Political Apathy - to vote or not to vote

[Soubrette]

This is a kind of UK orientated (just to annoy Orwell) thread - although if anyone else sees a similar situation in their own country then please feel free to comment :)

I was watching a programme the other day (CountryFile :)) and caught the last few bits of an interesting interview :)

A youngish girl was being asked if she voted - to which she responded no. In her view none of the parties on offer were worth voting for.

She was then asked if that meant she suffered from political apathy. She was most indignant. She was involved in politics at a grass roots level, she protested, she signed petitions, boycotted products etc etc

So is the government in the UK wrong to blame a low voting turn out on voter apathy?

And what could they do to engage more people and make them want to vote?

Sou

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Soubrette
A youngish girl was being asked if she voted - to which she responded no. In her view none of the parties on offer were worth voting for.

That's a problem everywhere.

Here in Canada, we have 4 or 5 main national parties. Personally, I like the 'Alliance' party. (They are the only real right-of-center party, and after a decade of being run by a left-of-center government, I feel we need a change.) Problem is, at one point the Alliance party was run by Stockwell Day (Kind of our version of George Bush, with strong christian attitudes).

So, the question became, do I support a party I agree with on fiscal issues? Is it worth the risk of getting a government that might institude a pro-religious agenda if I agree with other things that they might do?
Originally posted by Soubrette

And what could they do to engage more people and make them want to vote?

One thing I might suggest is adding referendums to the ballot. They don't do that here in Canada. (I think they may do it in the U.S.) A person who may not come out to vote for person A vs. person B because they don't fully support the policies of either, may be more than willing to come out to vote if there is an extra question on the ballot which they may have a particular interest in.

[BillyTK]

To be honest, there's so little difference between the main parties in the UK, and they appear so apathetic to the kinds of issues (or more likely as a result of their consensus) to the issues that imo are important--3rd world poverty, globalisation etc etc, that I do often wonder why I vote.

I saw just such a debate on C4 news about how politicians could make politics more interesting, but the agreement was it wasn't a problem with the politicians as much as the people who weren't interested :rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

In a democratic society, people who don't vote have no right to criticize the parties in the parliament. Sure, there is rarely a party whose program/viewpoint you can fully endorse, but there are some whose program is more in line with your views than any other. Vote for them.

Not voting is certainly a "protest" vote, but at the end of the day, a government must be formed, and if your viewpoint is not represented, even partially, because you didn't vote: hard cheese.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by BillyTK
To be honest, there's so little difference between the main parties in the UK, and they appear so apathetic to the kinds of issues (or more likely as a result of their consensus) to the issues that imo are important--3rd world poverty, globalisation etc etc, that I do often wonder why I vote.

I saw just such a debate on C4 news about how politicians could make politics more interesting, but the agreement was it wasn't a problem with the politicians as much as the people who weren't interested :rolleyes:

I vote because I consider it a civic duty - and after the Thatcher years I'm left with the same irrational dislike of the Conservatives that many people have with the Labour party after the winter of discontent:p

Also politicians that will speak out are often marginalised (like Clare Short :( (or even Edwina Currie:p)) I often think in some ways we get the politicians we deserve - if we can't hack the responsibility of knowledge then we will get evasive politicians who all but lie to us.

On the other hand it looks as if this has swung so far that the populace no longer trusts its politicians which may be part of the reason they don't bother voting.

To blame people for not voting is the easy way out imo :mad: Although I wish people would visit their polling stations and spoil their papers if they wish to vote for no one. It's hard to use the excuse that people can't be bothered to vote, if they actually turned up and made marks on their ballot papers. To say that less than half the electorate voted because of apathy would be hard to do if more than 50% of voters spoilt their papers imo :)

Seg - what kind of voting system do you have in Canada - is it first past the post or some kind of proportional representation?

Danish (mmmm I would love an apple one right now :)) - but if less than 50% of the public has voted then at what point does a Government or even the whole parliamentary system lose the mandate of the people? Where's a social contract if over half your citizens don't bother to sign up?

Sou

Originally posted by Soubrette


And what could they do to engage more people and make them want to vote?

Sou

Stop telling lies 24/7.

The propaganda doesn't work anymore.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Stop telling lies 24/7.

The propaganda doesn't work anymore.

And yet politicians who tell the truth - or as much of it as they dare :rolleyes: don't seem to be electable:(

One of my "things" is that political parties should be held more accountable for their election promises :)

How about if those promises form part of a contract with the electorate thus if any of your manifesto turns out to be false through negligence then we the voters can sue your ass off?

I like that idea :D

Sou

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:Danish (mmmm I would love an apple one right now :) ) - but if less than 50% of the public has voted then at what point does a Government or even the whole parliamentary system lose the mandate of the people? Where's a social contract if over half your citizens don't bother to sign up? I don't know how voting is done in the UK, but here in Denmark you don't need to "sign up" anywhere. A voting card is sent to your adress, including information on when and where to vote. The bother is extremely minimal.

If, despite this, you don't vote, I have no respect for your gribes about what the government is doing wrong. There is never any party (or rarely ever) which perfectly matches your opinions. But there is always one which covers most of them or at least the ones you consider important.

If not a single eligible party covers your opinion, then get of your *ss and create such a party.

(Please note that all uses of "you" in the above is not pointing at you, Sou).

[Jon_in_london]

I dont really give a toss.

[Underemployed]

OK, time to come clean.

I'm standing in the forthcoming UK local elections. The party I will be representing is the Liberal Democrats. For those of you in the US, I shall not even attempt to explain how it fits in to the Republican/Democrat sphere.

It will be the first time I've done anything of this kind. I am learning first-hand, and mostly for the first time, what it is exactly that Borough Councils actually do.

I'm 28. If elected, I'll be one of the youngest Councillors in the country (and probably the EU). It's not a salaried position, though Councillors get expenses of 3 to 3.5k a year depending on location. Thus most candidates are retired, independently wealthy, or - like me - were dropped when they were little.

Last year I had no idea of the difference between borough and county councils. My American wife tells me that schoolchildren are regularly sent to be 'pages' (unpaid assistants) to local officials and representatives, while no child in the UK would be able to name a single local councillor, or even tell you which party has control.

All of the above goes a little way to explaining why nobody bothers to vote. Successive UK governments of the right and left have achieved spectacular levels of apathy by repeatedly failing to educate or involve the public in all but a few decisions.

We have got the rulers we deserve. Lazy, self-serving egoists more concerned over brand image than running a country.

Why then am I running for office?

If not me - who?

[Tmy]

How do you get people to do anything? Pay them!

Here's an idea.

Everyone who votes is then entered into a lottery. (doesnt matter who you voted for). AFter the election a voter is chosen from the lottery and wins $1 million dollars or somthing. The publicity and potential to win the money will spur more voters.

[DanishDynamite]

Underemployed:Thus most candidates are retired, independently wealthy, or - like me - were dropped when they were little. :D
All of the above goes a little way to explaining why nobody bothers to vote. I don't think it does. Nothing absolves you from knowing who or what makes the decisions, and how you can influence these decisions. Still, perhaps the school system should be checked.We have got the rulers we deserve. In many ways, that is correct.
Why then am I running for office?

If not me - who? Way to go! A man with initiative. Best of of luck.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I dont really give a toss.

At least you came to spoil your ballet paper :D

Danish - I suppose for me acceptance of the parliamentary system is the act of voting.

And I have some sympathy for your position on don't vote, don't whine - but on an objective basis is it ever to happen that say only 10% of the electorate voted - and the other 90% don't feel bound by the results? :eek:

Out of interest - do you have any idea what the portion of the electorate do vote in Denmark?

Underemployed - cool - can you tell me which borough - pm me if you'd prefer although I won't be insulted if you want to keep it private ;)

Isn't that side tracking the issue though Tmy? As to why people aren't voting? Although as a voter myself your idea does have its merits (now I just have to persuade all those other voters not to bother;))

Sou

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:And I have some sympathy for your position on don't vote, don't whine - but on an objective basis is it ever to happen that say only 10% of the electorate voted - and the other 90% don't feel bound by the results? :eek: I've never heard of such a case.
Out of interest - do you have any idea what the portion of the electorate do vote in Denmark? In national elections, the voting percentage is rarely (if ever) under 80%.

[John Bryce]

I always vote. I think it very important for every citizen to vote. While I have some problem with the electoral system (http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/ress/news/bg20021022.asp) here in Canada, and I find all of the major parties to be all the same in the end, I still make sure I vote for some party, be it main-stream or not. There are a lot of countries in the world where voting is not a right, and it annoys me to hear some people say they don't vote even-though they have a right to do so. I do not take my freedom for granted, and, to me, voting is just one way of keeping my freedom.

