(no subject)

[ellenscult]

This is a great post on why we should vote. Even if there's no-one you like. Voting is a privilege, and if we don't vote, that privilege can be taken away very easily. Think about it.

^{No, I'm not saying our voting system is perfect, or the political parties are desirable, or the politicians are trustworthy and honest. But if you feel you can't vote because there's no-one to vote for, you could always get involved and see who would vote for you.}

Comments

[smorgasbord.livejournal.com]

I can think of plenty of examples of an elected government being replaced by an unelected one where the turn out at the last election was not an issue.

[ellenscult]

Yup indeedy, but that in no way invalidates the point that we should vote. I believe if I don't vote, I have no right to criticize whatever government ensues. And if I hate the only choices on my ballot paper, I should make sure that I, or some other acceptable candidate, is on there to vote for.

[smorgasbord.livejournal.com]

But that makes this statement

1/ 'Voting is a privilege, and if we don't vote, that privilege can be taken away very easily.'

pretty meaningless as you have just agreed that

2/ If we do vote, that privilege can be taken away very easily.

3/ 'I believe if I don't vote, I have no right to criticize whatever government ensues.'

3 is new. What is the reasoning behind it?

[ellenscult]

It doesn't make that statement meaningless at all.

We've had partial voting in this country for most of the time we've had a government we could vote for. (landowners only, men over a certain age only, women over a certain age, etc)

Which do you think is more likely *in this country*: a military coup which takes away everyone's right to vote, or some form of restriction on exactly who can vote - for example, maybe that convicted criminals can't vote?

I don't think the former very likely to happen. The latter might just happen. It'd be far easier to take away the vote from people who don't use it anyway than from people who do and who are involved in perpetuating the democratic process.

Re 3: I heartily believe that if I couldn't get off my behind to cast a vote - to have my say, as it were - then I have no right to complain about a government others have elected in my absence. And I think that goes for everyone else who can't be bothered to vote. I hear a lot about 'oh, but there's no-one to vote for'. This is why it's supposedly a democratic process! If I don't have anyone to vote for, there's nothing at all stopping me going and getting involved, and maybe getting myself (or someone whose policies I like) on that ballot paper. That's not a valid argument for not voting, in my opinion. It's just sheer laziness, and it makes me cross.

(Sorry for the wee bit of a rant, there...)

[smorgasbord.livejournal.com]

Why would it be easier to remove voting rights from people who are not voting?

Why is 3 true? You have explanied what you mean by it but not the reasoning behind it can you explain to me why If A does not vote A loses the right to complain?

[ellenscult]

It's always easier to take something away from someone who doesn't care about it or use it, who isn't active and vocal, who won't notice or make a fuss. No?

I think, under the current voting system, someone is going to be elected. I know there are lots of arguments by people for not voting, but given that not voting is not a 'voice' recognised by our political establishment, that choice of not voting carries no weight. In order to have a recognised 'voice', you must vote. So regardless of whatever reason someone may have for not voting, effectively all that person has done by not voting is to take their voice out of the democratic process. If you choose not to have a voice, you shouldn't then complain about the outcome. You chose not to have any say in it. Tough. Put up with it. Your voice is only counted through your vote. If you vote for someone and another candidate / party wins, then you can complain. You used your voice, you get to have a say.

That's the current system, and if you don't like it, start campaigning to change it.

[st3v3.livejournal.com]

"If I don't have anyone to vote for, there's nothing at all stopping me going and getting involved, and maybe getting myself on that ballot paper"

... except that it's a total career change into a field that most of us have no experience in and is very expensive, which is something that might give you pause. It's on a par with saying 'If I can't get decent medical care, there's nothing to stop me being a surgeon'. Technically true, but requiring massive investment and commitment.

I think I have a point which maybe you and spence might agree upon - that within a democracy, having a way to express discontent is valuable. Now, I know people do things like spoil ballot papers to express discontent, and I approve of that. For me, I don't practically have the choice to become an MP, and I certainly don't have the motivation, which makes me like most voters, I think. That makes my choices

(a) vote for the guys I like the most.
(b) vote for the guys I dislike the least.
(c) vote for a viable contender to oust the guy I dislike most.
(c) say nothing.
(d) withdraw in disgust.
(e) register my lack of acceptable options.

Representative democracy is supposed to be about (a), I think. but lots of people do (b) because they don't accord with a party, but think that some are not as bad as others. (c) is a valid strategy if, say, you want to force out an incumbent you _really_ don't like and you vote for the second-place contender, just to eject the incumbent. Here, choosing to vote has at least three meanings.

Not participating (c,d) can also have several meanings.

Lastly, there is no mechanism for (e), which to my mind is a failing of the system.

I think if we could get more information from our votes, we'd see a different picture than the current 'vote/not vote' system shows us.

[ellenscult]

It's not true that your only other choice is to try to become an MP yourself. You could, for instance, donate a little time to helping a candidate you do like. You could get involved with local politics. You could get involved with alternative parties. You don't have to say 'I must become an MP'. But you do have to put some effort into finding or creating an alternative to the big 3 parties.

As for c, d and e, you could always start campagning for a 'None of the above' or a 'Re-open nominations' box on the ballot paper.

If you want to be able to get more information from voting, then start campaigning for it. All it takes is a little time to write a couple of letters, to the papers, to your MP, to whoever you think needs to hear about your campaign.

I know UK voters are, on the whole, very apathetic. But look at, say, the queues in certain African countries, where people have only just been allowed to vote in free and open elections. They queue for 18 hours, some of them, just for the chance to vote. They face the same issues, a to e, as we do - but they vote anyway.

(Devil's advocate here:) Maybe we need the threat of our votes being taken away to get us involved?

[ellenscult]

I was just agreeing with you that yes, there are many examples where a legally elected government has been replaced and has removed the right to vote from everyone. I was talking about voting in the UK, though.