The Political Thread

[Theblazeuk]

not voting

Consistently shown to have the exact opposite effect. Literally doing precisely what is wanted of you.

[IndigoPrime]

The published demographics of the 2015 UK election were interesting. Essentially, if the under-35s had have turned out in the same numbers as older voters, there's almost no way we'd have ended up with a Conservative government. Not that this was a surprise. And naturally those people who don't vote are most likely to get fucked over by this Conservative government. It's crazy.

[The Legendary Shark]

TheBlaze, I would argue the exact opposite is true. What is wanted of me is to validate the system - and a vote is a validation, even a spoiled vote.

[The Legendary Shark]

DP - sorry

[Theblazeuk]

Astonishingly, the system does not require your validation.

Lets put it another way - ****s like Guido Fawkes are actively trying to disillusion people with the entire premise of democracy. Massive vested interests campaign to discourage you from participating.

Why let them win so easily?

[The Legendary Shark]

Then whose validation does the system require if not yours and mine? If the system wants to tell me what to do, and to tell other people what to do in my name and on my behalf, then why does it not require my validation and my consent? The tyranny of the majority?
.
Democracy no longer works, if it ever did to begin with. If it worked then those who got fewer than 40% of the votes would wield less than 40% of the power, surely? I don't know who this Fawkes fellow is, nor the vested interests he represents, and I don't know what he wants or why he wants it. I only know what I want, which is to be left alone and to do my bit for my society in my way.
.
If the system works for other people then fine, go with it and the best of luck to them - but must they drag me into it as well? I thought this was supposed to be a free country. Evidently, I was wrong.

[The Legendary Shark]

Frikkin' DP again, sorry.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Non-voters are expressing no preference either way. They are tacitly endorsing every candidate, because they didn't wish to actively vote against any of them. I've never been a non-voter because I'm not that contented with the status quo.

[IndigoPrime]

Democracy no longer works, if it ever did to begin with. If it worked then those who got fewer than 40% of the votes would wield less than 40% of the power, surely?

That depends on the system of government, and the system of government will only change if enough people demand it and/or vote in one or more parties up for reform. (Labour, frustratingly, seems keen to ape the Green Party's idea of an elected senate, but bafflingly and stubbornly sticks to FPTP for the Commons, despite almost certainly never likely to again win a majority.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Or tacitly not endorsing any of them. By not buying any brand of fizzy pop, am I therefore tacitly endorsing every brand?
.
However, that is a good point and I'll have to think about it given that, as I'm sure I've already said, under English law if one does not object to something one is considered to accept it. (I may be covered on this point, though, as the last letter I sent to the local MP a couple of years ago made clear that I did not consider the government to be valid or working on my behalf and therefore I was removing my consent from its actions - actions which logically must include organising elections.) Hmmm...

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

I'd suggest two changes:

1) Compulsary voting. You don't like the system, vote for a candidate that shares your dislikes. But vote you sorry fecker because people died to give you that right. If it was worth dying to get it from The Man, then why give it back without even a whimper?

2) National Proportional Representation. Because if 10% of the people want a right wing UKIP candidate then, sorry folks, but that is what we should have because that is the nature of the country in which we live. And, by the way, your vote counts no matter where you lived (becuase people died to give you that vote. If it was worth dying to get it from The Man, then why let him devalue it without even a whimper?)

Not perfect. But better.

[Ghost MacRoth]

While I agree that people should vote, I'd say people died to give them the freedom of choice on whether to vote or not.

[The Legendary Shark]

Vote or go to jail? Where's the freedom in that unless I can vote for absolutely anyone I choose instead of a handful of pre-selected candidates?
.
People also died for fascism, communism and apartheid. Also, many of the people who died for freedom were conscripted.
.
I think Ghost is right - I think I have the right to choose whether to vote or not.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

While I agree that people should vote, I'd say people died to give them the freedom of choice on whether to vote or not.

Agreed, and compulsory voting would only lead to a big increase in spoiled ballots, not to mention people ticking a box at random.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'd be happy to see compulsory voting, as long as there was a No Confidence/ None of the Above option at the bottom of each ballot paper.

Cheers

Jim