[Soubrette]

Danish - it sounds like your politicians are doing something right :)

John - your voting system sounds pretty much the same as ours :) But what if you disagree fundamentally with the lies and evasions that certainly all of our main political parties seem to indulge in. What if you regularly vote for a small minority party that gets say 2% of the countrywide vote but no seat? In the end don't you think you might get disillusioned with the whole process and not bother voting - is it justified then?

Sou

[Underemployed]

Everyone who votes is then entered into a lottery.

This idea sickens me. It would cheapen the whole process and spit in the face of every man, woman and child who paid with their life so that you could play some part in the process of selecting your leader. Turn democracy into a game and you will be ruled by games players (spare me any witty retorts about this being the case already please).

The part you play may be small, but it still matters. If you choose not to exercise that right then you have no-one but yourself to blame when the leaders choose to ignore your views.

I do not endorse in any way, shape or form our ludicrous 'first-past-the-post' system of choosing representatives (hence throwing my lot in with the LibDems). But I am doing something to change this process.

If 'Young' people have no interest in voting they clearly do not understand what is at stake. Refusing to acknowledge the problem does not make it go away - it makes it worse. We are now moving into an era where a gerontocracy looks like a real prospect. If I don't get out there and represent at least my own views, I will have them thrust upon me whether I like it or not.

there's so little difference between the main parties in the UK, and they appear so apathetic to the kinds of issues (or more likely as a result of their consensus) to the issues that imo are important--3rd world poverty, globalisation etc etc,

TMY, there's so much wrong with this attitude I don't know where to start.

There is no world government. There are few, if any international organisations capable of even beginning to deal with the 'issues' that 'are important'.

The reason they don't deal with them is because THEY CAN'T. And if any party said that they could, or that they proposed to make these issues their primary concerns, anyone who voted for them would be a fool. Political parties deal with the one country which elected them. They have to take the rest of the world into consideration of course, but only insofar as it can be turned into a domestic advantage.

This doesn't lead to global harmony of course, but nobody said life was a rose garden. If you are as truly altruistic as your opinions suggest, go and be an aid worker if you are not already. Let politicians worry over crime, health, transport, the economy AT HOME and maybe the leaders of the 3rd world will get some breathing space do some good without our interference (but that is another thread in itself).


Edited to protect the innocent

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:Danish - it sounds like your politicians are doing something right :) Girl, if you want to know what true democracy is all about, drop the US and come to Denmark. :)
What if you regularly vote for a small minority party that gets say 2% of the countrywide vote but no seat? "Come to where democracy is. Come to Denmark country".

Seriously, in this country, 2% is enough to get you into the parliament.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sou:Girl, if you want to know what true democracy is all about, drop the US and come to Denmark. :)
"Come to where democracy is. Come to Denmark country".

Seriously, in this country, 2% is enough to get you into the parliament.

So you have proportional representation?

And I'm English :cool: - although we do like to kowtow to those Americans ;)

Sou

[Tmy]

Underemployed,

Im just toassing out an idea on how to increase voter participation.

And why does the lottery idea sicken you? Don't most people vote because they want to get something in return ( I vote for candidate A cause I want the tax cut he's promised) Candidates make promises, make reminder phone calls, even send out busses to transport voters.

Since when do question motives for voting? Instead we just sit back and complain when people do not vote.

Oh and that wasnt my quote aboutthe UK parties. Im from the states. Although I am annoyed how the Repubs and Demos have created a system designed to keep 3rd parties out.

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:So you have proportional representation? Darn. Now you are getting detailed to a degree I can't answer. But before I start googling, what do you mean exactly by"proportional representation"?
And I'm English :cool: - although we do like to kowtow to those Americans ;) I'm very well aware of your nationality, Spice. My comment was mainly aimed at the Yankees.
:)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Soubrette


I vote because I consider it a civic duty - and after the Thatcher years I'm left with the same irrational dislike of the Conservatives that many people have with the Labour party after the winter of discontent:p
Me too! On both points!

Also politicians that will speak out are often marginalised (like Clare Short :( (or even Edwina Currie:p)) I often think in some ways we get the politicians we deserve - if we can't hack the responsibility of knowledge then we will get evasive politicians who all but lie to us.

On the other hand it looks as if this has swung so far that the populace no longer trusts its politicians which may be part of the reason they don't bother voting.

To blame people for not voting is the easy way out imo :mad: Although I wish people would visit their polling stations and spoil their papers if they wish to vote for no one. It's hard to use the excuse that people can't be bothered to vote, if they actually turned up and made marks on their ballot papers. To say that less than half the electorate voted because of apathy would be hard to do if more than 50% of voters spoilt their papers imo :)

And to a large extent I agree with you! Actually I'm reminded of a commentary Jerry Springer made (Jerry Springer says something intelligent shock!) at the end of the last election: basically, that in part we do get the politicians we deserve; but if everyone had to take part in elections--even if it meant changing the polling system to acknowledge those who refuse to cast their vote--then politicians would be forced to take on board the concerns of those who feel alienated or just apathetic to the parties in the current system.

It seems odd that if you don't register to vote then you risk a £1000 fine, but there's no way to register your objections in the current polling system. In a first-pass-the-post system like the one we've got, not voting is a wasted vote; voting on your beliefs is a wasted vote, and the best method is strategic voting. For instance, I vote Green in local elections because Labour are useless, the Liberal Democrat is too smug about his majority and the Conservatives carnt even be arsed to field a candidate! But in General Elections--well, it's whoever's got the best chance of stopping the Conservative candidate getting in...

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sou: Darn. Now you are getting detailed to a degree I can't answer. But before I start googling, what do you mean exactly by"proportional representation"?

Argh - now I have to actually explain my jargon :)

Well, proportional representation means in essence that if you get 2% of the votes within a country then you should get 2% of the seats within the parliament :)

There are of course differing ways of achieving this :p

We have a first past the post system where each (roughly (very roughly:rolleyes: ) the same size) constituent elects an MP each. Thus you could theoretically have the Government having 100% of the seats and the Opposition ending up with nothing because in each constuency they received 49% of the votes.

Smaller parties are of course pretty much unelectable under our system.


I'm very well aware of your nationality, Spice. My comment was mainly aimed at the Yankees.
:)

:D

Does that mean that invitation to see Denmark wasn't aimed at me ;)

Sou

[Tmy]

Does it matter if you have a higher percentage turnout? Won't the same candiate end up winning. Exit polls tend to be accurate, and they are based on a small sample.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does it matter if you have a higher percentage turnout? Won't the same candiate end up winning. Exit polls tend to be accurate, and they are based on a small sample.

First - our pollsters aren't allowed to issue poll results I think for 2 days before the actual vote. And we certainly don't announce winners based on the early results :D

As to the meat of your point - it depends why people aren't voting. If they're not voting because they can't be bothered and that apathy crosses all parties then yes - a higher percentage turn out could just produce the same results.

However historically I believe that it is the left wing that has suffered from low turn outs (even a rainy day can be bad news for Labour;)) So a low turn out is usually a bad sign for Labour.

Sou

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Underemployed

TMY, there's so much wrong with this attitude I don't know where to start.

There is no world government. There are few, if any international organisations capable of even beginning to deal with the 'issues' that 'are important'.

The reason they don't deal with them is because THEY CAN'T. And if any party said that they could, or that they proposed to make these issues their primary concerns, anyone who voted for them would be a fool. Political parties deal with the one country which elected them. They have to take the rest of the world into consideration of course, but only insofar as it can be turned into a domestic advantage.

This doesn't lead to global harmony of course, but nobody said life was a rose garden. If you are as truly altruistic as your opinions suggest, go and be an aid worker if you are not already. Let politicians worry over crime, health, transport, the economy AT HOME and maybe the leaders of the 3rd world will get some breathing space do some good without our interference (but that is another thread in itself).


Edited to protect the innocent

Hi Underemployed, it's me that made the "little difference between the main parties in the UK" comment you quoted. And there's so much wrong with your response, I don't know were to start...:p ;) I never suggested there was a world government, nor that any single organisation that is capable of addressing the issues I pointed out; nor would I trust any party that lobbied on the platform that it could single handedly sort out any of those issues.

But to echo Undercover Elephant, for them to stop lying would be a good start. To whit; no government has the luxury of being able to run the economy for anybody. As members of a neo-liberal global economy the best they can do is manage it to make it attractive to foreign investment and the attentions of multinational corporations (which seems antithetical to the idea of representational democracy but there you go). But we're already seeing the failures of it--in terms of stock market losses and the resultant knock ons.

