Printable View
Well, I figure with my 18th birthday coming up and what-not, there is always that issue of registering to vote. To be honest, I'm not going to register, I don't care at all... :shrug:
Still, I want to hear your thoughts, and with different countries, it should be interesting.
My opinion is that if you dont vote.You have no business criticize your government.That way you dont use your change to effect your countrys policy.If nothing else voting gives you right to criticize.~;)
your vote really doesn't mean nothing..I won't vote,what the such?? those guys are Crooks,plain and simple and they don't care about the people,well,99.8% of them don't anyhow..
From US.
If you don't vote and don't care, then technically you're not allowed to complain about the state of things. You have had an excuse for the past 17 years but now that you are eligible to vote, things change.
Also, even if you don't care, at least throw your vote away. Cast your ballot for an independent candidate that sounds interesting. I know in my district there's always the "Legalize Marijuana Party" coming up every two years.
Basically, do anything but not vote.
Well basically I'm forced to vote by federal law, so I cannot have an opinion until I'm senior and I can say "damn state I'm barely walking on my two foots, I'm not going to vote". Otherwise I can be fined.:2thumbsup: I.E.:That would be the first option.
EDIT: This is only applicable if we're talking about national wide elections, not of internal elections within a certain faction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
What do you do if you dont like any of the candidates?
Im increasingly of the opinion that your vote really doesnt mean a great deal...its a vote to allow the winner carte blanche to do what the hell they like... like make war on other countries under questionable pretenses, award themselves pay rises etc etc....not to represent your will.
EG- Im sure all the people who voted labour would be appauled if someone suggested that the war in Iraq was blood on their hands if they voted for Blair.
Yet that is the sad reality..said party has been elected, which then proceeds to follow a course of action that I doubt many of their party members approved of, much less the nation at large.
And watching PMs question time is proof enough the democracy is fast becoming a quite literal joke.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
If one wants change one must vote if one lives in a democratic society - be it a pure democracy or even a republic.
Even the throw away votes are analysed by the different parties (especially the Republican and Democratic Parties,) they often look at them to see if they can capture the segment by making minor changes is some of their polticial statements. However its to bad that the changes really never take hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I would actually like to see enough "throw away votes" develope over the next 2 years to force either a viable 3rd party into the American system or more likely cause sever major changes in our two current parties. However your correct by not voting one is giving up on the political process.
I wish the LIbertarian party had enough advertising power to marklet itself as viable. Imagine if there was a campaign that brought together the economic freedom of the right with the social freedom of the left? Imagine if libertarians could sell themselves as viable?
Yes you should vote .
If , as the case may be , the candidates are all a bunch of despicable gobshites , vote for the least offensive one .
I voted No, my vote doesn't matter.
I disagree with the Democrats.
I don't see a big enough difference between them and the Republicans.
The Libertarians are still considered a joke by the mainstream, so to hell with it.
Libertarian is very attractive to me.
It's what the guys who created South Park are, so anything that's good for them... :2thumbsup:
I vote Reenk for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks! :nice:Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
Have some candies... :balloon: :balloon2:
Civic duty, regardless of which puppet you vote for.
Just thinking about the possibility makes me want to cry tears of frustration. If I could keep the left from building social programs and keep the right from trying to force their version of personal morality on the general populace ... oooooooh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
And yes, I consider voting a duty of any member of a democratic state. Much to my wife's horror, I also consider it a duty to stay somewhat informed about what's going on. (She balked at the idea of reading a newspaper, and watching cable news made her want to kill herself, so we've compromised on the Daily Show and a half-hour of ABC nightly news. That's all she can take. I tied to interest her in the News Hour, but that was too tedious for her. And I'm certain I will never get her to read any internet news site, so let's not even go there.)
You've three options: choose anyone even if you don't like it (most likely), you can oppose the vote (by voting wrong, I can elaborate this if you want) or you can simply vote in blank (wich will be an example of voting wrong). Nonetheless I voted a socialist group this last ballot (is it?), though I don't remember it's name since there's so much parties here that you can't remember everyone, even if we want to divide them between the usual winners, peronism and radicalism, wich are subdivided.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Anyway I did realize that I didn't answer the question actually, so I'm pro choice.:2thumbsup:
I think it is a civic duty and I think we should be able to vote on more things than we are currently able to.
Not voting is a completely acceptable alternative and I think more people, especially those that are not fully aware of the issues should exercise their right to not vote. However, if you don’t vote and you bitch about things that can be voted on you should probably shut up. I don’t respect someone unwilling to do anything productive, bitching is not usually productive.
Lemur's simple rule on voting: If you're unsure, always vote against the incumbent. Always.
Living in a direct democracy, I can vote on pretty much anything; be it local or the confederate level. I vote most of the times. I do not vote for local elections as I am way to uninformed as to what is happening in petty politics.
I do not believe in voting being compulsory. Not only would you have unintersted, uninformed total idiots voting for rediculous things but you would also no longer have the choice and isn't that what a democracy is, after all...
