Cleggageddon

Having failed to sell my vote on ebay (see previous post), i'm left with the chore of having to make a decision. While there is the school of thought that if ebay can't have my vote, then nobody can, it seems a bit anti-climatic to just give up now. Thankfully, I have a plan B. There is always a plan B, except maybe if you are the A-Team.

Astute readers will notice now that I am actually only voting to blog about it, and I'm probably not the only person doing this. I'll admit its not a motivation that reflects well on our political process but its a reason all the same and i'm going to go through with it. Lacking a functional crystal ball I'm unable to know which party is going to be the best for our country in the future. If there is one thing I learned from the banks its that past records are no guarantee of future performance, and even if I knew everything about each national party i'd still pretty much be rolling dice.

So, Plan B then. Earlier in the month I emailed the four leading local candidates the same five political questions. The rules of this game are quite simple, I'm going to vote for whoever replies with the best answers. Good answers are not needed, just be better than the rest. If I only get one reply and it says "I am a fish" it will qualify as the best answer and win by default. These guys don't have to try very hard to win my fickle vote, but they have to play my game. Spam through the letterbox will not win my vote. Just answer one email with questions on your specialist subject.

To avoid a tie the questions were broad and all but impossible to answer, allowing the most degree of freedom in the response and the questions posed were on common popular issues - Taxation, Electoral Process, Transport, Emissions and Economic Stability. I used long words, and tried to come off on the caring side of pretentious.

Since I respect the confidentially of the replies, I'll paraphrase here, and will refer to colours rather than names so everybody remain anonymous.

First to reply was Mr. Blue, but this isn't a race so I'm not awarding bonus points for speed. Mr Blue explained that he is very busy trying to win votes, so can't answer my questions personally and he would answer in line with national party policy. I found Mr Blues approach both honest and practical, both of which I like. Since I'm casting my vote based on this one email that is a strong opener, but failing to answer any of the questions makes him easy to beat if somebody else will answer at least one question.

Second up was Mr. Green. Mr. Green came off more laid back than Mr. Blue, and invited me to phone him or come in to his office for a chat. Mr Greens friendlyness and willingness to spend time with me is very appealing. But his reply was brief and he didn't even attempt an answer on the environmental question which I included just for his benefit. The rules of the game are I've got to decide based on this email, buttering me up with a cosy chat won't win votes.

Then there was silence, and I contemplated Mr Blue and Mr Green. Neither answered a single question, one didn't have enough time for me and the other had too much. Based on that one interaction, who should I vote for?

The third response came from Mr Yellow.

Mr Yellow greeted me warmly, answered all five questions and signed off. Just like that. I don't wholly agree with the answers and he didn't show all of his working out but he played the game and let me know where he stands. Brief, polite, sensible. There was a link to a wikipedia page about something, but like Mr Blues party policy and Mr Greens office, anything beyond the scope of the email is outside of the rules of the game.

Which concludes play.

I'm assigning Mr Red fourth place, because he failed to respond which is only slighty worse than Mr Blue. Mr Green is awarded second place, because he was either willing to take time out for a face-to-face talk or had the balls to bluff. However there is no prize for second place and Mr Yellow is the clear winner.