As for third world poverty; well, colonialism got 'em into this mess, and as long as we let commercial exploitation in the form of "foreign aid" lose on their countries, we're simply going to see more Mugabies and the like, and more anti-Western terrorism.

So no--until politicians realise and admit they no longer have the luxury of the parochial attitudes of yesteryear, then I'm quite justified in my opinion. I'm certainly not prepared to let politicians worry over crime, health, transport, the economy unaided and uncriticised, 'cos let's face it, they continually screw things up--all politicians of all persuasions, because they prefer short-sighted, short-term populist solutions over anything that acknowledges the real challenges they face. Maybe it's something to do with the calibre of the applicants, I dunno.

And altruism? Me? Can you say "strawman"? :rolleyes:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Soubrette


First - our pollsters aren't allowed to issue poll results I think for 2 days before the actual vote. And we certainly don't announce winners based on the early results :D

As to the meat of your point - it depends why people aren't voting. If they're not voting because they can't be bothered and that apathy crosses all parties then yes - a higher percentage turn out could just produce the same results.

However historically I believe that it is the left wing that has suffered from low turn outs (even a rainy day can be bad news for Labour;)) So a low turn out is usually a bad sign for Labour.

Sou

Ah yes--rainy days and Labour supporters won't come out to vote; sunny days and they stay in 'cos they think all the other Labour voters have gone out to vote, as my dear old da often explained to me! :D

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Seg - what kind of voting system do you have in Canada - is it first past the post or some kind of proportional representation?


Same type of system that you have in the U.K.... First past the post. The Prime Minister is the head of the party that gets the most seats. (The way things work out, the party that gets into power may get 60% of the seats, but only 40% of the vote.)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Same type of system that you have in the U.K.... First past the post. The Prime Minister is the head of the party that gets the most seats. (The way things work out, the party that gets into power may get 60% of the seats, but only 40% of the vote.)

We're with you there :)

The current Labour Government is a prime example - they have a massive majority of seats yet the voting percentages do not reflect this - ah such is first past the post :)

So what happened the last two times Billy - some Labour voters must have made it out :p

Actually interesting (ok I think so:p) anecdote about a point made earlier. Often people in the UK vote tactically - in my constituency there is no point voting Labour, they are a very poor third cousin to the Lib Dems and Conservatives. So many people who would agree with Labour Policies vote to keep the Conservatives out (I know shocking isn't it:D). This often happens in other constuencies where the LibDems are the third wheel too (obviously Labour are voted in then - ah that Thatcher legacy :p). Anyhow the Conservatives were strongly against tactical voting in the last election - lots of speeches on it. Firmly against it, that is, until it came to voting in their new leader - then suddenly tactical voting was totally legitimate :rolleyes:

Sou

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:

Thanks for your explanation regarding UK election rules. I'm afraid that several minutes of googling didn't get me closer to the exact rules here in Denmark. However, from memory, the following is true:

1. Any party which gets at least 2% of the total vote, will be represented by a minimum of 4 seats in the parliament (which has 175 Danish seats, plus 2 from the Faroe Islands and 2 from Greenland).

2. Even if a party gets less than 2%, it is possible for the party to be represented by the minimum 4 seats if a single member of the party gets an "amts mandat", which basically means that that person got a landslide of personal votes (more than all other personal votes combined) in an "amt" (which is like a state).
Does that mean that invitation to see Denmark wasn't aimed at me ;) Certainly you can come to Denmark! If you can wait a few months, I'll even be there to show you around. :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sou:

Thanks for your explanation regarding UK election rules. I'm afraid that several minutes of googling didn't get me closer to the exact rules here in Denmark. However, from memory, the following is true:

1. Any party which gets at least 2% of the total vote, will be represented by a minimum of 4 seats in the parliament (which has 175 Danish seats, plus 2 from the Faroe Islands and 2 from Greenland).

2. Even if a party gets less than 2%, it is possible for the party to be represented by the minimum 4 seats if a single member of the party gets an "amts mandat", which basically means that that person got a landslide of personal votes (more than all other personal votes combined) in an "amt" (which is like a state).


That sounds eminently sensible - do you have problems with extreme parties being represented though? - that's one of the arguments against this kind of representation that I always here - that and (for PR only) the increased chance of hung Governments.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sou:
Certainly you can come to Denmark! If you can wait a few months, I'll even be there to show you around. :)

I have this vague memory that I owe you a beer (thanks Win :mad: )

:p

Sou

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Soubrette

John - your voting system sounds pretty much the same as ours :) But what if you disagree fundamentally with the lies and evasions that certainly all of our main political parties seem to indulge in. What if you regularly vote for a small minority party that gets say 2% of the countrywide vote but no seat? In the end don't you think you might get disillusioned with the whole process and not bother voting - is it justified then?

Yes, Canada's voting system is very much like the UK's - for reasons that you probably already know. :)

As for your question: I might get disillusioned by voting for a party that only gets a small fraction of the all the ballads, but at least I cast my vote. My vote is just as good as anyone else's. I don't see how not voting in a election does any good. Votes not cast don't get counted in an election.

Interesting topic. :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Soubrette

The current Labour Government is a prime example - they have a massive majority of seats yet the voting percentages do not reflect this - ah such is first past the post :)

Actually, there is an even worse case... In a provincial election, the winning party actually had a SMALLER portion of the national vote than there opposition.
Originally posted by Soubrette


Actually interesting (ok I think so:p) anecdote about a point made earlier. Often people in the UK vote tactically - in my constituency there is no point voting Labour, they are a very poor third cousin to the Lib Dems and Conservatives.
Sou
This could be another reason for low voter turnout. Here in Canada, the Liberal party won 101 out of 103 seats in my province in the last federal electection. I don't think my own riding has ever voted in anyone other than a Liberal since I was born. So, for people who vote for a different party, their votes will be wasted. So what's the use of voting?

Perhaps our countries could continue having 'first past the post', but then elect the prime minister by popular vote (similar to what is done in other countries).

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by John Bryce


Yes, Canada's voting system is very much like the UK's - for reasons that you probably already know. :)

As for your question: I might get disillusioned by voting for a party that only gets a small fraction of the all the ballads, but at least I cast my vote. My vote is just as good as anyone else's. I don't see how not voting in a election does any good. Votes not cast don't get counted in an election.

Interesting topic. :)

How about if I said that a vote was actually an affirmation of a corrupt system :D

Still bad not to vote?

Sou

[DanishDynamite]

Sou:That sounds eminently sensible - do you have problems with extreme parties being represented though? - that's one of the arguments against this kind of representation that I always here - that and (for PR only) the increased chance of hung Governments.Yep, we do have "extreme" parties represented. I don't see that as a problem though. A representative democracy is IMO the best form of democracy, but it should still be as democratic as possible, which I think is covered by the very low 2% minimum requirement.

In regard to having "hung" governments, let me just tell you that "negotiation" and "compromise" are two very important words in Danish politics. I can't remember the last time a party had an absolute majority here, and I'm doubtful if it has ever happened. Coalitions are the norm.
I have this vague memory that I owe you a beer (thanks Win :mad: )I'm not prepared to disuade you from the truthfullness of this memory. :)

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold originally posted by Segnosaur

Actually, there is an even worse case... In a provincial election, the winning party actually had a SMALLER portion of the national vote than there opposition.

provincial election? pffft we managed that in a national election once - we had a government elected by a minority of the so called popular vote - it was ages ago - but it could theoretically happen again. We weren't laughing at the Gore/Bush fiasco (ok maybe just a little ;))

This could be another reason for low voter turnout. Here in Canada, the Liberal party won 101 out of 103 seats in my province in the last federal electection. I don't think my own riding has ever voted in anyone other than a Liberal since I was born. So, for people who vote for a different party, their votes will be wasted. So what's the use of voting?

I agree - it's not a good enough excuse for me, personally - but for some people it might be and I have some sympathy for that position :)

Perhaps our countries could continue having 'first past the post', but then elect the prime minister by popular vote (similar to what is done in other countries).

:eek: I'm not sure I like that idea - people are very swayed by appearance and familiarity - we'd have Davina McCall as Prime Minister :eek:

;)

Sou

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Soubrette
:eek: I'm not sure I like that idea - people are very swayed by appearance and familiarity - we'd have Davina McCall as Prime Minister :eek:

;)

Sou
I have no idea who that person is. But, she's got to be better than Jean Cretien. Man, how can anyone take Canada seriously after seeing him?

[Edwin]

Originally posted by John Bryce
As for your question: I might get disillusioned by voting for a party that only gets a small fraction of the all the ballads, but at least I cast my vote. My vote is just as good as anyone else's. I don't see how not voting in a election does any good. Votes not cast don't get counted in an election.

