why are you not voting today?

[gamma globulins]

Its one thing to be held down and force fed, it's another to sit at the table and order from the menu. By voting you are endorsing the restaurant.

and votes or not, the dishes are rancid because they don't care about us, they serve a different master.

Then get off your arse and cook something yourself next time.

What will they fear about us? If the public can't be bothered to vote for someone else there's no way they're going to rise up in revolution. Your not voting may be a well thought out political statement, but it's still read as apathy by westminster.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Not voting erodes the mandate to govern. Since none of the fuckers deserves to govern, I shall not be endorsing a mandate for them.


The right to vote is very precious, lives were lost in gaining it. However people should remember with the right to vote also comes the right not to vote.

 

[_angel_]

My what a little crosspatch.

I firmly believe that the right to vote is precious. You don't have to agree with that but you don't have to be so fucking patronising either.

I think banging on about "as a woman" is patronising because you seem to think it is somehow more important to vote, even if you don't agree with what's on offer.

Why on earth voting for someone you don't want means it's ok to whinge about what you voted for, and someone who didn't endorse that can't say anything is truly non sensical.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I live in a safe tory constituency so my vote would just get chucked in the bin anyway so I'm going to take my daughter to the polling station and let her have my vote. She's taking a keen interest in politics as a result. I won't be telling her who to vote for.

OtherwiseI would definately vote myself as I always do, I actually enjoy the whole ritual of it. If none of the candidates exactly reflect my views then I'd vote for whichever one came closest. They're bothering to stand and I'm not.

 

[_angel_]

Then get off your arse and cook something yourself next time.

What will they fear about us? If the public can't be bothered to vote for someone else there's no way they're going to rise up in revolution. Your not voting may be a well thought out political statement, but it's still read as apathy by westminster.

Oh God this is where a load of right wingers tell us to stand as MPs isn't it.

 

[pengaleng]

Oh dear... dont presume you know me or my knowledge of politics.

pathetic response...

lol idiot.

 

[danny la rouge]

Then get off your arse and cook something yourself next time.

Well, exactly. That's what I am doing, and what I hope to encourage more and more people to do: cook your own meals in your own communities. Stay out of the restaurants. (To stretch the analogy).

 

[_angel_]

The idea that voting in a rightwing election = taking an interest in politics and not voting = apathy also makes me but ffs especially when I've spent quite a long time thinking about this.

 

[dylans]

Then get off your arse and cook something yourself next time.

What will they fear about us? If the public can't be bothered to vote for someone else there's no way they're going to rise up in revolution. Your not voting may be a well thought out political statement, but it's still read as apathy by westminster.

It's not you know. In the states for example where less than 50% turnout is common it's not read as apathy. It's read as widespread disenchantment with a system that offers people nothing. After the MPs expenses scandal and Iraq etc it is generally accepted that the public's view of MPs is very low. An extraordinary low turnout would be seen as an example of people's disgust at Westminster, especially if it was significantly lower than previous elections.

 

[stethoscope]

Where I live it's unlikely that anybody other than Lab will be returned. I guess I would have gone out and registered a tactical vote if I'd have lived in a marginal where the Tories were likely get in.

Tbh, going out to vote and then spoiling for me just suggests that you still have some sort of belief in the current electoral and political system in place, which I don't. If they had a 'none of the above' option it would persuade me, so it was counted as a protest rather than simply 'spoilt paper'.

 

[_angel_]

I would vote 'none of the above' if that was given as an option. Yep. Why don't they do that -- cos it'd show more people actually actively disagreed with the choices on offer, rather than being brushed under the carpet as a "spoiled vote". Good point stephj.

 

[gamma globulins]

None of the above is definitely an improvement, but at best you'd get a bit of waffle about promising to do better and "put people's faith back in politics" bollocks from the next government.

Voter disenchantment is meta-political. The people who are in power have no interest in motivating those who didn't vote to vote, as they didn't vote for them.

 

[_angel_]

None of the above is definitely an improvement, but at best you'd get a bit of waffle about promising to do better and "put people's faith back in politics" bollocks from the next government.

Voter disenchantment is meta-political. The people who are in power have no interest in motivating those who didn't vote to vote, as they didn't vote for them.

If "none of the above" got more votes than all the other votes put together, never mind the "winner".. could the "winner" really be called as such??

 

[danny la rouge]

Voter disenchantment is meta-political.

No it isn't: it's very political. What it isn't is party political. And that's a good thing.

Politics does not equal party politics. And the more that message gets across, the better. The Overlords would love us to think politics is only party politics.

 

[cesare]

None of the above is definitely an improvement, but at best you'd get a bit of waffle about promising to do better and "put people's faith back in politics" bollocks from the next government.

Voter disenchantment is meta-political. The people who are in power have no interest in motivating those who didn't vote to vote, as they didn't vote for them.

Those in power need a mandate to govern. Much research is done on the reasons for lower voter turnout. If it's due to contentment, yes, they're not as bothered by the implications. If it's due to disenchantment - there's more cause for concern.

 

[JWH]

Where's the evidence that "they" are concerned?

Voter disenchantment is meta-political.

What do you mean by "meta-political"?

 

[danny la rouge]

What do you mean by "meta-political"?

Outside or other than politics. Which is wrong.

 

[gamma globulins]

Sorry, outside of party politics. Been up writing my thesis all night and spouting semibollocks has sort of become a temporary lifestyle choice.

