Wrong. Cameron has as much of a monopoly on 'change' as I do.
If Cameron truly had policies that were fleshed out and that would appeal to the electorate, he would have done better in the debate last Thursday. Forget the colours of ties, or the leaders' comfort on camera. Those things play their part, but what keeps on coming up is that Clegg put forward his policies. And people liked the sound of them. Clegg also exposed the idea that Cameron is about change as a hollow one.
Now, this post may come across as a pro-Lib Dem one. It isn't intended to be. What I would do is implore you to vote for the candidate or party whose ideas match your own. I decided to start this blog in part because I was worried that those wanting to shake up things would be anxious to get rid of the current lot - so anxious that they would see a vote for the Tories as the only viable alternative. Well, they aren't.
This election is the first one since the explosion in social networking on the internet. It is easier than ever to find out what others think about things, politics or otherwise. More importantly, it's easier to find out what you think. As a consequence, it's harder to defend the kind of tactical voting that Cameron seems to be advocating. The tactical voter tries to second guess what everyone else thinks and usually gets it wrong.
Don't vote for change, vote for a party.
Don't try to back the winning horse. Sod the horse. There is no horse.
Think for yourself. Vote for yourself.
That Cameron is attempting to convince you to do otherwise exposes him as a coward.
I won't vote for a coward.
I won't vote for a Tory.
