Why you should vote.

Isn't apathy, caused by out of touch politicians and a system with no legitimacy, almost the same thing as "disillusionment with the system"? Even if a great number of non-voting people don't articulate their apathy as protest or state they are choosing not to vote on principle, their actions speak for themselves. It's impossible to know how many of the 70% of the population who won't vote on Thursday are choosing not to vote because they just don't care and how many are choosing not to vote because on principle they believe the system is screwed and unrepresentative.

And does it really matter? Both courses of action point to the same thing: a failed system. Whatever you call it, however you articulate it, the massive level of non-voting speaks volumes!

I don't know what would happen if the turnout keeps getting lower and lower. I don't know at what point it would trigger a nullification of the election result and a subsequent review of the system. We will probably find out - if the downward trend continues, it will happen at some point. I don't see any way that a government elected by, say, ten percent of the country would be allowed to take power.

In the 2001 general election, turnout was 59%. Labour got a 40% share of this vote, this was dubbed a landslide victory. If I've got my maths right, this means that Labour was elected by 23.6% share of the total number of possible votes. A 23.6% landslide! The situation I described above, with a government representing something like 10% of the population is not so very far away.

In the meantime, let's not support the system by voting in it, let's speed its downfall by refusing to take part or, even better, spoiling our ballot papers. Increasingly abysmal turnouts will at the very least get PR back on the agenda, and get people talking and thinking about what has gone so very very wrong that people are disenfranchised enough to not care in the slightest about this pretence we jokingly refer to as democracy.

 

I don't think so, no. I doubt people would be interested even if the system was any better. People aren't disillusioned.... they simply don't care.

Now I think this is a much more exciting and realistic possibility than overturning the system. That's why I do believe that there's a case for abstention. If you're talking about a situation where the government looks long and hard at the democratic process and tries to re-engage peoples' interest, then I can see that being a possible outcome. I think voting turnout would have to plummet even further for this to happen though.

I still cast my vote, because I have a particular hatred for the tories. Whatever I can do to deprive them of office, I will do. I don't have any belief in democracy, but I'm not convinced that spoiling ballot papers will produce any great change. In fact, you could reasonably argue that you've got a greater chance of seeing PR by voting Lib Dem! I mean, if the tories carry on in free-fall, there's a very realistic possibility of the LIb Dems becoming the second party in Britain. If they actually obtain office, PR's gonna be top of their list. Just a thought.

Pleasure debating with ya as always, showmet

 

It's not that bad. Never stop trying. It takes starting with yourself to change the world.

Enjoy Life

 

You should vote because if you dont vote you cant complain!

Otherwise enjoy that fact that you live in a system that lets George Galloway live to be discredited!

 

That's better! Apology accepted! I was planning on playing nice in this thread until you made that snide remark, so let's see if we can get back on track

I knew Manchester pretty well in the late eighties and early nineties. It never had it as rough as Liverpool, but it was certainly taking a butt fucking off Thatcher. The crescents and the rest of Hulme was pretty fucked up.

I don't disagree with you. I saw a lot of good stuff going on in Hulme (especially with the housing issues), and I'm with you entirely on this point. Where we differ is that I don't accept that people are ready to mobilise in sufficient numbers to threaten the system, or even to offer a viable alternative.

*shrug*

You started hurling the insults around. Wind me up, and you'd better expect me to start tickin'

Not that dissimilar to yours, I suspect. I just see it as a much longer and slower process.

The system can't be fought. Attempting to engage it on its own terms is futile. The only real change is going to come from the grass roots - but not through political activism per se, but rather from learning to treat each other with a degree of humanity. The more people that start to create alternative perspectives inside their own minds, the closer you get to a paradigm shift. Again though, I think this is an organic evolution - not something that's going to happen overnight or anytime soon. For example, look at you 'n' me at each others' throats. There's almost certainly more that we agree on than divides us, and yet we're already bickering and getting riled with each other. This is the human nature that stands in our way. Sure, we can evolve beyond it, but it will take time.

Like I said, you started out with the sniping. Don't drag the debate into the gutter and then complain when it gets dirty.

That was exactly my point. You had a mental image of me that did not fit the reality. I found this quite illuminating with regards to your preconceptions.

Well if you don't want a reaction, then why are you in this thread at all? Make a point, I respond to it. That's how it works. Nothing touchy about that at all.

If you believe that that's my attitude, then I suggest you go back over the thread and actually read it.

You're right. I think that's the biggest load of shit I ever heard. After having a number of close friends over the years who've suffered from mental breakdowns, I think I can be pretty clear that it's not just a 'perception of reality'. Unless you count not being able to tie your own shoelaces as simply a matter of perception. Of course, I agree that insanity is just a convenient label, but it's no worse that using glib phrases such as 'perception of reality' to dismiss the trauma of mental illness as something that's just another level of consciousness. It ain't. It's a dysfunctional brain.

I call you naive because... ummm.... I think you're naive. Or are you asking something else? Are you asking why I believe you to be naive in the first place?

