It may not be about 1 particular issue that is being brought to light at any one point in time that decides whether one supports or votes for the opposition. Given their limited resources, one doubt the opposition can do very much e.g. those bread and butter issues that are close to the minds of many like lift upgradings, material benefits etc. The real issue here is not the 'no issue', but those that span the short, mid or long term. Hence, this requires that one look at the roles of the opposition from a different perspective. It is not opposing for the sake of opposing or to view the candidates like those in a gladiator fierce fight and crush them like crockroaches, but to answer the very long standing and simple question of whether one believes that having only 1 party dominate almost all the seats in parliament without challenge as being democratic and fair play. how sustainable is that? One is born with 2 arms and even though one may use their right hand most of the time, they will just be a freak if the other one were severed. So it is erraneous and even insulting to assume that the excitement factor (or lack thereof) is the only thing one looks forward to in an election. The aniticipation lies in the possibility of even having a choice at all, issue or no issue. But I doubt those favouring the status quo can give you a reassuring answer.
Originally posted by dork3d:
What me mean is that instead of when nearing the election season, then we get to see new opposition candidates, these group of candidates can work the ground, thus deliverying a bigger effect..