Your vote for the 2015 General Election

[Lo Siento.]

I'm not asking for a blueprint, just hoping someone can direct me to some serious thought on the subject.

I could probably direct you towards to hundreds of different anarchists, libertarians, autonomists and left communists who've written at length about what they would mean by a democratic society, ranging from the most hippyish dross to the most rigid idea of anarchy imaginable. All of them probably of less use than looking at all the different ways people have organised themselves democratically in their day-to-day (both in struggle and for fun), or looking at the brief moments in human history when more democratic ways of organising society have managed to carve out a space before getting crushed.

 

[Lo Siento.]

It's a long time since I read Capital and the world's moved on.

relevance?

 

[prunus]

I'll be voting for nobody. I'd rather cut off my balls and bathe them in vinegar than spend time giving parliamentary democracy my mandate.

But by not voting you're giving them other people's choice of mandate. Is that really better?

If there was a realistic 'none of the above' option then I, along with I suspect a lot of other people, would be choosing it, but your option is an 'I'm happy for other people to choose' vote, whatever you might intend.

 

[Lo Siento.]

But by not voting you're giving them other people's choice of mandate. Is that really better?

If there was a realistic 'none of the above' option then I, along with I suspect a lot of other people, would be choosing it, but your option is an 'I'm happy for other people to choose' vote, whatever you might intend.

I think you'll find it's the other way around.

 

[prunus]

I think you'll find it's the other way around.

I don't understand?

 

[bluescreen]

I could probably direct you towards to hundreds of different anarchists, libertarians, autonomists and left communists who've written at length about what they would mean by a democratic society, ranging from the most hippyish dross to the most rigid idea of anarchy imaginable. All of them probably of less use than looking at all the different ways people have organised themselves democratically in their day-to-day (both in struggle and for fun), or looking at the brief moments in human history when more democratic ways of organising society have managed to carve out a space before getting crushed.

I'm sure you could. I've seen loads of idealistic and unworkable theories. I am sure there are many more. Perhaps you could share your workable theory or at least the theory of someone you rate as worth taking seriously.

 

[bluescreen]

Sorry, that sounds weary and sarcastic but it's not meant that way.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I don't understand?

I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread but...
Voting = I accept that this is how we choose governments. Therefore everybody else's choice of mandate is exactly what you're accepting.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I'm sure you could. I've seen loads of idealistic and unworkable theories. I am sure there are many more. Perhaps you could share your workable theory or at least the theory of someone you rate as worth taking seriously.

Any picture of a theoretical future society is inevitably going to be utopian, is it not? Ideas are useful if they help you understand, engage with and change the society in which we live in now.

 

[SpackleFrog]

srsly? are you a prospective GE candidate?

Local election. Why so surprised?

 

[bluescreen]

Any picture of a theoretical future society is inevitably going to be utopian, is it not? Ideas are useful if they help you understand, engage with and change the society in which we live in now.

I don't know about you but I'm guessing most people want to live in a society where they are safe from marauders wanting their houses or crops, or even their bicycles, where their health needs can be met and their children educated, where they are respected rather than randomly imprisoned, and so on. I do understand that there will be transitional difficulties (understatement) before we reach this utopia but it would be good to know what I'm signing up to if I'm rejecting parliamentary democracy, and how soon.

 

[SpackleFrog]

At each election the same stuff is said and then there's the count and all the collective millions of non votes make no difference whatsoever. And then everyone talks about something else till the next time.

Do you think everyone will just talk about something else till the next time this time?

 

[prunus]

I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread but...
Voting = I accept that this is how we choose governments. Therefore everybody else's choice of mandate is exactly what you're accepting.

Yes, I see your point. But is not voting any useful way of saying the opposite? Perhaps we need a movement to support the idea of say drawing a spunking cock on the ballot paper means 'we reject this system'. Get the media behind it (and they'll love it) and the authorities won't be able to hide the number in the 'spoilt' ballots. This would have to trigger a proper debate about reforming the wretched system we have.

We might have to choose sonething a little family-friendlier than a spunking cock.

 

[bluescreen]

Yes, I see your point. But is not voting any useful way of saying the opposite? Perhaps we need a movement to support the idea of say drawing a spunking cock on the ballot paper means 'we reject this system'. Get the media behind it (and they'll love it) and the authorities won't be able to hide the number in the 'spoilt' ballots. This would have to trigger a proper debate about reforming the wretched system we have.

We might have to choose sonething a little family-friendly than a spunking cock.

This is my failure of imagination: what exactly are we asking for if we reject the "wretched system"? And will we get what we're asking for?

 

[newbie]

Local election. Why so surprised?

er dunno really if you've been discussing it I obviously missed it. What party?

