(no subject)

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1553905]

Comments

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

I'm lucky in that where I live, the candidate I agree with most and the party I agree with most coincide (and this looks like still being the case even with the candidate stepping down and being replaced).

Not sure what I'd do if that weren't the case. Probably vote for a party, because I think the party in power makes more difference than an individual candidate; but it would depend on how bad my party's candidate was or how good the opposing party's candidate was.

Dear Reader

[cdave]

Does this added context change your mind?

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

It's a bit of both.

[dougs.livejournal.com]

Repeating word-for-word something I posted elsewhere:

My own existing MP, who represents my party-of-choice in a very safe seat, is standing down. None of the candidates this time round, including the new candidate for my party-of-choice, have made any particular effort to persuade me of anything at all, and none of them are people I've met or have heard of.

So while I've ticked "Candidate", above, I'll probably end up voting for the party.

His poll's answers are (currently) at variance with yours.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

I *vote* for the party, but I go out leafletting, canvassing etc only in areas with good candidates (have been in areas with extremely good Lib Dem candidates and also less-good ones).
Of course, if we had STV, then the problem wouldn't occur ;)

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

I tend to vote for a jerk.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Although I vote for a party (been trying to break the two-party hold on power all my voting life), I get pissed off with the widespread ignorance of how the system works, and such comments as "the unelected Prime Minister".

[sttatus-quo.livejournal.com]

I just hope that the party can keep the candidate in line and on track.