News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Don't vote!

Started by mj2002, March 20, 2014, 03:25:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HDWalker

I live in a city that would have gotten a racist b*stard as the leading party during this weeks elections. So I did my part in trying not let that happen and vote for the second biggest party for the sole reason not to let the man with the funny hair win.

I used to vote every time I could, especially for the national government elections but the system in the Netherlands just doesn't work and all they do is compromise. You can't rule with compromises. Aside from that, they don't listen to what the people want anyway so I gave up voting and save it for special occasions like this city government elections.

Valerian

http://youtu.be/QFIYS8xb-QY

I've posted this before in another thread -- it's a brief watch, but it basically explains why the extreme, fringe elements often want voting turnout to be low.  In this case, Paul Weyrich, considered the "father" of the right-wing movement explains to his followers that he doesn't want everybody to vote.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Emphasis mine.  So if you want the wilder, more extreme views to be more strongly represented in your government, by all means, don't bother going to the polls.  Me, I'm hoping (perhaps foolishly optimistically, but still) to get a little rationality back into politics at some point.  :P
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Florence

I suppose its a good point, though I can't help but look at it cynically.

Voting seems to be just barely holding back the tides of insanity.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Oniya

Let me turn the question around a bit.

How, precisely, does my not voting benefit me?  I get, what - an extra hour of leisure time on my National Election Day, in exchange for completely relinquishing any say whatsoever that I have in deciding who runs my particular political entity (city, county, state, and/or nation)?

Fair trade?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Retribution

Simply put if one does not vote they have by all intellectual standards ceded their right to bitch about the government. It is an old cliche but none the less a true one. If one does not vote then they give up whatever infinitesimally small voice they have in government. So then how can anyone stand and complain about said government if they did not do whatever very small part they could about said government? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

I generally look at most elections and groan at the offered candidates mainly because none of them will give a freaking inch and thus we have gridlock. So I chose the one I find least unpalatable and vote, make the best of what I consider a bad situation, and retain my right to bitch, gripe, moan, groan, and complain about those in office I consider utterly useless.

mj2002

Quote from: Oniya on March 21, 2014, 08:56:37 AM
Let me turn the question around a bit.

How, precisely, does my not voting benefit me?  I get, what - an extra hour of leisure time on my National Election Day, in exchange for completely relinquishing any say whatsoever that I have in deciding who runs my particular political entity (city, county, state, and/or nation)?

Fair trade?
The argument mainly concerns national elections, not really local. The benefit of not voting would be that you're not complicit in perpetuating the status quo. It delegitimizes those who are in office.

mj2002

Quote from: Retribution on March 21, 2014, 09:05:08 AM
Simply put if one does not vote they have by all intellectual standards ceded their right to bitch about the government. It is an old cliche but none the less a true one. If one does not vote then they give up whatever infinitesimally small voice they have in government. So then how can anyone stand and complain about said government if they did not do whatever very small part they could about said government? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

I generally look at most elections and groan at the offered candidates mainly because none of them will give a freaking inch and thus we have gridlock. So I chose the one I find least unpalatable and vote, make the best of what I consider a bad situation, and retain my right to bitch, gripe, moan, groan, and complain about those in office I consider utterly useless.
I believe this concern is addressed in the video. The right to bitch isn't ceded because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter who you vote for. In a fair game, you would have given up the right to bitch, but this game is rigged.

Oniya

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 09:08:46 AM
The argument mainly concerns national elections, not really local. The benefit of not voting would be that you're not complicit in perpetuating the status quo. It delegitimizes those who are in office.

In other words, no tangible benefit at all. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

mj2002

Quote from: Oniya on March 21, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
In other words, no tangible benefit at all. 
I would say that ending the current system is a benefit.

Oniya

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
I would say that ending the current system is a benefit.

Except that it doesn't 'end the current system'.  All it does is ensure that the people who are maintaining the current system have more of a voice than you do.  After all, they are still going to vote.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Retribution

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
I would say that ending the current system is a benefit.