The only thing I really have to go on in an election is deciding whether the Tory lies are better than the Labour lies (or perhaps the Lib-Dem lies are good this time round). So any vote I make is pretty much random, but if I do vote, and by mistake vote the winner, then that winner has a slightly better claim to be representing the country. That can't be a good thing.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Soubrette


How about if I said that a vote was actually an affirmation of a corrupt system :D

Still bad not to vote?

Do you believe the UK electoral system to be corrupt?

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Edwin


The only thing I really have to go on in an election is deciding whether the Tory lies are better than the Labour lies (or perhaps the Lib-Dem lies are good this time round). So any vote I make is pretty much random, but if I do vote, and by mistake vote the winner, then that winner has a slightly better claim to be representing the country. That can't be a good thing.

Then vote for some other party. :)

United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/polparti.htm#UKP)

[Earthborn]

A while ago there was something interesting on BBC's Learning Zone explaining how democratic governments (and more specifically the British) work. It had a great sketch about the difference between 'First Past the Post' and 'Proportional Representation'.

A group of friends enters a cafe. The cafe is named 'First Past the Post Cafe'. The waitress takes their orders:

Friend 1: I'll have a coffee.

Friend 2: Coffee for me too please.

Friend 3: I'll like an orange juice

Friend 4: Coke please.

Friend 5: I think I'll have a coffee.

Waitress: Alright, 3 coffee, one orange juice and a coke.

Friends: Yes, that's it.

Waitress: So that'll be five coffees.

Friends: Why can't we all just get what we want?

Waitress: Hello? This is the 'First Past the Post Cafe'! Everyone gets what is voted for most often!

Friends: But that's ridiculous!

Waitress: Those are the rules of the 'First Past the Post Cafe'! Well, if you don't like it, you can go to the 'Proportional Representation Cafe' down the street.

Friends: Let's go there. This is outrageous!

Waitress: But I'll have to warn you: there they take all your respective drinks all mixed together in the proportions you voted for them.

Friends: Oh, yuck. Five coffee it is...Although I am greatly in favor of the 'proportional representation' we have in the Netherlands, I thought it was a brilliant stab at the system we have. It is exactly like that: with proportional representation you always end up with a government nobody wants!

The system in the Netherlands is even more perfectly representative as that of Denmark. There is no minimum of seats required in parliament and there isn't a minimum percentage of votes required like in Germany. Every one of the 150 seats represents a specific number of represented voters. Of course there is rounding going on: no one gets 0.3 seats.

This system means that there are parties in parliament that have very few seats. A typical example are the small Christian parties. They have a very small, but very loyal following. Two recently merged, so there are now just two of them instead of three, but they still have just three or four seats together! These people are certainly at the extreme end of Christian fundamentalism, but are often excellent debaters and active lobbyists for many good causes. They are highly respected: the Dutch parliament wouldn't be quite the same without them.
There have been small extreme rightwing xenophobic parties but they never got very far. As long as they stay small, there is little to fear from them. And if they become large, no electoral system can stop them anyway*. So fear for extreme parties should not be a reason to oppose proportional representation. In fact it can be quite beneficial to allow them to have at least a small say in parliament.

However, there are other reasons that suggest that in some cases a 'First Past the Post' system is preferable to proportional representation. In fact it is easy to see: countries with proportional representation are almost always small countries, while bigger countries usually have 'First Past the Post', which we in the Netherlands simply call a 'district system'. If you have proportional representation in a large country, it would mean that the most populated areas always dominate the less populated districts. This can be a real problem if these less populated areas still represents millions of people, who might feel they have less say in matters.
In a less populated country this is less of a problem since the difference between the more and less populated areas is smaller. In Britain it would probably mean that the area of London is much stronger politically than any other region.

In the Netherlands, where we have 3 times as many people as Denmark (nya nya nya nya nya!) I think we have reached about the top of what can be achieved with proportional representation. Some parts of the country actually do dominate the whole but it isn't so bad that some provinces start to feel opressed (yet).

There is only one party in the Netherlands that favours a district system over proportional representation: D66 (the 'liberal democrats'). However, here we immediately meet one of the many mysteries in Dutch politics: that party is much too small to ever survive such a system!

So basically, both systems have their use. The major difference is that one is centered accurately representing the different political views, and the other about representing the different geographical regions.

*A much greater risk that's facing any democratic system is when someone can get to power by simply saying things the people want to hear, offering simple (but mistaken) solutions to very difficult problems. I think that this happened about a year ago here in the Netherlands with the popularity of Pim Fortuyn. He had some reasonably extreme ideas, since he opposed anti-discrimination legislation and was ardently anti-muslim. However he couldn't simply classified as extreme rightwing, because he took many ideas from other parties, adding his own naive utopian vision of the Netherlands. He expressed to be deeply religious, something you don't even hear christian parties talk about much here. He even promoted 'Christian family values' despite being an openly promiscuous homosexual! So, yeah: extreme parties can be problem. Problem is that 'First Past the Post' wouldn't have helped us much.

He never got to try his ideas: the poor man got shot. First political murder in the Netherlands for hundreds of years. His party that was heading for a landslide victory anyway, became the second largest party. His party had to be in the next cabinet. But Fortuyn's turbulent political career didn't seem to end with his death. His party was plagued with scandal and intrigue so the new government couldn't govern and only 87 days later it had to fall. New elections were needed. It was a first in Dutch politics: things actually happening. And I didn't like it one bit!
I think it shows one of the biggest threats any democracy can face: people get excited because someone promises that many things will change and they get very disappointed when (for whatever reason) things don't work out that way. It will mean that people will have even less confidence in politics. That's the big dilemma in democracy: people like to vote for someone who makes the most promises, but the politician that doesn't make many promises might actually make them come true.One of my "things" is that political parties should be held more accountable for their election promises :)Perhaps politicians should simply stop making promises. They can present their 'plans' and 'ideas', but they should be honest that they might not be able to act them out exactly as they want. People like voting for politicians that make bold promises, but in most cases there is just no way these politicians can actually keep them. Things just never work out as politicians plan.She was then asked if that meant she suffered from political apathy. She was most indignant. She was involved in politics at a grass roots level, she protested, she signed petitions, boycotted products etc etcI too consider voting a civic duty and I have not failed to vote in a single election. However, I don't think that choosing not to vote automatically voids your right to complain. Democracy is not just about voting. It's also about free speech, right to protest, petition and lobby. These things are just as important as voting, and just as much a part of controlling your own government.So is the government in the UK wrong to blame a low voting turn out on voter apathy?Yes.And what could they do to engage more people and make them want to vote?Perhaps it should ask itself whether that is actually necessary or whether there are other ways of listening and being influenced by the populace.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Soubrette


IDanish (mmmm I would love an apple one right now :)) - but if less than 50% of the public has voted then at what point does a Government or even the whole parliamentary system lose the mandate of the people? Where's a social contract if over half your citizens don't bother to sign up?

Sou

if less than 50% vote, do you have a democracy? I don't see how.

As for australia, voting is compulsory. I think it does tend to create a better standard of political debate and involvement, although all democracies do suffer from the effects of the party system.

if there is one thing that we do need to be able to address now, it is the party system.

[Kimpatsu]

I don't vote in UK elections because not only do I disagree with the politics of the main parties, even if I find a policy of which I approve, I can't be sure the politicians will actually implement it. Politicians like to tell the electorate what they think we want to hear, but just look at Tony Blair's track record:
Promised to ban hunting. Has now fudged the issue totally.
Promised to introduce 24-hour drinking. Has now dropped the notion quietly.
Has failed to meet all transport, education, and healthcare targets, and so has now changed the targets (i.e., moved the goalposts).
Politicians tell lies. If they don't deliver on their promises, that is breach of faith, and they should be prosecuted for it.
As to Danish Dynamite's assertion that if we don't vote, we don't have a right to gripe: On the UK ballot papers, there is no "None of the Above" option. Add that, and I'll vote every time. At present, my non-vote is counted as apathy, rather than what it really is: a protest. This is wilfull blindness on the part of the government, which knows the score, but dare not confront the fact that were dissatisfaction counted as a genuine vote, they would have no mandate. President Ubersturmbannfuhrer Blair sees the responsibility of the electorate to return him to office every five years, and then to do whatever he likes in the interim. What kind of a democracy is that? This is why fewer and fewer people are voting: they feel, like I do, that their vote no longer counts. Disengaged? Hardly. We're screaming bloody angry at this abuse of the democratic process, but as the powerless, we can do nothing to change it. The system is rigged in Blair's favour. For regime change to happen, we need genuine representation, for after all, we should be the real masters of parliament.
We, the people.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
In a democratic society, people who don't vote have no right to criticize the parties in the parliament. Sure, there is rarely a party whose program/viewpoint you can fully endorse, but there are some whose program is more in line with your views than any other. Vote for them.

