When politicians say "every vote counts"...

Post Reply New Topic

Background info: When I tried discussing this topic with people whom I know in real life, they either ignore me or tell me that "this topic is too sensitive to be discussed".

Observation 1: Every political party (in my country) faces three types of voters--supporters, neutral voters and opposers.
Observation 2: Both Youtube as well as my country's newspapers can prove that "every vote counts" is a pet phrase of various politicians.

My question: When politicians say "every vote counts", what do they truly mean?
Option 1: I will reach out to supporters and neutral voters because their votes are important to my party. I won't reach out to opposers because their votes don't worth anything to my party.
Option 2: I will reach out to supporters, neutral voters and opposers because every vote is important.

Several years ago, a debate raged in my country (which shall not be named here). Some districts strongly support the ruling party, some districts are neutral whereas some districts strongly oppose the ruling party. Since the ruling party controls all public funds, is it advisable for the ruling party to allocate more public funds to districts that strongly support it and to allocate less public funds to districts that strongly oppose it? In other words, "if you didn't vote for me, I'm not obliged to give you benefits".

I think your question dont fit for many european countries, because most countries have voting rules that lead to more then one party, ruling the country. So as example in my country the "democrats" and "republicans" are sharing the government with each other and are forced to work with each other and together they build the government. Because of that rules, only voters of very small parties are not supporters of the ruling party. Even then you cant really say so, so as example I mostly vote a party that is very left (Not in communistic, anarchistic way, but they are focused on environmental protections and so on.) that have on their side good relations to the "democrats" of my country. But I also vote the "democrats" from now and then, so I feel linked to both parties. While in the austrian government its actual the democrats working with the republicans, many of the politics of the democrats are also for members of the left wing party acceptable, so I also feel represented by them and they also work with each other. So even if the left wing party is not in government, they still work together with the democrats in many topics and are sharing ideas.

And even nonvoted parties are allowed to share their thoughts with the government and have speech rights in parlament, to criticize plans or bring up ideas. So as example, if you only get about 8% of the voters, and the leading voted party doesnt invite you to an alliance, then you cant have an poltician of you working in the government, but 8% of the seats in parlament belong to you, giving you the opportunity to ally with other parties about topics you agree with, or opposing others. So while the parties that win a vote rule the government, according to the existing rules and laws and can do on their own as long as the government parties agree, its the parlaments (so all parties) work do create or undo rules and laws that the government has to accept. So even a small party that has few votes, is actively working and no votes are completely lost. Only if your party gets less than I believe 5%, you dont get parlament seats, because of minor influence.

Only if you have some kind of proportional representation. With First Past The Post, it's possible for a party to get, say, 30% of the votes and not have any seat in Parliament, or for a party which was voted for by a minority to become the ruling one. Which is why directly electing the executive is a very good idea.

There’s something fishy when they’re so interested in stating something which should be obvious. In other words, whose votes are they getting rid of behind the scenes?

It doesn't matter what country or form of government you're referring to, politics is all about quid pro quo. Those who put the ruling party in power will always expect something in return.

This ^^. We have no ruling parties in my country, only coalition governments. I have my preference, but since it is a relatively small party, I might vote strategically for one of the larger parties my preferred party would support.

In a representational voting system like ours, every vote DOES count. The party you vote for gets the vote. They get a seat in parliament for roughy every 50,000 votes. While the government is usually formed with the winning parties, this is not always the case. In my country a party could even lose seats and still be in the government. Or win and not be in the government, but in opposition. It all depends which parties that make up a total of 76 seats (the majority) can reach an agreement. Our last government befote this one didn't even have a majority in parliament, but relied on the support of the number three party which was not in the government. The government fell when the number three party withdrew their support on a major issue. Makes for interesting politics...sometimes.

Also wrong. So if party one has the most votes in my country, the president gives them the order to form an alliance with other parties, to form a government that has at least 50% of the voters behind them. So if the leading party has 33% they need a party with at least 17% voters to form a government. They cant do it on their own. They dont put someone in power, but have to form an alliance with them. So both parties have to agree about a concept and about the goals they want to realize the coming four years. If the leading party isnt willing to agree with another party because of simply "I am the leading party so I can expect in return that I can do what I want and you shut up." misbehaving and so cant do the presidents order to form an alliance because noones wants to alliance with them, they loose their right to be the first ones to seek alliance partners. The president then gives the second leading party the order to form an alliance that is able to form a 50% voters government.

The other parties know of it, so if the first party is demanding too much, and is not willing to give their alliance partners politic credit, they simply refuse, because even then they will still be part of the opposition. which is much better as being a slave of another parties politics. And additional the other parties can get a chance on their own to build a government, if the first parties find no alliance partners. As example: There is a voting, and the republicans would win. Why should the democrats be interested in helping the republicans to form an alliance, if this only would lead to the republicans doing their republican politic for four years? If they would agree with it, then their democratic voters wouldnt vote them anylonger, because why should people that are interested in a democratic politic vote for a party that is helping the republicans to do their politics alone?

If you dont agree with each other, you go into opposition in parlament. This is ok and accepted by people, so you cant win always. But instead helping another party with an opposite politic to rule alone for four years is not acceptable. So you are right, that parties are interested into being part of the government. But only if they can acchieve something by doing so. Being the horse of another party, acchieves you nothing except horrible voting scores at the next voting.

It's a political debate that has gone on since there were effective redistribution systems in place (ie, since there were villages). Is it better to reward your supporters, or to pay to weaken your opponents? Read "The Prince" for a run-down of some arguments.