Elections and you.
-
The more political choices that enter the fray, the better it will be for the Ruling Party.
Whether the choice is for the Ruling Party, the existing four or six Opposition Parties, and how many more NEUTRAL stand-alone individual or groups of neutrals - they all will simply FRAGMENT the votes that can go to a simple choice of EITHER the Ruling Party Candidate, OR the OTHER .
All through the last FORTY YEARS, in every constituency that see a major 3-corner fight, the votes have been fragmented, with the Ruling Party winning by a slim margin and the OTHER two candidates taking the balance.
If the OTHER two candidates had ONLY co-operated by not creating a 3-corner fight, perhaps the voters would have an easier choice, and dedicated their vote for ONE of this OTHER candidates.
The COMBINED votes that went to these TWO candidates could have easily overwhelmed the slim margin that brought victory to the Ruling Party Candidate.
More neutrals entering the election fray ?
Is it advisable ? -
Major neutral groups will have to start from people organising themselves to participate, and that implies funding groups to also volunteerily happen after that. Since neutrals do not arisen go against incumbent policies, officially, they ain't rebels nor oppositions.Originally posted by Atobe:The more political choices that enter the fray, the better it will be for the Ruling Party.
Whether the choice is for the Ruling Party, the existing four or six Opposition Parties, and how many more NEUTRAL stand-alone individual or groups of neutrals - they all will simply FRAGMENT the votes that can go to a simple choice of EITHER the Ruling Party Candidate, OR the OTHER .
All through the last FORTY YEARS, in every constituency that see a major 3-corner fight, the votes have been fragmented, with the Ruling Party winning by a slim margin and the OTHER two candidates taking the balance.
If the OTHER two candidates had ONLY co-operated by not creating a 3-corner fight, perhaps the voters would have an easier choice, and dedicated their vote for ONE of this OTHER candidates.
The COMBINED votes that went to these TWO candidates could have easily overwhelmed the slim margin that brought victory to the Ruling Party Candidate.
More neutrals entering the election fray ?
Is it advisable ?
Once they present themselves at the scene, where 14 GRCs and a couple of single wards, most probably few will overlap with opposition vs incumbent wards.
When there is so many neutral groups, a Neutronic Council will be formed to coordinate.
You cannot just see from the usual shallow side.
A neutral who stands for election is just as Mr nobody standing for election. But when a neutral will carry a new form of government, it's some kinda of Dr Sun Yat Sun entering politics.
That's a very huge difference.
The people, just as you and the rest, will not just go on a chessboard without a purpose. Now, there's a neutronic politics in the background, a neutronic government form in the future. That's your base, a newer political platform.
When people see you, there gradually will no longer see a neutral as merely neutral, but see neutrons and its future of neutronic politics.
Only the neutrons can flood the scenes while incumbent and oppositions are digesting one and another. The main reason is neutrons can be anyone in the society, and opposition member needs to register as a party.
Neutrons can even go into elections via a party, incumbent or opposition, and push for a neutronic government.
You cannot always see neutrons eroding margins of oppositions. Because in reality, there will more neutral people who'd identify themselves to be neutral than to either side, when such a new platform is present.
At the start, only parties are in the lime-light because that's where everywhere else is. Singapore is small, not as in US. Condition is getting ripe for neutrons, which represent a more stable form of politics to appear in the scene. -
Originally posted by Elfred:
Expected question from people who are too used to party existence.
When you have ten people of various political interests together, that's a problem. But when you have ten people whose [b]political interest varies politically, that's the main point.
If you have ten people who believe political interest is to maintain control, and that means coalition/colluding by means of party (whip/rules), this political is definitely not the same political when ten individuals have varied interest.
In Neutronic parliament, there is no void votes, and everyone vote in number of odds. A decision will not drag beyond 1 month for the same issue. That you don't have to worry. You may raise your issues at my blog site, and read up the intro of this form of politics.
In order to stop laughing to anyone at all, the leadership will evolve, or be replaced till such leadership emerge. If the leadership worth a laugh, you can still go to the parliament visitor seat and laugh. It's all up to their performance. Maybe they are laughable, but they are leading very well, who knows?
How can a neutral has no standpoint? Their interest coupled with their political office will have a standpoint. Neutrals who entered politics becomes neutrons. In the current settings, if they were to win a GRC, they still vote in parliament. If oppositions'd entered parliament, they can.
When Neutrons stands for election, that's up to them to convince they are entering politics to serve any interests but a party's. There is no party to start with, and anyone can form government. You don't do for the government, you do for yourself and whom you'd serve.
"We are neutrons, of course we don't have any official political members to start with, why would such be a question? Neutrons entering politics not to elevate members, but the nation."
I suppose party politics has already deep-rooted in your mindset. Hence this will need time to evolve.[/b]
with a group of neutrals, who to propose ideas? the idea of being neutral is not to propose ideas. Nor oppose ideas.
If each fight like an individualist, we're not building a caring nation, but a horde of misguided individualists with their own ideals.
There is need for more political parties, but not more neutrals with no affliation. I think enough is said.
If you wanted neutrons, basically, it's like one person standing up for election by their own, instead of forming a party called neutrons. Basically neutrals dont stand together for a four-seat election together. They hardly have any affliation to anything.
I think your ideas are tooo far-fetched and impractical as there are educated people who can tell you the power of synergy over individualistic efforts. -
With a group of Neutrons, as myself would, oppose what should be opposed, in my case, I shall ask for my wife. And support where you shou support.Originally posted by Nelstar:
with a group of neutrals, who to propose ideas? the idea of being neutral is not to propose ideas. Nor oppose ideas.
If each fight like an individualist, we're not building a caring nation, but a horde of misguided individualists with their own ideals.
There is need for more political parties, but not more neutrals with no affliation. I think enough is said.
If you wanted neutrons, basically, it's like one person standing up for election by their own, instead of forming a party called neutrons. Basically neutrals dont stand together for a four-seat election together. They hardly have any affliation to anything.
I think your ideas are tooo far-fetched and impractical as there are educated people who can tell you the power of synergy over individualistic efforts.
A group of neutrons gathering together do no necessarily need to have affliation. I suppose continuously putting party politics on an entirely different concept is not appropriate.
Misguided or not, Nelstar, that's not only be decided by you alone.
I cannot agree with you. If Council Members would debate against the others and that means no caring nations to be built, this is really very funny thing to say. Even father and mother and grandparents would debate about virtually anything on the children. Do we mean that'd be no caring family?
Nope. Only because you care, you'd debate, and you'd vote out a decision.
Basically, at the beginning of such concept, people'd have to gradually be exposed to a new option to their future form of governance. It's encourageable for people to organise themselves for a start and stand for elections for now.
It'd take many attempts before the first total Neutronic government is formed, wherever. But the point is, it's now around.
People should develop and evolve their thinking, perhaps on this platform.
Find out more, and understand. -
Think I'd make a call to these chaps to get themselves standing as neutrals when election is nearer.
Maybe that'd make them think mre seriously about it...