They're not voting because...
- Democracy? You can keep it.
1) There is no party currently standing where I agree with more of their policies than I disagree with. Therefore if I were to vote, even if the party I voted for was to win, they would, in my name, be doing more things I was against than things I supported.
2) I don't agree that the current system of representational democracy with universal suffrage is a good way of deciding who governs the country. A large number of people voting will fail to understand the majority of what they are voting for, and will simply vote for who their friends, colleagues, parents or newspaper tell them to. Voting should be a privilage earned, after demonstrating a reasonable level of knowledge of politics, history, economics and sociology. You need a licence to drive a car, why not a licence to drive a country?written 18th Apr 2005
sans replies: Universal suffrage backwards? Back to the time when only landed gentry's could vote eh?written 18th Apr 2005
Frodo replies: By limiting those who can vote you will result in an elitist system, whereby the majority (of idiots) will not be represented and therefore be more likely to disobey the governments rule
Secondly who decides, who is qualified to vote? Could we result in a system where the govt chooses those who can vote, therefore returning a govt that is self perpertuating through its control over the franchise.written 18th Apr 2005
Gordon replies: You have to allow people to vote.written 18th Apr 2005
The fact that someone is ill-educated does not mean they don't have the right to vote, it means they need to be educated better!
I am standing as an Independent in Gillingham, Kent, and am struggling against exactly this political ill-education.
My constituency was won with 17,000 votes last time, and over 30,000 didn't bother to vote!
idle replies: Brilliant idea... easy test. Anyone caught buying or reading The Sun should lose the right to vote!
In fact, anyone who thinks the answers are easy should lose the right to vote.
And anyone who thinks their vote wont change anything should lose the right because it's so obvious Aunt Marge's vote won't change my life so why should my vote change hers?written 18th Apr 2005
Vee replies: The problem is not the lack of education of political issues, although that is a hinderance in the political awareness of voters. Many people just do not WANT to know. This is because there is no choice out there for the majority of voters. In the same way that Salisbury's tory government of 1895 did not fully represent the opinions of majority of the people in the UK neither do any of the main political parties. They are aiming all their policies at the same people IE those who are BOUND to go and vote. There are far too many of us people who just will not vote because there appears to be noone ut there who will actually make a difference. If we put ourselves up for election with a party that actually had key principles which were different from the others and did not espouse soundbite after soundbite then people might actually put down their copy of the sun and go vote!written 18th Apr 2005
idle replies: I doubt it.
I think you're bleating. Sorry, but would you ever vote for anything if your vote only counted for 1/10,000,000th of the decision?
Well, your vote counts for 1/40,000 ? in your constituency. And if 'many of us' made it known then the political spectrum would change overnight.
Of course that won't happen, but by making a vote for the party that represents your views (even if it's None of the Above) you WILL be reducing the vote that the govt gets. Which is just about the total power any of us have no matter what system or parties are there,written 19th Apr 2005
Stuart Robinson replies: This is precisly the reson why most Western democracies are not democracies at all. I live in Australia, where voting is compulsorary, and not doing so can result in (an unfortunately pitiful) fine, which while only equivilalent to 20 pounds sterling nonetheless manages to get 98% of the population out to elections every time! I don't recall ever hearing of this degree of public involvement in the UK. While many of the populace in Australia are not exactly what could be described as political geniuses, everyone pays attention because they know that they have to make a chocie, and cannot simply take the easy way out and not vote at all.written 19th Apr 2005
Adam replies: Stuart Robinson makes a very good point about Australia.
Though the idea of a politics orientated "citizenship" test - (it could be very easy) does sound elitist, but in a way it's tempting, particularly you're when faced with the amount of people who will be voting in ignorance (the media is a big problem here).written 19th Apr 2005
Graham replies: Perhaps the best thing to do then is to ban all newspapers and TV during the election, and then our local politicoes would have to come to us, rather than rely on sound bites and media spin to do their job for them!written 19th Apr 2005
Alex Gregory replies: The problem, you rightly state, is that people don't understand half the issues. To me, thats not a reason for taking the people out of the process, its bringing the decisions back down to an understandable level: localise and decentralise the power.written 20th Apr 2005
John replies: Why is that a "very good point about Australia"?
Look at the right-wing, deceitful scum-fuck they keep voting in.written 21st Apr 2005
abaddon replies: I agree totally with point 1.
I understand point 2, but the solution is flawed for the reasons already stated (elitist, abusable etc).
There is another problem with elections in this day and age... the PC nanny state. If you want to ban something, point out it is dangerous or will morally deprive the young. No politician can ever say "oh it's not that bad, let them be". If they did they would be shamed out of the game with calls of "doesn't care for the peoples welfare" or "doesn't care for the children" and more importantly they'd be giving the opposition a band wagon to jump on.
We are a nation gone PC mad and as the PC minority are the strong voting block, the politicians will try their damnedest to woo them at the expense of real freedom for any other non-PC minority (no, I'm not talking BNP, but people who want to ride a motorcyclist without a helmet, teachers who wish to dicipline their students, people who wish to drink with friends without being labled as part of 'the yob culture', people who want to walk down the street without the feeling they're being watched everywhere they go, people who wish to follow an age old tradition like fox hunting).
Note, this is not a PC majority, but a PC minority... and they now run your life.written 22nd Apr 2005
luther blissett replies: Now what Earthly reason would Abaddon the Destroyer have for engaging in mundane UK politics?
;opwritten 22nd Apr 2005
Andy replies: around £20 in Australia if one doesn't vote? Very small price to pay for preserving ones right to think for ones-self.written 22nd Apr 2005
Good idea? I lived in Sydney for a year and believe me John Howard makes president tony look like a decent bloke (and thats REALLY saying something).
Not really a very good example of compulsory voting...
Pete replies: At least in Australia they have a box for "none of the above".written 23rd Apr 2005
Adam replies: It would be a interesting idea for people who believe whole-heartedly in democracy above any individual political party, and who pride themselves on their impartiality, to go from house to house talking to people about their political views and using their knowledge on the subject to advise people on how to vote (or not as the case may be), helping people to find their "inner voter".
They could wear white rosettes and go around the neighbourhood saying "Can we have a chat about the upcoming election?" That way people could be better educated without having to pay constant attention to political debate, and the results of an election would be more informed (for want of a better word!)
Trouble is, where would you find these Voltairian, impartial angels!?written 23rd Apr 2005