A thought

[avevale_intelligencer]

If you are going to adopt a plague-on-both-your-houses stance, it's helpful if you occasionally attack (or defend) both sides, rather than consistently attacking one and defending the other.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is always possible for those who don't know you to suspect that. It is also possible for a person sitting in the middle to be accused of partisanship by both sides, because each side notices mainly the things against them (I've been accused of that myself, and it tends not to help their attitude that I find it amusing). Even if you say nothing you can then be accused of "not supporting 'us'" and therefore "you must be supporting 'them'", again by both sides.

"assuming there is one"

I'm pretty certain that there will be one. Whether any of us will be around to see it is something of which I am less certain...

I'm frustrated in voting by the problem that by voting for the person I would like to represent me (and the community) I am also voting for the party who will run the country. The two are not the same. As the party I would probably vote LibDem as the "least bad", but the reason my current (Tory) MP gets in is because he is a very good representative for the community (indeed, the more I read of him the more I like him). Of course, in my case it doesn't really matter which way I vote because he gets in with such a wide majority that short of him not standing there is no feasible way of getting anyone else in so I can vote however I like and know that he will still be representing me.

(In fact it's potentially worse than that. Voting is for a trinity -- the representative, the party and the PM all in a single vote. I may well want one person as my representative, want a different party in power, but really dislike their leader, but can't express that in a vote.)