Not voting is certainly a "protest" vote, but at the end of the day, a government must be formed, and if your viewpoint is not represented, even partially, because you didn't vote: hard cheese.

My opiniom echo's that of DanishDynamite.

What the problem is, in europe (and to a lesser extent the US) there seem to be an epidemic of chronic childishness (most people call it idealism). This line of "thinking" assumes everything should be perfect, it is the worst form of absolutism. Unless these people find a politican that they absolutly agree with, they will not support the system.

[belinda]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
As to Danish Dynamite's assertion that if we don't vote, we don't have a right to gripe: On the UK ballot papers, there is no "None of the Above" option. Add that, and I'll vote every time.

Do what we do here....add the "None of the Above" option yourself to the ballot paper. It will count as an invalid vote, but at least you will have made it and won't be counted as part of the apathic masses who can't get off their butts long enough to vote. You'd be surprised how many votes Mickey Mouse and Agro (a local children's character) get at each Federal election.:D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
What the problem is, in europe (and to a lesser extent the US) there seem to be an epidemic of chronic childishness (most people call it idealism).
Idealism is not childish, it's what drives political change. You're suggesting that we settle for an imperfect system, when it's within our grasp to make things better. Put another way, and a direct challenge to you, Tony: When no political party reflects your views, for whom do you vote? Remember, with no "None of the above" option on the ballot paper, any actual vote you cast will be viewed as an endorsement, when what you really want to say is, "I don't approve of any of you." Now, tell me where is the mechanism to make that viewpoint felt?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by belinda
Do what we do here....add the "None of the Above" option yourself to the ballot paper.
Fascinating notion; it may well work if we can mobilise enough people. Trust the Aussies to think up such a simple solution... ;)

[Walter Wayne]

I haven't voted since Preston Manning was leader of the Reform (now Alliance) party here in Canada. Maybe I'll go in a spoil my ballot on the next one.

I do think that a "none of the above" should be added to the options, to seperate the protest votes from those who are too stupid to put an X in a box.

I think if politicians believed they could win an election by going after the disenfranchised voter, we'd see interesting and possibly better ideas coming out of there mouths.

Walt

[Lothian]

I always go to the polling station but don't always register a vote. In quite a few elections I have written "I don't support any of these candidates" across the voting paper. I fully realise that onlyone person at the count will appreciate my actions, the rest of the country will see me as someone who couldn't put a cross in a box. However I value my right to do what I want. I then feel justified in criticising those in power. If you play no part in the democratic process you shouldn't complain when you don't like the results.
This is the crux of the matter most people are either happy with their lives or resigned to them. They don't consider a vote will change anything and I find this difficult to argue with. No single vote made a difference in the last election due to the first past the post system. The Blair government has shifted so far to the right that there is very little difference between them and the previous Tory administration. While politicians are not always the same, those in power do appear to be.
Until voters feel aggrieved enough about something, apathy will reign. It will most likely be a local issue that gets people voting. An example the independent MP who elected on the single issue of saving the local hospital, another having Neil Hamilton as your MP. I don’t see a national issue forcing people into the booths, If Thatcher couldn’t increase the numbers of voters who could.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Idealism is not childish, it's what drives political change.

Blind idealism is childish, is denies reality while embracing fantasy. Political change is driven by good ideas that show results and logic. The only "ideal" I ascribe to is freedom.


You're suggesting that we settle for an imperfect system, when it's within our grasp to make things better.

There is always room for improvement, but expecting perfection is unrealistic and childish.


Tony: When no political party reflects your views, for whom do you vote?

There is never a party that absolutly reflects my views, I vote for the party that I identify the most.


Remember, with no "None of the above" option on the ballot paper, any actual vote you cast will be viewed as an endorsement, when what you really want to say is, "I don't approve of any of you." Now, tell me where is the mechanism to make that viewpoint felt?

You are being unrealistic and irrational, politics is about compromise.


If you really feel like the system is so bad, why dont you develop some rational arguments in the hope that you can gain some supporters? Possibly running for office? I can assure you, doing nothing and bitching on a message board isnt going to change a thing.

Did you ever think that the reason your views have no place is because you are a small minority?

What are your views?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Blind idealism is childish, is denies reality while embracing fantasy. Political change is driven by good ideas that show results and logic. The only "ideal" I ascribe to is freedom.
Idealism need not be blind. Now you're moving the goalposts. When did "blind" get introduced as a qualifier? Good ideas are, by definition, ideal. Or are you calling freedom childish?
Originally posted by Tony
There is always room for improvement, but expecting perfection is unrealistic and childish.
Not at all. We can attain utopia, if the will is there.
Originally posted by Tony
There is never a party that absolutly reflects my views, I vote for the party that I identify the most.
So you take the lesser of two evils? Sorry, I won't prostitute myself like that.
Originally posted by Tony
You are being unrealistic and irrational, politics is about compromise.
No, politics is about fighting for your moral position. When politicians "compromise", what they're really doing is selling out.
Originally posted by Tony
If you really feel like the system is so bad, why dont you develop some rational arguments in the hope that you can gain some supporters? Possibly running for office? I can assure you, doing nothing and bitching on a message board isnt going to change a thing.
Actually, my posting here might win a few supporters. Look at the others here who are posting in support of my position. You treat these boards as separate from the "real world" (sic), but the internet is as valid a forum as any. So...
I hereby post my candidacy for global leader and king of the universe. All who support me will be graciously rewarded. All those who oppose me (Tony, take note) will be cast into the pit of fire.
Now, are you on-message, or do I have to make an example of you pour encourager les autres?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Not at all. We can attain utopia, if the will is there.

[/I]

Ok, if you are going to be this ignorant and unreasonable, I see no reason to dignify anything you say.

[Underemployed]

Apologies to BillyTK for misquoting.

Having a 'None of the above' option on the ballot paper would be a great idea of expressing discontent with the system.

But politicians already know the majority are deeply dissatisfied with the system. They saw millions marching against the upcoming skirmish and were unaffected. Clearly they are quite satisfied with the system as it is, as you or I would be if it meant you kept your high-paying job for five years without having to deliver.

I used to believe that the world is in the grip of mega-corporations intent on running the planet into the ground for their own profit. Then I looked into the problem, past the sophomoric arguments and saw that this is utterly false.

Of course the largest corporations have enormous political influence. They employ thousands of people and control billions of dollars. Yes they have more money than a few island states and the odd real country. But guess what? They don't make laws. They don't have votes. They don't have armies. Government spending in all developed countries dwarfs private spending by many orders of magnitude. Governments everywhere are the largest employers.

That private enterprises succeed in furthering their own agendas shows only that they understand the political process far better than the voting public.

I am ashamed by the current state of affairs to such an extent that I am prepared to make a life-changing action - entering the political arena. The current lot are clearly selling themselves far too cheaply. I intend to make companies pay full price for what they want.

As long as dissenting voices limit their protest to a few spoiled voting slips or avoiding Nestle products, they have won.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok, if you are going to be this ignorant and unreasonable, I see no reason to dignify anything you say.
What is ignorant and unreasonable about striving to build utopia? Or is this really you admitting you can't rebut my arguments by logic, so you're resorting to ad hominem?

[Soubrette]

A few general comments - maligning other people's points of view and disparaging them in general doesn't a discussion make :(

Underemployed - I take my hat off to you but there are many ways to protest and in fact I would say that at a grass roots level and regarding local issues - being prepared to picket, complain and chain yourself to trees seems to work, in a way it doesn't seem to work at a national level.

Many idealistic people have grouped together for change - Emily Pankhurst and the Suffragettes spring to mind for me :)

Many idealistic people have grouped together and failed in their quest - so what?

John - it was a hypothetical question :p Do I believe the UK political system is corrupt? I would answer personally - to an extent. But if I were someone who genuinely felt that it was undemocratic, packed with Tony's Cronies, full of talk and no action and that we needed change, full on political change I mean - would I be justified then in not voting? In being politically active in other ways?

Earthborn - I love that analogy with the coffee :p

And a_u_p - haven't I heard that Australia has a significant problem with so called "donkey votes"? Where people just turn up and put their cross anywhere? That's a scary thought for me.

Sou

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

What is ignorant and unreasonable about striving to build utopia? Or is this really you admitting you can't rebut my arguments by logic, so you're resorting to ad hominem?