If you honestly think there is any chance of pouting and not voting ending the current system I got some swamp land I would like to sell you. To be blunt the whole premise is pretty silly in my opinion. Anyway I am out of this one because I find nothing constructive I can say about it at this point.

Florence

I would argue that the plan is a little vague.

Not voting may make a political statement if enough people did it, and that would take a lot, but... what then? What's the next step after not voting?

Even if this did delegitimize the current system, instability for its own sake is not a good thing. Instability is only a good thing if you have something to shape it into.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

alextaylor

Democracy isn't a way of getting the best people in power. Democracy is a way to prevent bad people from coming into power. It's perhaps the least efficient method. No point in changing the system because short of outright anarchy, they have little power. The USA goes to great lengths to limit its leaders' powers - maximum terms, civilians with guns, heavily privatized utilities, food, education, health care, nearly even political support between the two parties.
O/O

mj2002

Quote from: Oniya on March 21, 2014, 10:21:05 AM
Except that it doesn't 'end the current system'.  All it does is ensure that the people who are maintaining the current system have more of a voice than you do.  After all, they are still going to vote.
I would argue that it doesnt make a difference anyway. That's kind of the gist of the argument.
Quote from: Finn MacKenna on March 21, 2014, 10:24:50 AM
I would argue that the plan is a little vague.

Not voting may make a political statement if enough people did it, and that would take a lot, but... what then? What's the next step after not voting?

Even if this did delegitimize the current system, instability for its own sake is not a good thing. Instability is only a good thing if you have something to shape it into.
The next step? Either someone steps up and dares to at least try to make major reforms to our political and economical system, this would be the preferred outcome. If not? Revolution.

Kane

Quote from: alextaylor on March 21, 2014, 10:31:55 AM
Democracy isn't a way of getting the best people in power. Democracy is a way to prevent bad people from coming into power. It's perhaps the least efficient method. No point in changing the system because short of outright anarchy, they have little power. The USA goes to great lengths to limit its leaders' powers - maximum terms, civilians with guns, heavily privatized utilities, food, education, health care, nearly even political support between the two parties.

Yes, they limit their leaders powers, and give the power to the corporations. High five.

Ephiral

Question: How small does the winning side have to be before they're no longer legitimate? By my math, slightly more than 30% of eligible voters voted for Obama, and there seem to be precisely zero credible accusations that his presidency is illegitimate.

I would say the more productive answer is not to disengage, but to get more engaged. Start at the local level and work upwards. Don't hae a candidate you like? Make one. Hell, be one. The system can only be reformed from within.

Ten years ago, my party was considered a leftist lunatic fringe, dangerous precisely because they were different in small but extremely meaningful ways. They considered 19 seats out of 308 a significant victory. Now, three elections later, they're the Official Opposition.

Don't throw a tantrum and demand change. Be the change.

Kane

Quote from: Ephiral on March 21, 2014, 10:45:18 AM
Question: How small does the winning side have to be before they're no longer legitimate? By my math, slightly more than 30% of eligible voters voted for Obama, and there seem to be precisely zero credible accusations that his presidency is illegitimate.

I would say the more productive answer is not to disengage, but to get more engaged. Start at the local level and work upwards. Don't hae a candidate you like? Make one. Hell, be one. The system can only be reformed from within.

Ten years ago, my party was considered a leftist lunatic fringe, dangerous precisely because they were different in small but extremely meaningful ways. They considered 19 seats out of 308 a significant victory. Now, three elections later, they're the Official Opposition.

Don't throw a tantrum and demand change. Be the change.

QFT.

As I said, voting can make a difference. We have examples of it making difference. We have no examples of not voting making difference for the better. We have seen it making difference for the worse.

mj2002

Quote from: Kane on March 21, 2014, 11:09:29 AM
QFT.

As I said, voting can make a difference. We have examples of it making difference. We have no examples of not voting making difference for the better. We have seen it making difference for the worse.
I would argue that we do have examples of voting that makes things worse. The current situation being one of them.