Do we currently have a political mechanism to alter the disenchantment you're currently experiencing? How would you like to see the system change, and who will advocate your views within our political system? As far as I can tell from my knowledge of our political/legal system, if it's not the MPs it's either the courts or the queen?

 

[JWH]

Sorry, outside of party politics. Been up writing my thesis all night and spouting semibollocks has sort of become a temporary lifestyle choice.

Do we currently have a political mechanism to alter the disenchantment you're currently experiencing? How would you like to see the system change, and who will advocate your views within our political system? As far as I can tell from my knowledge of our political/legal system, if it's not the MPs it's either the courts or the queen?

Ohhhh, outside party politics, we're saying now?

"Within"? "Our"? Oh, my.

Outside or other than politics. Which is wrong.

I would have thought the use of meta as "about" or "within" would be more appropriate i.e. politics about politics or politics within politics. But then that would undermine her argument.

So really we have a choice between a claim which is false and a claim which is really a counterargument. Hmm...

 

[gamma globulins]

Well, outside or overarchingly related to; but not limited to the party political system, or any particular party. Unless one appears who does reengage the electorate anyway.

 

[stethoscope]

None of the above is definitely an improvement, but at best you'd get a bit of waffle about promising to do better and "put people's faith back in politics" bollocks from the next government.

They've been doing that anyway with low voter turnout for years - but instead of them using the get-out of 'we've failed to communicate our message to the electorate', it might actually display to the political class that people do get the message and don't like it?

 

[danny la rouge]

I would have thought the use of meta as "about" or "within" would be more appropriate i.e. politics about politics or politics within politics.

That's a fair point. Meta-analysis. etc. However, I knew what s/he meant and moved on.

 

[JWH]

Well, outside or [not?] overarchingly related to; but not limited to the party political system, or any particular party. Unless one appears who does reengage the electorate anyway.

Eh? How can voter disenchantment with existing parties/existing system be outside or not overarchingly related to the party political system or particular parties? It is defined by the existing system and the parties within it.

(I'm assuming you missed out a "not" there - otherwise it makes bugger all sense).

 

[The Groke]

Because I no longer live in the country.

Even if I was still in Blighty, I am pretty sure utter apathy would still win.

 

[gamma globulins]

I didn't miss a "not". What I'm trying to say is what motivation do the major political parties have of encouraging non voters to vote, when they (probably) won't vote for them. For example, if voter turnout either remains stable or drops each year, then the parties which are able to get a large chunk of the popular vote aren't certain that encouraging traditional non-voters to do so won't cause their chunk of the vote to drop.

Again, let's say the mandate drops to 10%. What do you expect to happen then?

 

[cesare]

I didn't miss a "not". What I'm trying to say is what motivation do the major political parties have of encouraging non voters to vote, when they (probably) won't vote for them. For example, if voter turnout either remains stable or drops each year, then the parties which are able to get a large chunk of the popular vote aren't certain that encouraging traditional non-voters to do so won't cause their chunk of the vote to drop.

Again, let's say the mandate drops to 10%. What do you expect to happen then?

What kabbes said earlier.

 

[Lo Siento.]

In a foreign country, and the effort of getting a ballot isn't worth it to make a token vote in a safe Tory seat.

 

[gamma globulins]

....The point is that the lower the mandate gets, the more nervous the politicians would get. They certainly don't like turnout being less than 50%, which it often is. And the lower it goes -- as it passes 40%, 30%, 20% etc -- the more worried they would be.

Aside from the constitutional and philosophical implications of a low mandate, politicians also care about it for a more practical matter -- gearing. If only 33% of voters turn out and one candidate wins with 36% of the vote, beating the other guy on 30%, that means that only 12% of voters actually voted for them compared with 10% for the other guy. It would only take 2% of voters to make up the 6% gap.

Even if they won with 50% compared with a second place of 30% -- a 20% majority -- it would only take 7% of voters to swing it.

In short, low turnout makes for shaky majorities, even in apparently safe seats.

What kabbes said earlier.

A quote would have been nice as I thought there was more of substance that I missed. I don't view "getting worried" as an event. What do you expect to happen as a result of their worrying?

 

[nicksonic]

Aside from the constitutional and philosophical implications of a low mandate, politicians also care about it for a more practical matter -- gearing. If only 33% of voters turn out and one candidate wins with 36% of the vote, beating the other guy on 30%, that means that only 12% of voters actually voted for them compared with 10% for the other guy. It would only take 2% of voters to make up the 6% gap.

Even if they won with 50% compared with a second place of 30% -- a 20% majority -- it would only take 7% of voters to swing it.

In short, low turnout makes for shaky majorities, even in apparently safe seats.

have to agree with kabbes on this one.

it's the same principle as what the leaders have been saying about being 'responsible' and working together if there's a hung parliament, i.e. the size and shape of the mandate matters.

 

[cesare]

A quote would have been nice as I thought there was more of substance that I missed. I don't view "getting worried" as an event. What do you expect to happen as a result of their worrying?

You think that they'd be entirely unconcerned about "shaky majorities"?

It's entirely a matter for you whether you think that low voter turnout isn't an issue for the major parties. I disagree. I think that they prefer to govern with as strong a mandate as possible. I think that the declining trend in voter turnout has resulted in increased efforts to find out why + more effort put into feedback e.g. theyworkforyou, availability of MP's email addresses, better dissemination of information, research into the phenomena and recording/analysing it via ONS (amongst others) and ... I really, really, don't think that they like the prospect of shaky majorities if the reason is primarily disenchantment.