Why your vote matters more than ever at this election – even if you are voting for a no-hoper

There is no truth behind the same old lazy argument that your vote won’t make a difference. Here are five reasons why voting matters like never before

It has become the norm at elections for voters to roll out the same old arguments that voting will not make a difference – it is a waste of time because there is little to divide the parties, the electoral system produces unfair results and leaves some votes worth more than others.

But this election has busted those myths and your vote has never mattered more.

Why? 1) Because voters are choosing between parties that fundamentally disagree on a number of key areas; 2) they are vying to take control of a government that faces several country-defining moments; 3) it is the closest election in a generation; 4) deadlock at the polls could make vote-shares important for parties’ claims to democratic legitimacy and 5) events in Burundi remind us that people are literally dying for their right to vote right now.

1. There are fundamental differences between the parties

The first conventional argument that this election has busted is the claim that ‘they’re all the same’. The gap between the top two parties – Labour and the Conservatives – is the biggest since at least 1992, but there are also fundamental differences between other parties, which will make forming a coalition so difficult.

Party leaders take part in the seven-way TV debate (Getty Images)

The Conservatives and Ukip are offering voters their first referendum on Europe since 1975 – before it was even called the European Union. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are not.

Ed Miliband believes Britain’s economy needs a fundamental restructuring and proposes interventionist measures to rebalance redistribute wealth from the richest and most powerful to the poorest and most vulnerable – whereas David Cameron believes this can be achieved through continued economic growth and falling unemployment.

The Labour leader would intervene in the energy market to freeze prices, break up the banks, crack-down on firms employing staff on zero-hours contracts, push for a higher minimum wage, introduce a 50p tax rate and scrap the non-dom tax status.

George Osborne and Danny Alexander worked side-by-side in Coalition but it didn't stop them from forming very difference plans for the next five years (Getty Images)

These are all policies fiercely opposed by the Conservatives, who would introduce tax breaks for low and middle-income earners, cut inheritance tax, create more apprenticeships and lower business tax rates – all in the belief that the increased spending power, generating economic activity that will keep the economy growing and increase tax revenues for the Government.

The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens want to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent; Labour wants to maintain it.

And the biggest difference between the SNP and Labour? One wants Scotland to separate and the other wants it to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Ed Miliband placed fiscal responsibility at the heart of Labour's manifesto (AFP/Getty)

The Tories and Lib Dems have pledged to eliminate the deficit by 2018; Labour says it will balance the books by 2020.. But even between the Conservative and Lib Dem plans there are massive differences in how they intend to reduce the deficit.

The Tories will cut it through spending cuts along – including £12 billion of welfare savings – whereas the Liberal Democrats want a mix of spending cuts and tax rises. Labour would find savings with a more equal reliance on tax rises and spending cuts.

Deficit reduction is important because until the government starts bringing in more than it spends each year, Britain’s £1.5 trillion debt, which accounts for 80 per cent of GDP, will continue to grow.

2. The country-defining moments over the next five years

The country could face a number of questions that affect the very nature of the United Kingdom over the next five years and the Government we elect today will be presiding over those decisions.

Will we decide to remain a member of the European Union or should we quit? Will Scots be given another chance to vote for independence?

There are also other, less country-defining but equally- important decisions to be made by the next Government.

Will we go ahead with a £50 billion high speed rail project? Where, if at all, will the next Government decide to expand the UK’s airport capacity? Should we embrace fracking? All three will have significant ramifications for jobs, investment, the damaging north-south divide, energy prices and the environment.

And one final issue that could be sparked from the outcome of the election – does Britain need to reform its voting system? Voters rejected the Alternative Vote in 2011 but a renewed case for electoral reform – and this time proportional representation – may well be made by several different parties after an election that is likely to generate seat shares that have little resemblance to vote shares (see below).

As the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell has predicted, the results could spark a debate about the first-past-the-post system."There will be questions about is it legitimate, fair that Ukip and Greens got lots and lots of votes and very few seats,” he said.

Lord Gus O’Donnell, who presided over the negotiations which resulted in 2010’s Coalition between the Tories and Lib Dems (Timothy Allen)

3. This is the closest and most unpredictable election in a generation

Yet another conventional argument is no longer relevant – those who say it doesn’t matter who they vote for because Labour/Tories are going to win/lose regardless.

With all polls showing the two main parties neck and neck – with many of the surveys showing them tied – every last vote could count. One vote here or there could swing the most marginal constituencies, which could in turn influence who governs the country.

4. Each party's share of the vote could really matter

Another conventional argument in British politics is that millions of votes are wasted because of our first past the post voting system, where the many safe seats render votes wasted and the massive disadvantage for smaller parties means voting for them is also a waste.

That argument no longer holds if we are left with a hung parliament which not only fails to give one party an overall majority but also fails to generate enough seats for two parties to combine to form a majority – a very likely scenario.

Even a vote for the Greens in an unwinnable seat could still boost the party's chances of influence (Getty Images)

Firstly, this election is set to put Labour and the Conservatives very close in terms of the number of seats – some polls even predict a tie.

In this scenario, the party that won the most votes would technically have a greater democratic mandate to govern – more people voted for them any other party.

Secondly, if neither party is able to form a government with a second party, it brings the possibility of other smaller parties having a say on who forms a government.

Nigel Farage campaigning in Ramsgate, Kent (PA)

The greater the share of the vote for these smaller parties, the greater their legitimacy to have a say over what happens because more people voted for them.

Yes, we live in a parliamentary democracy where the constitutional requirement for a government is simply to command the confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

But with such a close result expected, the question of who can command the wider confidence of voters could play an important role over which parties have a democratic mandate to have a say.

If Ukip won 13 per cent of the vote but only got three MPs while the Liberal Democrats won 9 per cent of the vote and got more than 20 MPs – the rough outcome predicted by most polls – Nigel Farage’s party would have a far greater democratic claim to have their views represented than if their three MPs were voted in on 5 per cent of the vote.

Nicola Sturgeon's party could end up with 50 times as many Green MPs, despite getting the same share of the vote (Getty Images)

Likewise with the SNP and the Greens – the two parties are likely to win the same share of the vote but the Scottish nationalists could end up with 50 times as many MPs.

The more votes the Greens receive – regardless of whether it leads to more MPs – the more democratic clout they will carry when demanding that their views be heard.

5. A vote is worth dying for in some parts of the world

The conventional argument used to coax people out to vote is to remind people that less than a hundred years ago the suffragettes demonstrated they were prepared to die for their vote. This is a powerful argument and it is the same vote that many dismiss today as insignificant and ‘a waste of time’.

But the fact that right now, in the central African country of Burundi, people are literally dying for their right to vote, puts to shame those in Britain today who are all-too-happy to throw away their right to register their gratitude to the many who have fought and the many who are still fighting to have a stake in their country’s future.