Voting is Pointless because I have a strong-interest in Democracy

[Fragony]

Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Derail, but I don't vote *because* I have a strong interest in democracy.

It's like if you were a great art lover, would you accept a postcard with some 5 year old's scrawl on it and accept that as the best you can get?

If everybody in the city like you voted for someone instead of complaining, we'd have a decent MP.

So would the rest of the country.

If you don't vote you abdicate the right to complain about the result.

Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.

You can go in and spoil it, it will be recorded as "spoiled" and reported as such.

[Idaho]

I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.

[Papewaio]

I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.

Should it start with a poll

[Montmorency]

If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.

If everybody in the city like you voted

There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.

If it is right to vote when it is possible and safe to do so, then it must be for reasons other than this quoted.

[Beskar]

There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.

Where is the flaw?

Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.

Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.

So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.

This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.

[Montmorency]

Where is the flaw?

Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.

Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.

So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.

This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.

You said:

If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.

The argument is basically tautological: 'if things were better, then they would be better'. Add on the implicit 'it's your fault the world isn't perfect', and the head-up-buttitude becomes intolerable.

What do you think of this argument:

(The premise is that you getting rich is a good thing)

'Alright, everyone in the world ought to give me a penny. That way, I'll become rich for sure.'

...

'Hey, why don't you give me a penny, cheapskate? Don't you want me to get rich?'

The fact that you would be rich if everyone gave you money is totally irrelevant to any argument for giving you money. Any valid argument for giving you money could not rely on it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.

If it is right to vote when it is possible and safe to do so, then it must be for reasons other than this quoted.

I have told Idaho several times that if he stands, I will run his campaign - I will go door to door and ask people to vote for him - I will run a campaign persuading people to register in the city to vote...

Idaho pointed out he can't afford the fee to enter as a candidate - that's a valid point but it's seperate from his main objection.

In the UK we can vote for any standing candidate - nobody is going to beat us up - nobody is going to ask how much property we own or whether we are Jewish.

We get the politicians we vote for in the UK - if we don't vote then our voice cannot be heard.

So far as I know Idaho does not even campaign on a local level for electoral or political reform - so he's just grumping about how he doesn't like politicians and then refusing to even try to do anything about it.

[Fisherking]

Well, there is always George Carlin’s view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Language!!!! if you never heard George Carlin....

[Beskar]

Well, there is always George Carlin’s view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Language!!!! if you never heard George Carlin....

One fundamental issue is that we all imagine we are smarter than average when this is mostly not the case. You have those other Carlin's like "Imagine the average person and realise 50% are dumber than that". In the video he comes on about how we are all blissfully unaware of what is going on, not able to think for ourselves.

What he said is true, Corporations do lobby with billions and they try their best to grab people by their most sensitive areas. So what is the solution? Moan about it with apathy and not giving a damn, or actually going out there to do something to change it. If you are playing internet warrior whilst doing jack-all about the situation, cannot even be bothered to vote, then you are just as bad, if not worse, than the 'sheeple' people bemoan about.

It is the same as walking into a restaurant and saying: "give me something off the menu"
You wait till you eventually get the kids meal chicken dippers covered in sweet&sour sauce dip.
You complain the waiter "What is this? When I said give me something, I didn't expect or want this, why not the steak?"
Waiters: "Sir, did you order the steak?"
You shuffle uncomfortable in your chair "No, I didn't"
Waiter replies: "Next time, when you want Steak, order it".

Who is the person in the wrong, the waiter or the customer? Who is the person who didn't voice what they wanted and thus didn't get it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't vote because because the very foundations that make democracy work no longer exist in this country. I believe in the idea of consensus-based democracy, where everybody can have their interests reflected by one government. On the other hand, I do not believe in the majority-rule democracy we have in the UK where society is comprised of various competing interest groups and the largest gets to impose its will on everybody else, even if it is to their detriment.

An example of this would be the recent benefit cuts - because the employed pay for the unemployed, the two have warring interests. This means that the government can only act in the interests of one when it acts against the interests of another (in the immediate sense at least - there is of course scope for longer-term economic reform). Because the employed are a majority, the government acts in their interests and as a result we get the benefit cuts and force a million people into food banks. That's an example of democracy in action being little short of evil. And as for the argument below:

If you don't vote you abdicate the right to complain about the result.