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that in this thread, it was you who started taking cheap shots out of nowhere (for which you've apologised, so I assume you accept your error, so I'm unclear as to why you're still blaming me for the antipathy).

Well yeah, it's a trend you started, so I thought I may as well join in.

LOL, well I never even knew you had shamanic journeys, so you're a bit wide of the mark with that one! I can't dismiss something that I didn't even know about!

An interesting statement, since I suspect you don't have a clue what my reality is.

Good luck to you! Now that's a realistic goal!

70 million, actually. And you should consider them because if you're proposing an alternative social structure, they kinda need taking into account. They ain't gonna just vanish y'know.

Of course I agree it isn't a bad thing. But it's not my right to force that opinion on others, is it? Many people want their debt so that they can buy the shit that keeps them happy. You 'n' me might think the debt culture is shit and a means of control, but you can't make that decision for someone else. That's just another means of control.

Did I say it shouldn't? That's a whole other debate. What I said was how you gonna enforce this? Because if you enforce it, you have a national government making laws and telling people how to live their lives. So what exactly have you changed?

Yup. Because burying your head in the sand is really gonna change the world.

 

I favour a voting system whereby proirity is given to voters (and election candidates) who have an above average level of intelligence and/or open mindedness. Devices and techniques to measure the intelligence and open-mindedness of people are rapidly developing and should be worked on further so that they could be used to determine wether that person is fit to vote or not. We need a selective voting system. It sounds very elitist but as long as there is a voting system in place whereby any Tom, Dick, Harry or moron who lives on the street corner can vote, there'll never be really adequate people in government, or there'll always only be very few of them. You've only got to look at the US. Just think of some of the geniuses there: world-leading scientists, philosphers, psychologists, artists, technicians, telepathics. There are people there who if they were to get into government the country would advance dramatically for the better!! But, with the current system, very few people like that will ever get into government and there'll always be complete turkeys like Mr. George W. Bush instead, because the simple fact is that intelligence and open-mindedness aren't praised or realised or accounted for enough, and aren't enough of a commodity. Imagine if Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and people like that were presidents and prime ministers?

The present system sucks and it is reflected upon by the falling numbers of voters. People are realising that there need to be massive changes to the system and ensure that those who can pioneer humnaty are the ones who lead the governments. Present politicians will soon have to consider making radical changes to stop the declining voter figures. The truth is that wether the system is over-hauled or not, a lot of the present politicians are doomed because it is clear there are better politicians who can replace them and who could be justly elected.

I am just one of many people who won't vote until there are great changes in parliament. If it turns out that I myself am not sufficiently intelligent or open-minded to vote, then so be it. At least I would be comfort in the knowledge that those who are able to vote are and WILL ensure the best leaders are leading the world's governments. Until then don't expect to see me hovering around the ballot box.

 

I hope you're joking! For starters, how exactly do you measure 'open mindedness'? And since when has intelligence been an indicator of moral integrity? Ever heard the term 'evil genius'?

 

I am being really picky, but I thought Mandela was a President at some point. The first black one of South Africa. Also, yeah, what Dok said- Hitler was supposed to have been very intelligent but I wouldn't want him as my PM!

Summer. xx.

 

There's been a lot of talk about voter apathy, disillusionment and so on. So we have to ask why this is happening. Because the politicians aren't representing us? That's why we should vote for the one's that do. If voter numbers keep falling, then all the more reason to help create more votes for your party, whether RESPECT or the Greens. If voter turnout drops to 20% but the Greens still get the same amount or more votes then their overall percentage jumps up.

But I think the bigger reason is that the politicians are giving away their power. Remember Blair claims that he is neither right- nor left-wing. He's the 'Third Way'!! The not-politics way, and (continuing what Thatcher and Reagan started) the lets-give-more-power-to-big-business-way. So, there is less to vote for. So. my point (now) is that if you want to have something to vote for, some policies that affect every day life for the better, then you'd better start building an alternative to the third way capitalists. I still think that capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction and at the moment I see it in the job market. Hmmm... I can be a shelf stacker, a call centre operative, or maybe I can make a living from stacking wood (as I have done for a day before I quit). But if we don't act soon, then their guns will more than out power our numbers.

 

I just wanted to add something about the argument "women died for our vote." This is the reason I will vote (as well as the can't complain if you don't vote! one). Yes, women have died for all number of reasons but the difference is, the women didn't die to win the right to give birth, or die to win the right to fight a war. Women intentionally died as part of the protest to gain the vote. Now we have won it, it seems a little disrespectful to ignore their sacrifice and not vote. We shouldn't take voting for granted, because we could have the other option and live in a dictatorship where we don't have the right to vote.

Yes, our system is screwed up and there isn't much choice but we still have slightly more choice than some people. We still have a speck of democracy in the fact we CAN vote, regardless of whether or not it actually makes much difference. Hitler and the Nazis came to power in Germany because many people were too disillusioned to vote, (AND they had proportional representation! ) That's also why Jean-Marie LePen got into the final part of the French elections a few years back. The extremists will always vote, so by not voting we are ultimately letting the extremists win.​

Summer. xx.