Kane

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 11:19:18 AM
I would argue that we do have examples of voting that makes things worse. The current situation being one of them.

Yes, we do, but we also have examples of it making things better.

mj2002

Quote from: Kane on March 21, 2014, 11:24:39 AM
Yes, we do, but we also have examples of it making things better.
When there's a possibility to make things better, Im all for it. But lets not pretend that this is currently the case in countries like the UK and the US.

Kane

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 11:44:46 AM
When there's a possibility to make things better, Im all for it. But lets not pretend that this is currently the case in countries like the UK and the US.

I get the feeling that you have decided that no matter how, who, when or where we vote it'll make no difference. No amount of evidence I could point to would change your mind, so count me out from this debate.

mj2002

Quote from: Kane on March 21, 2014, 11:48:54 AM
I get the feeling that you have decided that no matter how, who, when or where we vote it'll make no difference. No amount of evidence I could point to would change your mind, so count me out from this debate.
You have the wrong feeling then. Actually, I'm on the fence about this approach, I still vote but I wanted to share the sentiment from this video and start a discussion about this. I'm sorry I had not cleared this up.

Ephiral

Quote from: mj2002 on March 21, 2014, 11:44:46 AM
When there's a possibility to make things better, Im all for it. But lets not pretend that this is currently the case in countries like the UK and the US.
What would such a possibility look like? How would it come about?

consortium11

To step away from the intellectual argument and focus on the practical, one should first note that the answer should be very different depending on the voting system in place.

In a pure first-past-the-post system? Yes, it may well seem that your vote is "wasted". After all there are rarely more than two choices with a realistic chance of winning and frequently only one party (so called "safe seats"). One party can get 0.1% more votes in a given seat then their biggest rival and still take it all.

But in a pure proportional representation system? Well, the party you want in power may only get 1% of the votes... but that translates to 1% of the seats. In circumstances like that it rarely makes sense to not vote.

And even in first past the post systems there's still an incentive to vote.

UKIP are essentially a fringe party in the UK, getting just over 3% of the vote in the last election (an increase on the 2.2% they picked up previously, the 1.5% the time before that, the 0.3% before that and the 0.01% the time before that). They over-perform in Europe (17% the last time) but that can easily be explained both by the way European elections are used as a "pressure valve" to complain about major parties and the fact that Europe is UKIP's main political position.

Yet we are seeing more and more debates about Europe and immigration, two of UKIP's most (in)famous policies, and a hardening of attitudes by the other major parties on the issues... and I'd suggest that's largely down to UKIP.

Because while 3% of the vote overall might no mean much and while UKIP may not have targeted seats in the same way the Green's did when they won their seat, it's still going on a million votes. That's about a million people who have demonstrated they're unhappy with the current major parties and want something else. And major parties want to win elections and want to court such voters. Hence UKIP have power, even if indirectly. It sends a message that UKIP offer the sort of policies that a notable number of people want.

Not voting? You don't send a message. You just don't vote. Find a candidate you do like... there's normally at least one in each constituency... and vote for them. They may not win but when the votes get added up, at least a message has been sent.

Moreover, I think the "all the parties are the same" view is a little too cynical. Yes, the major parties may be similar and may well be too similar on certain issues. But on others? In US surely we could all look at examples where a Republican controlled house, senate and presidency would have done things very different to what has happened over the last few years? And in the UK wouldn't Labour have targeted the cuts differently? Reformed schools and the NHS in different ways etc etc?

There are differences. There may be the number of differences someone wants and what difference there are may not be as wide as others would like but those differences are still there.

backlash84

Well, I think people need to research more before voting, there are some individuals who would make great politicians... its just they don't get the funding to advertise their position that people making deals do.

We need a website, something like Reddit where all interested politicians can post their opinions and be asked questions by individuals. A site everyone would know and be able to check out the participants, make it so funding isn't as big an issue.