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

[Idaho]

Thanks @Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks @Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve.

I don't have to agree with you to "get" your point and to give it credit. Everyone deserves to be heard, and listened to.

In addition, your posts in the past have made it abundantly clear that -- however differently you may conceive the "proper" answers to be than I -- you really do care. Kudos sir.

[Beskar]

Whilst you may not agree with their policies. Both UKIP and the Tea Party are reactionary forces working within their respective political systems which is being backed by many non-typical voters and thus rendering respective change within their systems.

Democracy in process?

As for franchisement, you only get it when you work for it. When the women didn't have the vote, did they continue twiddling their thumbs? No, they got off their rears and campaigned for it, showing they were worthy and entitled to have their voices heard.

Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard. Therefore, the whole situation is a spiral, circular-logic. "I am not being heard, therefore I don't vote, I don't vote therefore I am not being heard", how does this cycle get broken? By making yourself heard and by voting, which makes government hear you.

Pannonian does touch on a common-trend called "Millennial Entitlement" but that is a different topic, in regards that it actually exists or not too.

[Montmorency]

Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:

1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)

2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)

Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.

[Pannonian]

Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:

1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)

2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)

Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.

What on earth does that mean?

If Idaho is disgusted by the disconnect between parliamentary parties and the general population, he can get involved in local government, where there is a shortage of willing candidates, and where just about everyone who wants to get involved can do so. It's also the shortest route between involvement and tangible results, with feedback being almost immediate. You want something done? Go and d it. The only limit is how much you can be bothered to do.

[Montmorency]

What on earth does that mean?

If Idaho is disgusted by the disconnect between parliamentary parties and the general population, he can get involved in local government, where there is a shortage of willing candidates, and where just about everyone who wants to get involved can do so. It's also the shortest route between involvement and tangible results, with feedback being almost immediate. You want something done? Go and d it. The only limit is how much you can be bothered to do.

So, isn't that PVC's position?

But what I was getting at in the last post was logical future possibilities for the structure of governance and the role voting might play in them.

Obviously, there are several assumptions, most importantly that no apocalyptic scenarios come about, and that things don't stay approximately the same as they are now.

[Pannonian]

So, isn't that PVC's position?

But what I was getting at in the last post was logical future possibilities for the structure of governance and the role voting might play in them.

Obviously, there are several assumptions, most importantly that no apocalyptic scenarios come about, and that things don't stay approximately the same as they are now.

At the lowest level of local government, you don't even need a single vote to get to participate in governance. All you need to do is turn up reliably so that you can get tasks assigned to you which you do, as well as discuss what gets done. Heck, they'd probably be happy if you just turn up occasionally and talk. I'm not such a contributive member of society, which is why I'm so grateful to those who are. I do read the local government's newsletters, so as to remind me of the good work they do. To not do anything relating to any level of government, then to pretend that's some kind of higher moral position, is an insult to those who work selflessly for the community.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I see a lot of rather speculative character attacks (laziness, arrogance, etc), but very little in the way of actually addressing what Idaho or myself have said. An example of missing the point in this way can be seen below:

Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard.

The thing is that we don't reckon that engaging in the democratic process is the way to be heard. The problem isn't so much with the principle of democracy, as it is with the underlying social (and by extension, political) situation in this country. Since society is made up of competing interest groups who gain only from the loss of the other, a government can only really work for one such interest group, it can't represent or act on behalf of all society at once. Look at the 70's/80's - all the government on the left or right did was effectively wage a class war against the losing side from the most recent elections. Nothing has changed today, all that has happened is that the right now has free reign to do what it wants.

Recognizing that the problems with our democracy are systematic and thus choosing not to take part in it does not make my lazy or arrogant. As I said earlier, for my part I prefer engaging in civil society at a more grassroots level - far less combatitive and much clearer results.

[Idaho]

Next to each candidate on the ballot paper should be the words "and the status quo". The very act of voting is giving approval to the process and structure of our political system.

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 technology of our political system is the problem. We could develop greater democracy. We could be innovative. But this would threaten the professional political class and creates uncertainty for their economic backers. Any change faces resistance of this most powerful alliance.

But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!

[Husar]

So it's all about Britain not having a pirate party?

As for the "technology", mayhaps, but apart from monetary concerns there are also downsides to more direct democracy such as lynch mobs and other guilty until proven innocent ideas being very popular.

Take our non-nuclear route for example, that one was not based on corporate interest of the elites, it was only decided after a lot of people demonstrated and demanded it. In fact Merkel had originally promised that the reactors could run for another decade or so and then turned around in the face of public opinion. The energy companies were not happy about that at all, but had to swallow it. It might have even cost some jobs in that sector, although the whole renewables sector also creates many jobs. Either way, at least here I do not really believe that the people have no power, they just have to make use of it.
We have one state where the greens have a majority IIRC, so even the two "established" parties are not all that established and can be challenged at the voting booth. And IMO that should happen more often as it is a wake up call for them to listen more to the people. However, if all the people who do not like the established parties do not vote at all, this becomes far less likely to happen.

And that is why I find it relatively important to vote, to bring more dynamic into the political system, to show politicians that the people will not tolerate corruption etc. and will vote for another party or a completely new one if the established parties keep selling out. However, that only works if the people are actually educated (I was in a publich school and certainly not brainwashed by the government there) and put in at least a little bit of effort to change things. The worst voters are the ones who vote for parties out of habit or don't vote at all. They both contribute to the status quo.

And this is also why I do not like FPTP, because it is stacked against all the smaller parties as can be seen in the USA. Here it makes sense to vote for them as they might at least get into a coalition or in the worst case prevent a government formation if the established parties refuse to work with them. But either way we have the means to show that we do not like what is currently happening in the government while the citizens of the USA can only vote for two sides of the same coin. The requirement of course is that we actually make use of that power.

Of course living in a nation state also means that you may not agree with the majority but I heard nation states are the greatest thing ever, so we can't change that.

[Pannonian]

And this is also why I do not like FPTP, because it is stacked against all the smaller parties as can be seen in the USA. Here it makes sense to vote for them as they might at least get into a coalition or in the worst case prevent a government formation if the established parties refuse to work with them. But either way we have the means to show that we do not like what is currently happening in the government while the citizens of the USA can only vote for two sides of the same coin. The requirement of course is that we actually make use of that power.

Reg Keys, General Election 2005, Sedgefield

An independent candidate does not get elected, but he gets his say on election day as does every other candidate, and every other candidate has to stand there and listen to him have his say.

[Pannonian]

Next to each candidate on the ballot paper should be the words "and the status quo". The very act of voting is giving approval to the process and structure of our political system.

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 technology of our political system is the problem. We could develop greater democracy. We could be innovative. But this would threaten the professional political class and creates uncertainty for their economic backers. Any change faces resistance of this most powerful alliance.

But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!

So hop over to your local council's meetings and give of your time and effort to improve things at a local level. You won't be deciding on where this million or that million of tax money will be spent, but you can help make £100 or so be used more efficiently, saving a few pennies on each person affected so that the money can be spread to help that one or two people more. When they hold fetes and the like, do your bit to make them work and to help people enjoy them. I greatly admire the Woman's Institutes for the efforts they've made to build their Jerusalem on England's green and pleasant land, and I take their attitude as one to aspire to.