Quid
The Aussie system is slightly different to most others.
It has a ranking system for the candidates hence all votes are closer to counting then the vote for a single candidate system.
Also on election day you need to turn up to the voting hall and get your name crossed off the list of voters once... less or more and you get in trouble. You don't need to vote, you only need your name crossed off.
Too young now but I will vote.
Your vote does count: if you don't vote your peers will be influenced and might decide not to vote either, and their peers get influenced and so on.
Quote:
your vote really doesn't mean nothing..I won't vote,what the such??
Cause, meet effect, effect, meet cause.Quote:
those guys ... don't care about the people
Redleg's points about protest votes/votes for minor parties are correct. The major parties do analyse those. But can anyone explain to me one reason why an elected politician should give two hoots about the opinions of someone who says he won't vote? Do you expect Woolworths to stock goods to meet the tastes of people who stand outside the store saying they won't buy anything?
If you really think they are all crooks go and write "you are all crooks" on the ballot paper.
EA, simply put in first past the post, the person whose vote does not go for the winner in their district is quite literally a waste. They are unrepresented. The winner of that election only represents those who voted for him. Yet, the system acts as if they voted for them, and they are governed by somebody they would prefer not to be governed by. Pretty bad, if you ask me.:furious3:
Not only this, but my vote means much, much less than it would have years ago when there were less people.
Edit: I feel the poll is missing important options. My choice would be do you vote: yes. Do you care: not in the least. I'm just going through the motions with the hope that somehow I will not be in a system that governs me in a way that bugs the crap out of me.
Gah! my friend. I cannot possibily predict every different Organian's thought on the matter, but that is why there is "'Gah!'...please elaborate" option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I put no because I don't like any of them, but I am more and more coming round to EA's view of going down and writing my reason for not voting on the paper. I'd get banned if I wrote it here.
With the new electronic voting systems, we don't get that option, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. If you don't like any of the options, vote big picture. This past election, for congressional seats I voted Democrat, in a vain attempt to restore gridlock (all options were bad anyway). Lemur's suggestion to vote against the incumbent is also a good one.
Here in the US, I'm not really sure the "system" wants you to vote. An apathetic constituency is the easiest one to exploit.
Woah, wait up. That will happen at some point and level in any system of democracy you care to devise. Suppose you have nationwide PR. There are 100 MPs, and the national vote is 40% tory, 40% labour, 20% Lib Dem. so each gets that number of MPs. Then in the very first vote in Parliament, the labour and Lib dem MPs gang up and outvote the tories 60:40. Could the 40% of the country that voted tory complain their votes were a waste?Quote:
EA, simply put in first past the post, the person whose vote does not go for the winner in their district is quite literally a waste. They are unrepresented. The winner of that election only represents those who voted for him.
Same thing would happen if every law was the subject of a nationwide referendum.
In any system of democracy, at some point those who voted for the less popular option don't get what they want. First past the post is no better or worse than any other system. The point of democracy is you get to express your opinion, not that you get what you want.
Take post it notes in with you and leave a message on the screen for the next voter. You need to think laterally here, dude...Quote:
With the new electronic voting systems, we don't get that option, unfortunately.
Funny you say that - you must have had a sneak view of my paper. I did put it in a much less formal manner, however, as I didn't think that any of the options were even remotely capable of leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Quid
I wonder if leaving a note "They are all a bunch of *******" violates the law we have about campaigning near polling stations. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I didn't vote in Iraq. Does that mean I can't complain about Saddam Hussein?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I chose the first answer, even though my wording would have been "Voting is a civic duty and my vote doesn't matter".
What a reach - I wonder if you actually read his statement. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
It only doesn't matter if what you voted for doesn't win. :dizzy2:Quote:
I chose the first answer, even though my wording would have been "Voting is a civic duty and my vote doesn't matter".
To much negativity does great harm to one's inner self....
Voting is a civic duty. Dont complain if you dont vote ! So i vote and whine a lot !!!
Why would you complain about someone you support?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
My father gave me one piece of political advice: "Politicians are like underwear - to keep them clean, you need to change them often!"
I grew up as a foreigner in Brazil, where voting was mandatory for all adults. Consequently, write-in candidates often won elections. One municipal election had the rhinoceros in the local zoo winning, another had a celebrity parrot (who only spoke profanity) garnering the most votes. Of course, the next-highest human candidate actually got the open position.
Too bad...
You seem to have trouble with implication. I'll say it this way:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If you disagree with both viable candidates, it doeasn't matter who you vote for, you are still voting for someone you will complain about. So, why vote?
I complain about Bush because he is a terrible president and a terrible person. I have as much right to complain about him as Hussein and vice-versa. I voted against Bush, but I could not vote against Hussein. I still have every right to complain about him. Since he gets enough complaints from others, it is not necessary for me to. It's about as meaningful as saying that water is wet.
