Oddly enough, Dioclese and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are both making much the same argument this week about voting. Although, YAB is egregiously pushing for a Labour vote, because if you don’t vote, you let in the “evil Tories”. Which, of course, is a heinous crime. And people who give politicians and journalists a hard time are nasty people or some such bollocks.
This, then, is the crux of her argument for not voting:
Not voting is a choice, a serious choice. Couch potatoes who can’t be bothered need to realise what that means.
And from Dioclese:
What I’ve always said is that voting should be compulsory with a ‘no suitable candidate’ box. In the absence of NSC, spoil the ballot by writing that across it but at least get off your fat arse and exercise your democratic right to vote. If you don’t vote or write ‘nsc’ then you’ve no right to complain afterwards.
Okay, I know precisely what it means and I am fully entitled to complain vigorously – and will do so – if the government that is elected tramples all over our freedoms (which it will). My decision to withhold my vote does not prevent me from complaining and nor will it. Indeed, it is the not turning up that is the protest here. I am not pissed off merely with the candidates on offer, I am sick of the whole system; a system that effectively hands over our sovereignty to a bunch of charlatans who will make decisions on our behalf, to our detriment. The staying away is the protest. If I spoil my paper, I’ve turned up. I’ve played the game and agreed to the rules. I do not wish to participate in the game. I abhor all of it. It is not laziness that will keep me at home.
If you ask a slave to choose which colour stick he would like to be beaten with for the next five years, don’t be over surprised if he decides this is a game not worth playing. Our votes are meaningless. The government will always get in and taxes will still rise (as will the eye-watering debt), the third sector will still pick our pockets while lobbying for more taxes and fewer freedoms. Voting won’t change this. Voting legitimises the fraud. We do not live in a democracy; we are ruled by an elected oligarchy that merely pretends to listen to us and bribe us with our own money every five years to get another five years in power – thereafter we can go hang.
So, no, I’m not a couch potato. I know exactly what I am doing. And I fully intend to exercise my absolute right to complain afterwards.
OK, so what’s your alternative to the current system, and how do you think your non-participation will lead to that change?
It won’t lead to a change. Neither will participating. So there’s no point in participating. I’d like to see a Swiss system with greater direct democracy.
I understand your position, but I feel that a box marked with ‘none of the above’ on the ballot paper would send the message you want more powerfully. By not voting, your ‘protest’ is merely regarded as apathy, but by going and voting for NOTA, you’re telling them you despise the lot of them!
I agree – nothing will change either way. I’m going to vote though. I know the one I vote for won’t win because I’m not voting for Oily Al.
But it’ll be one more vote he didn’t get.
I agree with all you say.
Not participating is the only answer.
“what would happen if they gave a war and nobody came?” rings true for the election to.
Mark
This is precisely the point. If enough of us boycotted the election, any winners would be obviously illegitimate.
I’m nott voting either. It’s a scam. It doesn’t matter what the alternative is, but this Oaf Contest has to stop.
Trouble is if enough people boycott the election then you end up with a shit MP – although I’ll grant you that you probably get a shit MP anyway!!
My view is that not voting let’s them get away with doing what they like. I still favour compulsory voting with the ‘nsc’ option. I have council elections as well this week and the choices are (a) a Tory career councillor who is absolutely fucking useless or (b) a Labour candidate with no chance in a safe Tory seat. Not much of a choice is it?
But better than the many councils across the UK where there is no election because there’s only one candidate…
I think most of us will agree that the present system is shite even if we disagree on how to fix it.
Perhaps if we moved to a system of online voting or (‘smart’ voting booths) we could be given multiple votes?
Under that system one would have, say, ten votes that could be shared out as one wished. If one candidate was considered deserving then they could get the lot, otherwise the votes would be shared out. If one didn’t want to use up one’s budget then that fact would be recorded too.
I think we should get back to public electoral rolls too. It used to be that main post offices and libraries had them freely available, now they are hidden in data dungeons and one feels that one is only allowed to check one’s own entry and not notice that the house across the road has 24 voters and two bedrooms.
About 30 odd years ago I was a British soldier stationed in West Berlin when it was a divided city – an island where citizens could freely vote for the person they wanted to represent them in the (West) German Parliament completely surrounded by a country where it’s citizens would have dearly loved to vote but were refused that choice by their political system. If you can’t be bothered to vote then that increases the possibility that you will end up where you won’t be allowed to vote or can only vote for one particular candidate (you can see that in the Midlands where the tribal elders of Pakistani origin tell their families who to vote for – just wait and see George Galloway’ s increased majority). Perhaps your vote won’t make a difference but you will have shown someone what you think of their abilities as a politician. You may not have the opportunity in 5 years time.
They don’t give a shit. Really they don’t.
Democracy: pre-supposed that there is, or should be, a common goal for the collective not diverse goals for individuals. It means that an individual no matter how well they inform themselves about candidates and Party policies to decide which will best suit their diverse goals, they will end up with what a majority decides. It is therefore Socialist tyranny by a less offensive name.
The possibility of an individual voter getting what they voted for is approaching zero, so there is no value in expending time and effort voting.
The argument that if you don’t vote you get zero chance of getting what you want falls when the chance of getting what you want is as near to zero as to be zero for practical purposes.
Imagine if buying a car was done democratically, no matter what make, what model, colour, features, price an individual wanted, they would end up with a car and at a price decided by a majority.
Would ‘democracy’ for deciding one’s wife/husband, job, wages, house and other goods, be acceptable? If the answer is no to this, why is it acceptable for choosing who and how your life will be ruled and at what cost?
This.