 

[newbie]

Do you think everyone will just talk about something else till the next time this time?

yes. threads on whether or not to vote won't feature much, here or anywhere else, until the runup to another election and then they'll come round again.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I don't know about you but I'm guessing most people want to live in a society where they are safe from marauders wanting their houses or crops, or even their bicycles, where their health needs can be met and their children educated, where they are respected rather than randomly imprisoned, and so on. I do understand that there will be transitional difficulties (understatement) before we reach this utopia but it would be good to know what I'm signing up to if I'm rejecting parliamentary democracy, and how soon.

I don't recall asking you to sign up for anything. We do all want to live in a society in which all of the above is true. Sadly, both domestically and globally, such is not the case for vast numbers of people. Where it is true, it's usually either as a response to the kind of collective democratic self-organisation and direct action anarchists see as key to social change or related to wider economic and political forces. Voting is a symptom of those processes not an agent in them.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Yes, I see your point. But is not voting any useful way of saying the opposite? Perhaps we need a movement to support the idea of say drawing a spunking cock on the ballot paper means 'we reject this system'. Get the media behind it (and they'll love it) and the authorities won't be able to hide the number in the 'spoilt' ballots. This would have to trigger a proper debate about reforming the wretched system we have.

We might have to choose sonething a little family-friendlier than a spunking cock.

Not voting is as useless as voting. It's what you do with the other 1,825 days between elections that really counts.

 

[bluescreen]

Not voting is as useless as voting. It's what you do with the other 1,825 days between elections that really counts.

Fire me the clue gun here, then, what do you reckon people should be doing between elections? How can individuals be effective?
And no, I didn't say you were asking me to sign up to anything, but the urge not to vote, or to spoil one's vote is quite frequent on this thread. There is certainly a cultural fetish that holds the vote sacred as if it's all that matters, when a lot of other civic participation matters too. But to critique that doesn't render the vote valueless, does it?

 

[Grandma Death]

greens

 

[Lo Siento.]

Fire me the clue gun here, then, what do you reckon people should be doing between elections? How can individuals be effective?
And no, I didn't say you were asking me to sign up to anything, but the urge not to vote, or to spoil one's vote is quite frequent on this thread. There is certainly a cultural fetish that holds the vote sacred as if it's all that matters, when a lot of other civic participation matters too. But to critique that doesn't render the vote valueless, does it?

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain here. All I'm saying is that what you characterise as "civil participation" is the thing that actually effects change in society, not the voting. Voting for governments is about generating consent and legitimacy for the governers, it's got very little to do with actually choosing how we end up getting governed.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Racism and homophobia are inherent to social living, they're "facts of life" exacerbated by our economic system, not an attribute of any particular political direction. In fact "the left" have historically been as loaded with such "-isms" as the right.

Your point about "the left" is meaningless, unless you quantify what you mean by "the left", and by "popular support". I'm presuming you mean for a single putatively "left-representing" party, in which case more than 5 million people already do so. I suspect that what you mean is the "hard left", and of course they won't get 5 million behind them, even those who go in for participatory democracy. All they've ever been good for is as a source of ideas that can be appropriated and re-worked by the more centrist left, just as the same thing happens, in mirror image, on the right.

Xenophobia and social attitudes such as racism and homophobia etc are the building bricks of a right wing political party like UKIP and it is those which drive and unite them and their supporters. I doubt you would find much consensus on something like financial policy among a cross section of UKIP supporters. So far as they’re concerned... ‘It’s the immigrants, stupid’.

As for the ‘left’, in this context I mean to the left of the current Labour Party. I was responding to the point that the only alternatives to the two party system are UKIP and the Lib Dems. My point being that although a party to the right of the tories have managed to unite up to five million supporters, it would be impossible for a party to the left of Labour to get anywhere near that kind of popular support. In fact I think you probably agree.

 

[bluescreen]

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain here. All I'm saying is that what you characterise as "civil participation" is the thing that actually effects change in society, not the voting. Voting for governments is about generating consent and legitimacy for the governers, it's got very little to do with actually choosing how we end up getting governed.

I reckon that voting for a government is a thing and a serious thing that people have fought for. I reckon that it's not enough for a citizen to imagine their duty is done simply by casting their vote and that many mischiefs are caused by the general assumption that the once-in-a-while hard earned vote is enough. It's isn't enough but IMO it's not nothing either, and whatever sort of democracy you're arguing for you're not doing it service to say it's valueless. I'm asking those who think it's valueless what they want to see in its place.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I reckon that voting for a government is a thing and a serious thing that people have fought for. I reckon that it's not enough for a citizen to imagine their duty is done simply by casting their vote and that many mischiefs are caused by the general assumption that the once-in-a-while hard earned vote is enough. It's isn't enough but IMO it's not nothing either, and whatever sort of democracy you're arguing for you're not doing it service to say it's valueless. I'm asking those who think it's valueless what they want to see in its place.