I would say the exact opposite is true. If you participate in the system, then you are assenting to it and showing that in your eyes it is legitimate. If you vote, you are saying that you accept the so-called 'democratic' process, and thus lose any right to complain about the result.

Now this doesn't mean I don't have any sense of civic duty. I do try to do my bit for society and in particular the more vulnerable in society, I just do not believe that the democratic process in any use in this regard. I prefer more grassroots action, eg. working with various civic/cultural organisations, helping aid projects, distributing Gospel tracts, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can't have consensus based democracy unless you already have a large degree of homogeneity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You can't have consensus based democracy unless you already have a large degree of homogeneity.

Exactly.

[Idaho]

The political process as we have it, is designed by those who benefit from it. It's a closed shop. The political consensus and agenda is set by the politicians and the media. Both of whom are completely paid for by the same, ever narrowing group of corporate interests.

Yes, now and again a target is taken down by the media. It's a token sacrifice. Sometimes the media takes a bigger bite. But we haven't seen any significant political change because of the media. Just a reshuffling of the same deck.

Politicians have been consolidating and centralising their powers for decades. We are more spied on than ever before. There are more people in prison. The police have powers of incarceration way beyond those they have ever had before. All this against a backdrop of a far safer society (it could be argued that this was *because* of these suppressions - but that is a different thread again).

I fear that people don't really want democracy. We are a species prone mainly to two destructive forces, laziness and despotism. Most people are more than willing to defer their rights to the few motivated despots. Politicians are the worst of us. Pvc, you have faith in the tory candidate for Exeter. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Like all tories he is corruption waiting to happen.

Labour? They come from a more moral base, conceptually - to help poor people and not grind them into the ground. But they have sold out with Blair. Blair sold the party to the media and the corporations. He has his reward now. They are power and self justification waiting to happen.

Liberals are just incompetence and vanity waiting to happen. Useless twits.

Ukip are corruption, idiocy, vanity and power lust.

Green? Similar to liberals.

Left groups? Power and revenge fantasies.

The political process we have attracts the worst kind of person. Regardless of the political branding. We need to work on technology and philosophy that allows direct democracy and oversight without creating too much confusion and chaos. Our process is just a minor adaptation of that from the early victorian political compromise between the aristocracy and the rising industrial elite. Unfortunately this has now neatly fit into the requirements of the current economic elite.

I won't give my stamp of approval to this, nor will I try and join it. And I don't have the skill, motivation and economic strength to challenge it.

[HoreTore]

'Direct democracy'...? Could you explain what you refer to by that?

If it's an expanded swiss version(what 'direct democracy' usually refers to), I fail to see how binning compromise and turning every issue into a yes or no question improves our system.

As to being a candidate taking a lot of resources; it doesn't. Use a couple of your holiday weeks handing out stuff, and you're done. Do it by foot, and it's excellent exercise as well!

[Pannonian]

Idaho, I take it you're not interested in football. Or if you are, you're not familiar with the kind of thinking. Good times as well as bad. Support your team at all times. Do as much as you can to support them. You may lose, but the glory is found in the effort. There is even more glory to be found in making the effort when times were bad and hopeless.

I may not be able to make a difference individually (I'm not so much of an egomaniac to imagine that I matter more than 40 million other voters), but at least I'll make the effort. People better than me have struggled to gain the franchise for people like me. The least I can do in their memory is make use of it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The political process as we have it, is designed by those who benefit from it. It's a closed shop. The political consensus and agenda is set by the politicians and the media. Both of whom are completely paid for by the same, ever narrowing group of corporate interests.

That is how it was for the US during the late 1800s, early 1900s and yet the Progressives managed to change it around through voting and government participation. During WW1 the US government locked up political leaders that spoke out against the war, I don't seem to recall that happening in the UK or US for the Iraq War. As I have said before, this response is a failure of the individual towards government and society in general because this whole mentality is not only that you can't make a difference but that people in general can not make a difference either (because they don't really want democracy amiright), which is a very unfair stance to hold. It just seems to be a stance that at its core is arrogant.

Cynicism is not wisdom, don't know what else to say.

[Crandar]

Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.

Even if there is no political party representing your political views, there is the option of the spoilt vote.