Believe me, it is not an ad hominem attack. For a utopia to work everyone in the society would have to have the same values, morals, goals and vision for the future. To think that this is even remotly possible in a large society, is ignorant, unreasonable and naive. There will always be people that will not fall in line with your way of thinking. There will always be people that will want more for themselves, selfishness and greed are human nature. And there will always be corrupt and powerful people.


Can you name a historical instance where utopia has been acheived?

It has been tried plenty of times.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Apologies to BillyTK for misquoting.

Hey, no probs.

Having a 'None of the above' option on the ballot paper would be a great idea of expressing discontent with the system.

But politicians already know the majority are deeply dissatisfied with the system. They saw millions marching against the upcoming skirmish and were unaffected. Clearly they are quite satisfied with the system as it is, as you or I would be if it meant you kept your high-paying job for five years without having to deliver.
Agreed--this is what I meant when I said "there's so little difference between the main parties in the UK, and they appear so apathetic to the kinds of issues (or more likely as a result of their consensus)..."

I used to believe that the world is in the grip of mega-corporations intent on running the planet into the ground for their own profit. Then I looked into the problem, past the sophomoric arguments and saw that this is utterly false.

Of course the largest corporations have enormous political influence. They employ thousands of people and control billions of dollars. Yes they have more money than a few island states and the odd real country. But guess what? They don't make laws. They don't have votes. They don't have armies. Government spending in all developed countries dwarfs private spending by many orders of magnitude. Governments everywhere are the largest employers.

True, they don't have votes or make laws, but as you acknowledge, they have enormous political clout, and inevitably use this to influence decision-making in a number of ways. But of course it's more complex than that because of the way governments respond to the conditions of MNCs as much as be dictated by them. But it's still anti-democratic.

Btw, I'm genuinely interested in any supporting evidence you have for your comment that givernments everywhere are the largest employers.

That private enterprises succeed in furthering their own agendas shows only that they understand the political process far better than the voting public.

Which says a lot about the political process, dontcha agree?

I am ashamed by the current state of affairs to such an extent that I am prepared to make a life-changing action - entering the political arena. The current lot are clearly selling themselves far too cheaply. I intend to make companies pay full price for what they want.

As long as dissenting voices limit their protest to a few spoiled voting slips or avoiding Nestle products, they have won.

However, organised consumer power can be far more effective in affecting the Political will than political action alone, not only because the kind of economy we have is built on the (albeit notional) idea of consumer choice. Of course the mechanics of supply/demand are more complex, but deliberately withdrawing demand as a sign of protest can be effective.

Anyway, from your suggestion "I intend to make companies pay full price for what they want", if you stood in my area you'd get my support!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


if less than 50% vote, do you have a democracy? I don't see how.

As for australia, voting is compulsory. I think it does tend to create a better standard of political debate and involvement, although all democracies do suffer from the effects of the party system.

if there is one thing that we do need to be able to address now, it is the party system.

"Tyranny of the minority" are the words that spring to mind. Out of interest, how is voting made compulsory in the Australian system?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
For a utopia to work everyone in the society would have to have the same values, morals, goals and vision for the future.
Only one ideal is necessary, actually: "Live half for yourself and half for others." The rest follows naturally. Even if we share differing goals, provided we have common ground for respect, utopia can still be actualised.
Originally posted by Tony
To think that this is even remotly possible in a large society, is ignorant, unreasonable and naive. There will always be people that will not fall in line with your way of thinking.
That is what education is for. Education at present is factory-line to produce a compliant workforce for the manufacturing economies. What we need are smaller classes with the emphasis on teaching analytical and critical thinking. That way, people also develop empathy. Once people appreciate the negative consequences their selfish actions have on others, they will stop. Then the groundwork has been laid.
Originally posted by Tony
There will always be people that will want more for themselves, selfishness and greed are human nature. And there will always be corrupt and powerful people.
Not necessarily. As I said, the corrupt can be educated out of existence. If then the corrupt are so few in number, they will cease to be powerful.
Originally posted by Tony
Can you name a historical instance where utopia has been acheived? It has been tried plenty of times.
Just because it hasn't succeeded in the past doesn't mean the concept is inherently impossible. We weren't around in the past to get it right.
Your cynicism is remarkable. You don't believe in the politicians for whom you vote, and you don't think things can be improved. What motivates you to even get up in the morning?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Only one ideal is necessary, actually: "Live half for yourself and half for others." The rest follows naturally. Even if we share differing goals, provided we have common ground for respect, utopia can still be actualised.



Only one ideal is necessary? Like a one party state? Like China? What happens to the people that have different ideas?

That is what education is for.

Education or indoctrination? You seem to think that just because someone is "educated" that makes them a good, caring person.

That way, people also develop empathy. Once people appreciate the negative consequences their selfish actions have on others, they will stop.

So, your idea is to create a society of sissies?

Not necessarily. As I said, the corrupt can be educated out of existence. If then the corrupt are so few in number, they will cease to be powerful.

There you go with your indocrination again. People should have the freedom to think for themselves. That includes being greedy, selfish and hateful.

Do you have any evidence that corruption can be "educated" out of existance?

I can think of tons of educated people that were corrupt.

Just because it hasn't succeeded in the past doesn't mean the concept is inherently impossible. We weren't around in the past to get it right.

So what makes you think it can be done today? What aspect(s) of human nature have changed?

Your cynicism is remarkable.

Im not a cynic, I'm realistic. Your naivete is remarkable.

You don't believe in the politicians for whom you vote

I never said that.

and you don't think things can be improved.

I never said that. It seems like you need some "education" your bigotry and prejudice is starting to come out.

What motivates you to even get up in the morning?

Sex, drugs and rock n' roll. :D

[Giz]

I'm (in the UK) very disappointed by the huge number of people who cant be bothered to vote.

Seems to me that a lot of the people that feel this way do so in part because of a profound ignorance of history and current events.

I mean, if you look at this country in centuries past (or many other countries around the world RIGHT NOW!) then add a knowledge of what people have gone through to remove tyranny (whether the Civil War, Chartists, Suffragettes etc) then how can you not value it, both as present safeguard and our valued heritage, obtained through much blood and tears.

I view casting my vote as one of the noblest things I can do! (even when voting Tory;) )


Oh, and Kimpatsu "So you take the lesser of two evils? Sorry, I won't prostitute myself like that."
- Doesn't that mean that, by abstaining, you make it more likely that what you view as the greater evil will succeed? Doesn't that make you the tacit accomplice of the greater evil that you could have helped to prevent? Where's the moral in that?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Only one ideal is necessary? Like a one party state? Like China? What happens to the people that have different ideas?
No. Don't be obtuse. With what part of "live half for yourself and half for others" do you disagree?
Originally posted by Tony
education or indoctrination? You seem to think that just because someone is "educated" that makes them a good, caring person.
No, I'm saying that teaching proper education will foster empathy. Don't put words in my mouth. Attacking a strawman of my argument just shows how difficult it is for you to rebut what I'm actually saying.
Originally posted by Tony
So, your idea is to create a society of sissies?
If you think empathy is sissy, come here and pick a fight with me, tough guy. I'll kick your ass into the South China Sea.
Originally posted by Tony
here you go with your indocrination again. People should have the freedom to think for themselves. That includes being greedy, selfish and hateful.
So people have the right to murder and rape? Don't be stupid. You're just picking a fight because you can't win on the merits.
Originally posted by Tony
Do you have any evidence that corruption can be "educated" out of existance?
Yes. There are several Shorinji Kenshi who have achieved just that; turned their lives around.
Originally posted by Tony
I can think of tons of educated people that were corrupt.
That's because they weren't taught empathy.
Originally posted by Tony
o what makes you think it can be done today? What aspect(s) of human nature have changed?
We're here now. The aspect of human nature governing this trait has now been properly identified. Society all depends on the quality of the individual. Foster strong, caring, educated and intelligent individuals, and you foster a better society. When all people are that way, you have utopia.
Originally posted by Tony
Im not a cynic, I'm realistic. Your naivete is remarkable.
No, you're a cynic. I'm the realist.
Originally posted by Tony
I never said that... I never said that. It seems like you need some "education" your bigotry and prejudice is starting to come out.
I don't have any bigotry or prejudice. (Ad hominem again.) Don't judge people by your own low standards. And you did indeed say, "There is never a party that absolutly reflects my views, I vote for the party that I identify the most."
So you do indeed vote for what you yourself perceive to be the lesser of two evils. How cynical is that? You're resigned to the notion that we can never change the political structure for the better.
Originally posted by Tony
Sex, drugs and rock n' roll. :D
So, when you post, you're under the influence of mind-altering substances? That explains a lot... :cool:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Giz
I'm (in the UK) very disappointed by the huge number of people who cant be bothered to vote.
We are voting: with our feet. This is why a "None of the above" option must be included on the ballot paper.
Originally posted by Giz
- Doesn't that mean that, by abstaining, you make it more likely that what you view as the greater evil will succeed? Doesn't that make you the tacit accomplice of the greater evil that you could have helped to prevent? Where's the moral in that?
No, my absence from the ballot box is a protest vote, and should be counted as such. What if I do go? All I can do is spoil the paper, until "none of the above" is included as a choice.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

my absence from the ballot box is a protest vote, and should be counted as such. What if I do go? All I can do is spoil the paper, until "none of the above" is included as a choice.

But if either A or B will get into power (both fairly unsavoury but A is far worse) then you should surely do what you can to see that A does not acheive a majority (ie vote B)!

If there were a third option then fine, but while its A or B then it has to come down to; which of the two is better (equivalently, which is least awful)?


And I can't resist:
"I don't have any bigotry or prejudice. (Ad hominem again.) Don't judge people by your own low standards."
- That's a minor classic!

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Giz
I'm (in the UK) very disappointed by the huge number of people who cant be bothered to vote.

Seems to me that a lot of the people that feel this way do so in part because of a profound ignorance of history and current events.

I mean, if you look at this country in centuries past (or many other countries around the world RIGHT NOW!) then add a knowledge of what people have gone through to remove tyranny (whether the Civil War, Chartists, Suffragettes etc) then how can you not value it, both as present safeguard and our valued heritage, obtained through much blood and tears.

I view casting my vote as one of the noblest things I can do! (even when voting Tory;) )




But what can we do to change it Giz - Danish was saying that the turnout is always around 80% or higher in their national elections - I think that last one of ours was below 65% wasn't it? (not sure on that though - but it was shockingly low:))

Where are we going wrong? What should we do about it?

Sou

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Where are we going wrong? What should we do about it?
Easy. Add "none of the above" to the ballot paper as an option. This idea has also been formally suggested by both Charter 88 and the Electoral Reform Commission.
Doubt that President Blair will listen, though.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Easy. Add "none of the above" to the ballot paper as an option. This idea has also been formally suggested by both Charter 88 and the Electoral Reform Commission.
Doubt that President Blair will listen, though.

But why don't people just write that themselves?

If 40% of the electorate wrote that and only 33% say voted in the Government - Parliament would be cacking it :D

Sou

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Soubrette
But why don't people just write that themselves?
If 40% of the electorate wrote that and only 33% say voted in the Government - Parliament would be cacking it :D
Good point, Soubrette. I guess it just hasn't occurred to the sheep that they could spoil their ballot papers in this way to achieve a worthwhile goal. This is why teaching analytical and critical thinking in school is so important. People are too conditioned to obey authority; they should learn to question it.
I don't think Reverend Blair would "cack it", though. He's contemptuous of the electorate as it is; why should he care if the majority don't support him? He'll just ignore them, like he does already.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

No. Don't be obtuse. With what part of "live half for yourself and half for others" do you disagree?



Now you're back-tracking. I asked you if one ideal meant a one party system, and you dodged the question. Why dont you answer it?

Your mantra "live half for yourself and half for others" is good. But people have the right to think differently.

Do you think people have the right to think differently than you?

No, I'm saying that teaching proper education will foster empathy. Don't put words in my mouth. Attacking a strawman of my argument just shows how difficult it is for you to rebut what I'm actually saying.

Your "proper education" sounds a lot like indoctrination. What happens when your "proper education" fails to indoctrinate everyone with "empathy". What will you do?

If you think empathy is sissy, come here and pick a fight with me, tough guy. I'll kick your ass into the South China Sea.

I bet talking trash over the internet makes you feel like you got a big dick. Pathetic.


So people have the right to murder and rape?

Huh? When did I say that?


That's because they weren't taught empathy.

How do you know?


No, you're a cynic. I'm the realist.

:rolleyes:

Im the cynic because I dont buy into your dogma? I expect this ******** in church.


I don't have any bigotry or prejudice.

Yes you do, you think that anyone who doesnt buy into your ******** hasn't been "taught (indoctrianted) empathy".


And you did indeed say, "There is never a party that absolutly reflects my views, I vote for the party that I identify the most."
So you do indeed vote for what you yourself perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

This is a strawman. Just because I dont agree with a politican 100% doesnt mean I vote for the lesser of two evils. I, unlike you, have the ability to think for myself outside a particular party. I agree with democrats on some things, I agree with republicans on some things and I agree with libertarians and greens on some things. Hell, I even agree with anarchists on some things.

Is this so hard for you to comprehend?

You're resigned to the notion that we can never change the political structure for the better.

Again your being prejudice, I do believe we can change the political system for the better, I just dont expect perfection.


By and large, your philosophy boils down to "if everyone thought like me, the world would be perfect". I hate to burst your bubble, but that will never happen.

[Agammamon]

I see a lot of apathy in the US. When talking to my collegues most say they don't vote and have no interest in politics because the two major parties are the same and voting doesn't change anything. The most fustrating thing for me is when I suggest voting third party and they say there is no ppoint voting for third party candidates because the won't win. Of course they won't win, you won't vote for them!

And the most important reason to vote
"You get the type of government you don't vote against."

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Now you're back-tracking. I asked you if one ideal meant a one party system, and you dodged the question. Why dont you answer it?
No, you never asked me that question. If you had, I'd have answered it. You can have as many parties as you like. It doesn't affect the final outcome.
Originally posted by Tony
Your mantra "live half for yourself and half for others" is good. But people have the right to think differently.
Never suggested otherwise. Why do you think I did?
Originally posted by Tony
Do you think people have the right to think differently than you?
Of course. When did I ever suggest otherwise?
Originally posted by Tony
Your "proper education" sounds a lot like indoctrination. What happens when your "proper education" fails to indoctrinate everyone with "empathy". What will you do?
On the contrary, critical thinking is the apotheosis of cramming people with "facts" to create a docile set of workers. This is NOT indoctrination. Do you "indoctrinate" children with potty training?
Originally posted by Tony
bet talking trash over the internet makes you feel like you got a big dick. Pathetic.
You said that people who care for their fellow human beings are sissies. I've offering to prove you wrong. (You do know that the doctrine of "Live half for yourself and half for others" is Shorinji Kempo, right?)
Originally posted by Tony
Huh? When did I say that?
People should have the freedom to think for themselves. That includes being greedy, selfish and hateful.
Or is that not what you meant?
Originally posted by Tony
How do you know? (That they weren't taught empathy)
Because by definition, the empathic do not inflict harm upon others. Or do you need to buy a dictionary?
Originally posted by Tony
Im the cynic because I dont buy into your dogma? I expect this ******** in church.
It's not dogma; it's fact. You are a cynic because you don't believe things can get better; certainly not that by making the effort, WE can improve things.
Originally posted by Tony
Yes you do, you think that anyone who doesnt buy into your ******** hasn't been "taught (indoctrianted) empathy".
More cynicism. You equate education with indoctrination. Were you "indoctrinated" with potty training? Or do you still pee your pants? The ******** is your posts. (Oh, you think I'm a sissy!) Show me one post I've made where I espouse ANY form of discrimination? (More strawman!)
Originally posted by Tony
This is a strawman. Just because I dont agree with a politican 100% doesnt mean I vote for the lesser of two evils. I, unlike you, have the ability to think for myself outside a particular party. I agree with democrats on some things, I agree with republicans on some things and I agree with libertarians and greens on some things. Hell, I even agree with anarchists on some things.
Then who the hell do you vote for without betraying your principles? Far from being a strawman, it's the crux of the issue: you are compromising. But if you walk down the middle of the road, sooner or later a car is going to run you over.
Originally posted by Tony
Is this so hard for you to comprehend?
The inherent contradiction of your position is hard to comprehend. I guess I can't believe someone can be that stupid. For example: If you vote Republican, you must support mandated prayer in schools. (Faith-based initiatives being close to Dubya's heart.) Well, do you?
Originally posted by Tony
Again your being prejudice, I do believe we can change the political system for the better, I just dont expect perfection.
Then your sights are set too low. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or else what is heaven for?"
Originally posted by Tony
By and large, your philosophy boils down to "if everyone thought like me, the world would be perfect".
No; if everyone thought like a Kenshi (sic), the world would be perfect.
Originally posted by Tony
I hate to burst your bubble, but that will never happen.
Yes it will. That's what we're here for.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Soubrette
John - it was a hypothetical question :p Do I believe the UK political system is corrupt? I would answer personally - to an extent. But if I were someone who genuinely felt that it was undemocratic, packed with Tony's Cronies, full of talk and no action and that we needed change, full on political change I mean - would I be justified then in not voting? In being politically active in other ways?