 

That's not being picky. Mandela was President of South Africa between 1994 and 1999, presiding over the corrupt and ineffectual ANC party!

The idea of intelligence testing voters is really really stupid! We've achieved universal suffrage and that would only be a step backwards! Removing someone's right to vote because their ability to make a good decision is flawed? There is no such thing as an objective test which could determine such a thing. Which decisions are right and which decisions are wrong? Who are we to decide such a thing? It tramples over the whole idea of freedom. The idea is elitist and patronising. All it would do is create a disenfranchised underclass who are not represented. Hopefully Merlin either didn't think that through or was joking!

 

Oh yeah I forgot! Thanks for reminding me. I think Mandela is a good example, but there are so many others who have been denied the opportunity to govern due to the lack of a more selective method of voting.

On the subject of Hitler, I think it is necesary to have safeguards in place so that any would be politician thinks twice about incorporating such murderous ideoligies into their governing. That was severely lacking in Hitler's day. There was no war crimes tribunal (which was only brought in shortly after WW2), there was no Amnesty International, no Human Rights Watchdog, no International Criminal Court. So, people who did and/or had the intention of commiting crimes like Hitler did, thought it was fine and justified but not now, it could never happen now. No Hitler could get into government now because as I say there is so much now which protects human rights and to crack down on extemists.

Of course I still think it would be wise to put together tests and so forth and make necessary checks to insure that the eligible election candidate does not have the kind of genocidal, racist and ruthless views people like Hitler had.

 

You seem to enjoy having overly heated debates with people, Showmet.

 

Sorry, I'm picking holes in your arguments

People like Hitler are still able to get into power around the world. Dictators like Hussain, and Mugabe are/were very recently in power and kill many people, just like Hitler did. Even George Bush indirectly kills people, As for Amnesty and the UN etc, the war on Iraq is an example of how little power they truly have- the UN said the USA and UK couldn't go to war on Iraq, Amnesty etc are against it, most of Britain and some of the US are against it, yet our governments still did it.

Also, the BNP are our Nazis and they have a worrying amount of support despite being racist and fascist.

Summer. xx.

 

Oh, I see. Now it makes sense. Only people with whom you agree should be allowed to vote?

 

You've missed my point entirely. My point was that there are, and should be necessary measures in place to ensure that those who have such prejudices and views do not get into parliament, or are you implying that they should?

Obviously, it wouldn't be all down to me who gets to vote would it. I merely made a suggestion of a alternative political system. Nothing immoral about that.

 

Don't be so sure. The main safeguard we have in place is the United Nations, the supreme repository of international law. Quite a few UN member states have very nasty dictatorships in place, and appalling human rights records. Such signatories to the UN Charter who are in clear breach of its laws might include Uzbekistan, North Korea, China, Israel - and of course Iraq. They signed up to it but they have ignored its decrees and violate the human rights enshrined in the Charter on a regular basis. I think this proves that there are no safeguards which could effectively keep a new Hitler out of power if he was voted in or even if he managed to seize power somewhere.

 

Don't oppress me, fascist! (Joke)

Anyway, my apologies if you thought I was being "overly heated", it wasn't my intention to sound that way. Perhaps it's because I said the idea was "really really stupid". I always make a point of questioning ideas rather than challenging people, and had no intention of causing offence. *big smoochy kiss*

I don't think your idea would work but I can see that the intention behind it is good. Perhaps a better way of changing the system might be to make political leadership an onerous duty and a sacrifice rather than something seen to be rewarded with money, influence and power. Something a bit more like Plato's "philosopher kings". Something people don't expect to be well-paid for, a chore taken on as a duty to the community consisting of hard work for little reward other than helping others rather than helping yourself. It would then attract those who were genuinely concerned with representing the people and changing things for the good. As it is, most enter politics as a prestigious career hoping for wealth, fame and power. This attracts wholly the wrong sort of person!

 

Of course they should get into parliament if people vote for them! The whole point of democracy is that anyone can be elected, regardless of what other people think of their views. If you start excluding people because you disagree with them, then you don't have democracy, do you? I mean who puts these safeguards in place? Who decides what's right and wrong? Who decides who can and can't be elected? Bar people from parliament on the basis of their opinions and you're closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. If enough people support the BNP to elect them, then you've lost the battle already. Bar their access to democracy, and they'll just find other outlets for their opinions - like burning peoples' houses down. The real challenge is to win the battle of opinions so that they never have a chance of getting elected in the first place!

No, but it would be down to someone, wouldn't it? You'd have a situation where someone was imposing their belief system on the rest of the country, and telling them who it was or wasn;t ok to elect.

 

Yeah, Showmet. Fuck off and stop poaching my bad rep! This board's only big enough for one asshole!