People have fought and died for a great many things that are worthless (not least nationalism, by far the most popular reason for fighting and dying). And, like I said above, to ask me what "Lo Siento's utopia" would be (and that's all it would be) isn't a very relevant question. What's relevant is understanding how our society works now, why it works like that, how it hurts people and how we might go about changing that. If you're convinced that the answer is that "it works like that partly because of the people we elect to parliament and we can change it by electing different ones" then I suggest you continue voting. If you don't think that's the case I don't think you need to hear my views on "Lo Siento's extremely unlikely future society" before deciding that electoral participation is a waste even of the 20 minutes it'll take you to cast your ballot.

 

[bluescreen]

People have fought and died for a great many things that are worthless (not least nationalism, by far the most popular reason for fighting and dying). And, like I said above, to ask me what "Lo Siento's utopia" would be (and that's all it would be) isn't a very relevant question. What's relevant is understanding how our society works now, why it works like that, how it hurts people and how we might go about changing that. If you're convinced that the answer is that "it works like that partly because of the people we elect to parliament and we can change it by electing different ones" then I suggest you continue voting. If you don't think that's the case I don't think you need to hear my views on "Lo Siento's extremely unlikely future society" before deciding that electoral participation is a waste even of the 20 minutes it'll take you to cast your ballot.

You collapse it into a false binary. Isn't it possible to think it's worth voting in a flawed system, because you and your fellow citizens will have to live with the consequences? Or are you planning an armed rebellion any time soon? Seriously, in the real world we can change things by violence or we can change things by dialogue.

 

[bluescreen]

Violence hasn't been working out so well lately.

 

[Lo Siento.]

You collapse it into a false binary. Isn't it possible to think it's worth voting in a flawed system, because you and your fellow citizens will have to live with the consequences? Or are you planning an armed rebellion any time soon? Seriously, in the real world we can change things by violence or we can change things by dialogue.

I said "it works like that partly because of the people we elect to parliament and we can change it by electing different ones". Surely if you think it's worth voting in a flawed system then you would have to agree that the functioning of our society is at least partly determined by the politicians we choose?

The difference is that I'd say there are no meaningful consequences that stem from choosing one government or another.

Immediate armed rebellion or voting strikes me as a considerably worse "false binary" than the one you're accusing me of.

 

[bluescreen]

Immediate armed rebellion or voting strikes me as a considerably worse "false binary" than the one you're accusing me of.

Well, that's a relief. But seriously, however awful you may think Labour are, the alternative would be worse. So isn't it worth shifting yourself down to the polling station to help make things ever so slightly less worse even at the expense of your immaculate soul? And if you live in a constituency where your vote won't make a blind bit of difference, why not vote for the candidate who most nearly articulates your concerns? If everyone did that we'd have a slightly clearer view, perhaps.

We've been sold the story that you've won the vote now, plebs, everyone can go home. Nah, not the last bit. And I think if we allow elections to be simply the parade ground of party faithfuls we are yielding cheap ammunition to people who won't hesitate to use it against us. Can't you just hear Auntie Beeb pontificating: "Didn't vote = didn't care."

 

[Lo Siento.]

Well, that's a relief. But seriously, however awful you may think Labour are, the alternative would be worse. So isn't it worth shifting yourself down to the polling station to help make things ever so slightly less worse even at the expense of your immaculate soul? And if you live in a constituency where your vote won't make a blind bit of difference, why not vote for the candidate who most nearly articulates your concerns? If everyone did that we'd have a slightly clearer view, perhaps.

The political direction of the next government does not depend on who actually wins the election. The better/worse distinction is irrelevant. They both make their manifestos based on a public discourse bounded by the press/tv, they both enact policies based on economic circumstances they inherit and which continue to be shaped by the logic of an economic system they do not meaningfully control, and the detail in their policies is supplied by a permanent state bureaucracy which again they don't control. Ed Miliband could be Che Guevara with a mask on and him winning the next election wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

We've been sold the story that you've won the vote now, plebs, everyone can go home. Nah, not the last bit. And I think if we allow elections to be simply the parade ground of party faithfuls we are yielding cheap ammunition to people who won't hesitate to use it against us. Can't you just hear Auntie Beeb pontificating: "Didn't vote = didn't care."

Is that the story we've been sold? All sorts of official institutions - from ministries of state to national newspapers to the CBI to local councils to charities to trade unions - never tire of telling us just how important it is to vote and how voting is our voice. There's certainly never been a conspiracy to devalue voting as political expression on the part of the ruling class. What we've been sold is that all other forms of political activity are essentially illegitimate, at best permitted within strict bounds determined by the legitimate government.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I'd bold the bit that goes millions of others are voting to keep the tories out and to me that matters much, much more.

I thought I'd emphasise the bits where you say your basis for this meandering rant is purely connected to your own self esteem and self indulgence. So you could see you'd written it.

Not that it matters now as the thread has descended into "how can we possibly change the world" malarky.