In reality, in a presidential election, there are only two viable candidates. In my voting career, I haven't wanted either of the two major candidates in any election. My votes were worthless. At best, I could try to prevent the worst of the two from getting into office.
I chose not to do this when Nader ran, and, if I had been in Florida, I actually would have helped the candidate I most hated by voting for the one I wanted most. In California, Gore beat the Antichrist (Bush) anyway.
But, as shown in the 2000 election, my vote does not decide the election; the electoral college chooses. More people voted for Gore, but it didn't matter.
This pretty much answers both questions.
Oh I understood it very well - and again the failure is yours in reading his statement. His statement was clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Does this really need to be explained to you?Quote:
If you disagree with both viable candidates, it doeasn't matter who you vote for, you are still voting for someone you will complain about. So, why vote?
Then you can not claim your vote doesn't count..Quote:
In reality, in a presidential election, there are only two viable candidates. In my voting career, I haven't wanted either of the two major candidates in any election. My votes were worthless. At best, I could try to prevent the worst of the two from getting into office.
Again you can not claim your vote does not count...Quote:
I chose not to do this when Nader ran, and, if I had been in Florida, I actually would have helped the candidate I most hated by voting for the one I wanted most. In California, Gore beat the Antichrist (Bush) anyway.
The electorial college insure each state has a equal representation. Is it a perfect system - nope, but that is what was established. Now if you wish for it to change, you have to voice your opinion to congress and request a constitutional change through the ammendment process. To accomplish this you attempt to vote for the Senator or Representive that will attempt to accomplish such a task.Quote:
But, as shown in the 2000 election, my vote does not decide the election; the electoral college chooses. More people voted for Gore, but it didn't matter.
Again one can not claim their vote does not count, the system was established so that the voter had more direct influence on the Senator and Representive from their area. If one fails to utilize them to voice their opinion - then the failure is on the individual - not on his vote.
Take a really close look at the voting for certain local and state measures - often the matter comes down to how you would vote. Take a look at the House of Representives and the Senate Races, some of them are fairly close, and others are landslides. However when one reviews the complete political process and the votes of the people. One can never conclude that one's vote does not count. Apathy and negativity is what defeats the political process..
Not at all...Quote:
This pretty much answers both questions.
In that system the correct reperesentation goes to the legislature. In FPP, it doesn't. Your representative is determined by a simple majority and nothing else. I don't know exactly about ours, but FPP results in totally whacky proportions in your system, to be sure. My complaint did not have anything to do w/ the somewhat unwilling being governed, it had to do w/ representation at the district level and with representation at the national level. The right proportion isn't even sent to the legislature. So, someone who votes for a fringe party has absolutely no chance of having a representative in the legislature to at least officially voice an opinion, if not to have it acted on. More importantly, these people cannot even have a representative of theirs vote in different ways, rather being victims of the major parties' whips -- I dare say Britain is feeling this as Blair forces through stupid legislation easily, regardless of popular opinion. Often, the fringe parties hold more complex stances than the simple mindedness of the major ones, and could almost certainly play a major role in controversial legislation, which would be even better for a democracy. Votes are wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishAssassin
Here is what i stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Tachikaze,Are you from Iraq?I think my precize words were "your government",right?:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Mods, be ruthless in the suppression of those who delve into Iraq war or any other political irrelevance...:rtwno:
I want to see the rolling heads and blood of the guilty (metaphorically of course)...
Not voting is a politcal act. When turnout for elections drops below 30% then mainstream parties get VERY jittery. This is becuase they get increasingly in danger of single issue parties and new parties coming along and trouncing them.
The trubble is to see the difference between the political act of not voting and the apathy vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Personally I consider that's what blank votes are for.
In the UK:
Parties have manifestos that outline the things that they will try to do, as long as they are not too expensive, don't annoy anyone, or just end up making no sense.
These can change at any time, be completely ignored, and form no binding agreement with the voters.
I can like certain aspects of one party (UKIP for keeping out of the EU for example) whilst thinking that they are completely wrong on another (UKIP on immigrants for example). What then? I can only be all in or all out - nothing between the two.
Then there the 2 or 3 parties who let's face it are the only ones who form the House of Commons.
Lib dems are pro europe, so that's a non starter.
Labour are the current incumbents and are if nothing else passing masses of legislation and buggering up the NHS - and indirectly altered my career plans (I'm now training to be a GP).
Tories are radically altered, so we have no idea what they are going to do.
In the very old days parties stuck to their Views and were voted in and out of office based on them. Now, all three scrabble to please not their core voters who are going nowhere, but the undecided with whatever they want ot give their votes for the next 7 years. After the vote all can be forgotten of course.
Not voting and spoiled votes go into the same statistic. After a hard day's work I am not going to waste time in spoiling a vote when it has the same impact as enjoying my evening.
Saying that there is a civic duty to vote is alongside the Politicians have a civic duty to us the voters. I see no evidence in their side of the bargain. Perhaps if I do I will alter my stance.
~:smoking: