Why vote?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What the #%$§ is the left wing then?

That would be the Australian Labor Party. Notice the incorrect spelling of "Labour" in the party's official name.

The Labor Party is the liberal party, and the Liberal Party is the conservative party. And the Australian Democrats are in favour of a republic.

I'm not too sure what the Sun Dried Warm Tomato party stands for, but I really liked the sound of the Party Party Party Party Party.

[Cincinnatus]

Quote:

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people - realistically the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy. Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. The most common form of democracy is hence a representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good.

That explains the function of a direct democracy (clap, clap) it also proved my point that you don't live in a direct democracy. So please enjoy your majesty's repersentive constitutional monarchy.

Quote:

At Westminster, we vote for local candidates representing the political parties, and whoever gets the most seats gets to run the country. And before you throw it into the hat, the House of Lords is no longer composed of hereditary peers and can be overruled by the House of Commons.

That is a little different than America. The political parties you elect choose who the PM is going to be.The PEOPLE DON'T choose the PM! They just choose the party members. Not everyone in the party thinks a like and that should concern you. e.g. In america that would be like voting in republican party members and getting stuck with Ron paul as president.

Quote:

At Holyrood, we have a first past the post system in conjunction with a proportional representation system to ensure that the split in the Parliament reflects as closely as possible the actual % votes across each region. There is no upper house.

That's not entirely true.

The House of Lords is the upper legislative house in the UK's political system. It is thus involved in the law and policy making process. Members of this house are unelected and are known as peers. Other members are the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Pastoral. The House of Lords does have certain functions- the legislative role, the scrutinising role, the judicial role, the deliberative role and the legitimating role.

Although the House of Commons may seem to have more power than the House of Lords, the House of Lords have the power to amend and revise bills sent in from the House of Commons. The Lords also have the special judicial role which the House of Commons does not have.

Quote:

I don't think that you can get any more direct than that for nations comprising millions of people..

That's not direct democracy that's a repersentive constitutional monarchy. Infact it's alittle less free because you people don't even choose your own PM. Further more, the PM acts as the head of Her Majesty's Government. De facto power not by law. I know all about the Royal Prerogative.

Quote:

So what's your point, caller?

Are you a DJ? I feel like you might be the UK version of larry king.
My point was you don't live in a direct democracy. Deal with it.

[Architect]

No, I don't think you quite understand.

For starters you don't seem to know the difference between the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments, the latter - as I correctly stated - having no upper house, nor does the House of Lords have any direct jurisdiction over matters dealt with at Holyrood.

Contrary to your statement, the Lords no longer have the power to block legislation made by the Commons, i.e. the elected chamber, although it would be fair to say that it is difficult if the two get locked into such a position.

Now, turning to the PM, you appear to misunderstand the nature of Government in the UK - including the devolved national administrations - where the PM, or First Minister as the case may be, does not hold the absolute reigns of power but rather we use a cabinet system. The need to directly vote the PM/First Minsiter into power is thus irrelevant. One votes for a party, and that party's cabinet runs the country.

Next, I want you to tell me the practical rather than theoretical implications of Royal Perogative. Make like simple for yourself and tell me when the Royal Household has, in fact, ever sought to exercise such powers in - say - the last 100 years.

Of course we're not a direct democracy, because that's simply unworkable in any country of more than a few thousand people. Even the Swiss can't manage it within their cantonal system, and with a modest population, so how you think it might work in a country of (say) 60m intrigues me no end. Would we have referenda every evening, when we got home from work perhaps?

Am I a DJ? No, I just get bored with people trying to weave some sort of CT out of a perfectly understandable situation.

Now, what's your point caller.



And that's a reference to a Radio Clyde Football (i.e. soccer) call-in show, by the way.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What the #%$§ is the left wing then?

The Labor Party.

Though they'd still be right of what you'd consider left wing in Germany, I think.

[Normal Dude]

Originally Posted by joobie

by voting against rick santorum, i got to make a little girl cry. wouldn't have missed it for the world.

(see avatar <---)

I always wondered what that avatar was about.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

[nitpick]you don't have to vote, you just have to get your name ticked off.[/nitpick]

After that, you can use the ballot as toilet paper for all they care.

But you are already there, so why not vote?

Originally Posted by Oliver

What the #%$§ is the left wing then?

Well the ALP has already been mentioned, and there are also the Greens and the Democrats (basically defunct). And you might be able to put some other parties in there Liberty and Democracy might fit.

A far better question to ask is where the hell The Fishing Party stands on the spectrum.

[Architect]

I note that Cinncinatus has vanished like the mist....

[joobie]

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

I always wondered what that avatar was about.

full picture here.

there's actually a series of pictures depicting the event.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Wildy

But you are already there, so why not vote?

When I was younger I used to vote informal. Then I discovered that politics actually was important. At first I voted Democrat, but we all know what happened to them. These days I tend to vote Green.

My view is that if you don't vote, you can't complain about who everyone else chooses on your behalf.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Architect

I note that Cinncinatus has vanished like the mist....

Further investigation will show that he was banned. Check the Forum Management sub forum for details, if you are interested.

In a less cynical response to the OP than my original offering, I'll restate the question in Oliver Font.

Why vote?

For the simple reason that the public interest cannot be preserved if the public does not take an interest.

Salman Rushdie once observed that

"No society, no matter how tolerant, can expect to thrive if its citizens don't prize what their citizenship means."

While that was originally taken from a discussion on diversity, and cross cultural clashes within a nation and a society, it also points at the voting franchise.

"if its citizens don't [i]prize what their citizenship means"

in a nation built on representative government serving its citizens, not ruling them, is a damning verdict on at least a third of our citizenry, if 2004 numbers are any indicator. (Roughly 2/3 voted.) The elected representatives are periodically replaceable, in some cases recallable, via voting franchise. The citizenry failing to participate if affirmation or discarding of office holders leaves a power vacuum.

Power vacuums tend to attract power, or at least power brokers. See also politicians, and political operatives who work to get them elected.

What can you do besides carp about the system?

For starters, become an informed voter, and vote. It isn't all about Hillobamacain. There are loads of issues on the ballot in 2008, and during various times between the big national elections.

The trick to being a good voter is to be informed about issues, and not to be diverted by the great personality smoke screens, as well as the tactics of personal humiliation and gotcha used by all and sundry in the political game. Get your google on, and wear your best BS filter.

The internet and the information age should make it easier, not harder, to gather useful information on the issues. The caveat is that Sturgeon's Law applies to politically relevant information as it does to many other things.

Thanks Darth, you might say, for the platitudes. What do I, Vigilanty, do?

Here's my suggestion.

Vote, and vote as an informed voter. You have just short of six months before an important election, so you need to start looking up the six to ten issues that matter to you most, in local, state and national public interest matters.

Taxes, schools, medicine, roads, whatever.

Start doing your research. Voting just to say you voted is playing into the hands of the smoke screen builders. They are ad men trying to sell you a car. You gonna buy just anything?

Look and listen at who is saying what, who is saying nothing while talking a lot, and if any of them agree with your position on a given issue.

Balance their positions and see which one is closest to yours, if you think any of them are close to telling the truth about their positions.

To get a better sense at how a choice will pan out, look up who is backing each candidate, local, state, and national. Do a bit more digging. What are they after? (Follow the money, then follow the rhetoric.) But it doesn't stop there. You need to tell two friends to do the same, and they need to tell two friends, etc.

In the latest primary here in Texas, less than a quarter of the registered voters turned out. (Maybe that was just in my county.)

The public interest cannot be preserved if the public does not take an interest.

That's an original line of mine. I thought it up a few weeks ago while PM'ing a friend here. I ask you to take that thought and use it as a catalyst for action.

Pass the thought along. Tell tell some friends, and then get them to tell some friends, and so on. Form a voting bloc.

FFS, people, it is time to stand up and be counted. (That is meant for Americans with voting eligibility.) You won't win on all issues, but you can't win on any if you sit on your hands. Win a few but lose a few?

Start working toward the next election cycle. That's what successful pols do. Why don't you, citizen?

I admit to being sorely tempted to not vote in November. You can't measure my disgust with the state of play. I cannot shake the feeling that not voting makes me part of the problem. I'll do as always, and pick the best of a bad lot of apples from the barrel.

Maybe this batch of applesauce won't make me puke, when all is said and done.

DR

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Vigilanty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/...8AyZQNjkIE1vAI


Does this mean we are wasting our time going to the polls?

Seems to me they can nominate whomever they want.

Does voting have any meaning?

Looking for some input.

On the individual level, voting never matters. Your vote only makes a difference if everyone else ties, and even if that did happen, nitpicking about hanging chads would play just as important a role as whether you managed to make your way to the polling station. The value of voting is to get a sense of what people collectively want and try to make a government that satisfies the "will of the people." Even though Superdelegates are in my opinion a stupid system, (I'm willing to suppose the idea of some sort of safety valve to prevent the Democrats from nominating Hitler, but superdelegates seem to do it in a rather blunt way that delegitimizes the whole proccess) voting still matters in that it provides a mechanism by which the will of the people, however imperfectly, can be measured. Superdelegates are not bound to bind their vote to the result of these elections, but it is hard to deny that it's a factor. Every vote that Hillary gets in the upcoming elections is going to provide an extra bit of angst that superdelegates are going to have to feel as to whether Obama has staying power.

Elections are about information, and these elections will provide information.