It's not distributed to any party, winning or losing (at least, in my country) and you have the choice to express your opinion about politics, either through salamis or through emotional messages ("You are all scumbags!", "Long live the anarchy" and etc.).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even if there is no political party representing your political views, there is the option of the spoilt vote.

It's not distributed to any party, winning or losing (at least, in my country) and you have the choice to express your opinion about politics, either through salamis or through emotional messages ("You are all scumbags!", "Long live the anarchy" and etc.).

Each U.S. presidential election Mickey Mouse receives thousands of votes -- and this despite the fact that write-ins are not allowed on some ballots.

[Husar]

That's also a nice analysis of the wealth gap thing.

As for political systems, I'm still against FPTP. The possibility of coalitions makes it much easier for new parties to come up and even influence politics. Of course it still requires a population willing to vote for them and not vote on habit every time.

[HoreTore]

You either vote, or you run for election yourself.

Those are your only two moral options. All other choices makes you a lazy couch-warrior.



And before you all accuse me of hypocrisy; yes, I have done both.

[Fragony]

You either vote, or you run for election yourself.

Those are your only two moral options. All other choices makes you a lazy couch-warrior.



And before you all accuse me of hypocrisy; yes, I have done both.

That, or you come to terms with every ballet having figurants. Fix it First, it's too broken.

[HoreTore]

Fix it First

Then get off your lazy bum and fix it.

[Pannonian]

As for political systems, I'm still against FPTP. The possibility of coalitions makes it much easier for new parties to come up and even influence politics. Of course it still requires a population willing to vote for them and not vote on habit every time.

The FPTP system has led to some of the most tangible demonstrations of democracy in the UK, as people have teamed up and organised themselves to vote out particularly repulsive incumbents. The 1997 general election saw its first systematic use, as people, younger people especially, decided the Tories had to go, researched who was the most likely challenger in their constituency, and voted for them. The Tories lost 200 seats or so, with the Lib Dems doubling their total, and Labour picking up a landslide majority. A notably corrupt incumbent was replaced by an independent standing for anti-corruption (IIRC the first independent to be elected since the between-party Churchill in the 1930s), and the most likely replacement leader of the Tories went down against an openly gay Labour liberal. All of that was based on the FPTP system.

[Husar]

The FPTP system has led to some of the most tangible demonstrations of democracy in the UK, as people have teamed up and organised themselves to vote out particularly repulsive incumbents. The 1997 general election saw its first systematic use, as people, younger people especially, decided the Tories had to go, researched who was the most likely challenger in their constituency, and voted for them. The Tories lost 200 seats or so, with the Lib Dems doubling their total, and Labour picking up a landslide majority. A notably corrupt incumbent was replaced by an independent standing for anti-corruption (IIRC the first independent to be elected since the between-party Churchill in the 1930s), and the most likely replacement leader of the Tories went down against an openly gay Labour liberal. All of that was based on the FPTP system.

That doesn't change the fact that it has a tendency towards a two-party system where a lot of the political spectrum is not really represented anymore.

[Pannonian]

I'm wondering how to square this:

I have told Idaho several times that if he stands, I will run his campaign - I will go door to door and ask people to vote for him - I will run a campaign persuading people to register in the city to vote...

Idaho pointed out he can't afford the fee to enter as a candidate - that's a valid point but it's seperate from his main objection.

with this:

Am I just bitter because my voice isn't heard? Joking aside, no. I am a middle aged, middle class white man who earns well over the average salary. I am catered for very well by the status quo. I am not some downtrodden minority.

The deposit for standing for Parliament is £500. If Idaho earns well over the average salary, that shouldn't be too much of a stretch, and I'd imagine that he spends well over that for a holiday. There needn't be much in the way of running costs, as PVC has volunteered to run the campaign for him, and in any case all valid candidates are given some resources to help with their campaigns.

"In order to become a 'validly nominated' candidate, which means your name will appear on a ballot paper, you need to submit a completed set of nomination forms together with a deposit of £500 to the (Acting) Returning Officer before 4pm on the deadline day for nominations.

As a 'validly nominated' candidate you will be entitled to free postage for one election communication to electors in your constituency, as well as the use of certain rooms to hold public meetings."