> unless something changes, I won't be voting.

I encourage anyone who feels this way to spoil your ballot paper. This sends a different signal than not voting: if there were lots of spoilt ballot papers this would be received differently to low turnout.

The ruling classes don't care either way, as far as they're concerned winners have a mandate even if a single vote is cast.

There is no "message" - the message is to vote for the least worst, or start your own party.

Or refer to this website: https://stopthetories.vote/

> if there were lots of spoilt ballot papers this would be received differently to low turnout.

Do they even count spoiled ballots? They certainly don't report them.

I guess in theory, someone who spoils their ballot has "turned out" to vote, so should be counted in the turnout. So it should be possible to work out the number of spoiled ballots from the difference between the turnout, and the total of votes cast. It would be interesting to see if the news media report it so the difference is zero.

They do count them and they do report them.

See "Rejected ballot papers" https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...

Every constituency will have at least 3 MPs to choose from, and most will have 4, 5 or even more.

This is not practically the case.

Take Bath for example (I happen to vote there, since it's the last place I lived - prior to that I lived in North East Somerset where the dynamic is the same, but with different parties).

There has not been a member elected for Bath since the 1800s who was not either a member of the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, or a party which became one of those. The margins are usually comical. Therefore, one must vote according to who they want to prevent winning if one is not for either of those two candidates. Realistically, the only hope even for _Conservatives_ in Bath in the modern era is that a general election is held during University holidays.

And one vote rarely makes a difference anyway so why bother voting.

Vote tactically if you want to kep a party out, otherwise vote for the party you most want to win. Every vote counts in short money if nothing else, and every vote counts for the continued pressure for PR which seems inevitable given that the only people against it now seem to be the tories and the labour leadership (but not membership)

Probably not the place to have this discussion, and I’m not saying that this is your view, but I find the “no party is exactly what I want so I just won’t vote” approach incredibly annoying. No political party will ever be exactly what you want, but surely you can see enough of what you want with one of them to vote for them?

By not voting you make it easier for the parties to not change, it means they can play to the most populist views of the moment for their side of the fence and know that the disgruntled middle can be ignored therefore making the system worse over all.

> surely you can see enough of what you want with one of them to vote for them?

I can't - not with the major parties, anyway.

I can't support the present shower of incompetents and thieves.

I would normally vote Labour; but (a) the party is currently infested with agents of a foreign power; and (b) Starmer won the leadership on a set of pledges that he repudiated as soon as he won, and is still trying to destroy and bury his predecessor.

I can cast a vote for a candidate that doesn't have a snowflake's, such as Green or one of the socialist parties. My vote might suffice to save their deposit, I suppose. But I'm reluctant to cast a vote for someone I know nothing about.