If your politicians are indeed like that, then I would think the last thing you would want to do is disengage yourself from the election process.

Some people believe that if they stop voting politicians will suddenly take notice of all those nonvoting people sitting at home complaining, and somehow suddenly change just for those moaning nonvoters. Then those disillusioned nonvoters would start voting again, and the world would be a better place for all. Some people will believe anything.

There is only one way to deal with corruption in politics: you educate yourself, and use the power of your vote. Do some research before each election, find the least corrupt candidate that you can find, and vote for that person. If all the people who say they don’t vote because of corruption did just this it would probably take only two or three elections to clean up politics. Doing nothing will get you nothing.

Sitting at home complaining, or shaking your first in the air, chanting, and carrying signs on the street will do nothing to change any politician’s mind if you don’t vote to force the politicians to listen to your demands. Politicians listen to voters.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by John Bryce
Politicians listen to voters.
Which planet are you from? Politicians never listen to voters.
That's why they're called politicians. :D

[belinda]

Originally posted by BillyTK


"Tyranny of the minority" are the words that spring to mind. Out of interest, how is voting made compulsory in the Australian system?

It's made compulsory by having a law which says you must be on the electoral roll when you turn 18, and if you do not vote you can be fined. However the fine is fairly minimal (about $20 Australian dollars I think) and not that rigidly enforced. Still we get about a 95-98% turnout of people to vote, and the informal votes (those that are invalid like making your own box marked "None of the above") are only about 1% to 2% of all votes.

Sou - Donkey votes are where the person just starts at the top of the ballot paper and goes down, marking the first person 1, the second 2 and so on. This can be a valid vote obviously, but is considered a donkey vote if it makes no political sense. That is if you vote 1 for someone to the far left, vote 2 for someone to the far right and the vote 3 for some to the far left again. Because it is impossible to tell whether a vote is a deliberate selection, or just someone counting down regardless, there are no stats on Donkey votes.

For my own two cents, I prefer compulsory voting....I have found it tends to "force" people to be at least mildly interested in politics and to be involved in the selection of thier leaders. However you will always have the problem of apathetic people who just dont give a *****.

[Kimpatsu]

Australia is undemocratic. One democratic principle is to abstain from voting.

[belinda]

If it is undemocratic for a country to have a voting system which ensures that the ruling Government is voted for by more than 50% of the population, and not a Government that was selected by half of 30% of the population then bring it on.

And yes, I acknowledge I pulled the 30% figure out of my butt, I am not sure of the total turnout rate in other countries who do not have compulsory voting, however from what I can determine it is never much more than 50% of the total population, which means that the resulting Government is only really wanted by about a quarter of the people. Doesn't sound very democratic to me....

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by belinda
If it is undemocratic for a country to have a voting system which ensures that the ruling Government is voted for by more than 50% of the population, and not a Government that was selected by half of 30% of the population then bring it on.

Belinda, the moment you force people to vote, the compulsion is undemocratic. What of your right to abstain from voting?

[belinda]

Kimpatsu,

Read my post again, particularly the first sentence. I acknowledge that compulsory voting is technically undemocratic, but I believe it is a better system than having a Government that not even a quarter of a population voted for.

(edited for spelling)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by belinda
Read my post again, particularly the first sentence. I acknowledge that compulsory voting is technically undemocratic, but I believe it is a better system than having a Government that not even a quarter of a population voted for.
No, because once the element of compulsion is introduced, even if a government gets 51% or more of the vote, that support was not freely given. Psephology in Oz now means nothing, because we do not know how many people voted out of coercion.

[belinda]

Now you have totally confused the issue (or perhaps it's just me :D ) Just becuase someone is "coerced" to vote, does not make who the vote itself is for "coerced". Perhaps if the person was not coerced they would not have voted, but that does not change who they vote for. I don't see how psephology is that affected (not that is my word for the day!), apart from the numbers of people who actually vote. The outcome is still who people wanted to vote for, and has already been discussed if you don't want to vote because you don't like any of the candidates, and the only reason you are there is because of complusory voting, then you have the right to hand in a blank ballot, or one with a picture drawn on it or even your latest poem.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by belinda
Now you have totally confused the issue (or perhaps it's just me :D ) Just becuase someone is "coerced" to vote, does not make who the vote itself is for "coerced". Perhaps if the person was not coerced they would not have voted, but that does not change who they vote for.
Of course it does. They didn't want to vote, or wanted their refusal to vote logged as a protest. That avenue of protest is now closed to them. This smells to me of unpopular politicians wanting to shore up their appearance of a mandate, without actually having one. It stinks.
Originally posted by belinda
I don't see how psephology is that affected (not that is my word for the day!), apart from the numbers of people who actually vote.
It's affected because even if candidate A gets 51% of the vote, 20% of those votes may have really been intended for "none of the above".
Use "psephology" all you like. I was thinking about retiring from the boards, moving to rural France, and becoming an oneiologist, BTW. ;)
Originally posted by belinda
The outcome is still who people wanted to vote for,
With the element of coercion, we can no longer be sure of this. Even if it were so, the very suspicion that the will of the people was otherwise is sufficient to taint the process. The probity of elections must be above reproach.
Originally posted by belinda
and has already been discussed if you don't want to vote because you don't like any of the candidates, and the only reason you are there is because of complusory voting, then you have the right to hand in a blank ballot, or one with a picture drawn on it or even your latest poem.
Which makes the notion of compulsory voting redundant.
Kind of like John Howard... :D Besides, are spoilt papers counted as "none of the above" protests, or just as "spoilt"? The difference is telling.

[belinda]

I'll agree to disagree with you Kimpatsu....even about little Johnnie Howard. Of course he's not redundant.....George Dubaya needs him to make sure his shoes are shined with Johnnie's tongue. :D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by belinda
...even about little Johnnie Howard. Of course he's not redundant.....George Dubaya needs him to make sure his shoes are shined with Johnnie's tongue. :D
Howard is amazing. The Australian premier who asked the Queen of England to open the Sydney Olympics... :rolleyes:

[belinda]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Howard is amazing. The Australian premier who asked the Queen of England to open the Sydney Olympics... :rolleyes:

Huh....not about the "Premier" bit...Howard is Prime Minister a Premier is the leader of a state, but I don't expect people from other countries to realise that, but about what seems to be surprise about Howard inviting the Queen to open the Olympics....remember he is the ultimate royal supporter, not a republican bone in his body.

The head of state of the host country is supposed to open the Olympics...technically the head of state for Australia is the Queen, and her rep here is the Governor General. We are a constitutional monarcy. :rolleyes: Go figure.

[Kimpatsu]

Convicts all, right? :D
I don't like Howard (the Duck). Dubya's poodle, cares more for the Queen than for the Australian people, his inhumane treatment of asylum seekers... The man should be on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
At least he's in the right country for convicts... ;)

[belinda]

Absolutely no argument from me about Howard...the man is about the most un-Australian person I can think of. Although I must admit I did vote for the Libs (Howard's party) last election...because of the economic creditials. You have to admit that while the whole world goes to hell economically, Australia is still doing pretty OK. I swear at the next election though, there is no way I will be voting for him, he has pissed me off that much. And yes somewhere along my bloodline I am pretty sure there is a convict :D of course he got a bum rap...it was only a loaf of bread :p

[Kimpatsu]

Really? I was sure your ancestor was the mad axe murderer of Wapping... ;)
Is there any credible opposition to Howard at the moment? And what are their chances of election?

[belinda]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Really? I was sure your ancestor was the mad axe murderer of Wapping..) Ssshhh...no-one is supposed to know ;)

Is there any credible opposition to Howard at the moment? And what are their chances of election?

I was going to post an apology for hijacking the thread to bitch about Howard....but since you ask....unfortunately no, there is no real credible opposition. The leader of the Labour party (who are currently in opposition) Simon Crean is a spineless loser who no one likes. The surprising winners out of the current political situation have been the Greens (thats an actual party name). I think what will happen at the next election is that a lot of people with first vote for the minor parties, partic. the Greens and the Democrats, but with the preferential system that is used here, people will still end up voting for one of the two major parties. I really don't see Simon Crean getting Labour in, but if Labour dump him before the next election....who knows? With any luck Howard will retire soon, (although he has "promised" to stay until the "current crisis" is over, worse luck).

(edited for spelling)