NotApathetic is closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse. Find out more...

Not Apathetic

Tell the world why you're not voting - don't let your silence go unheard

They're not voting because...

Because I don't want the right to complain...

Because I don't want the right to complain. My old mum says that if you don't vote you can't complain. So I won't, what's the point: the policies of the two major parties are so similar it makes no difference who gets in; the lib dems have a polarity responder policy "whatever they say, we say the opposite"; politicians are short termist, self-effacing narcissisists. I can't make a difference, so why bother to try.

written 4th May 2005

Responses

cali dem replies: Please, please reconsider. The notion that there is no difference between parties is the most dangerous of all to democracy and world peace.

George Bush stole the 2000 election in the US because a number of people were dissuaded from voting because they accepted Ralph Nader's assertion that there was no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Now, both the US & the UK are entrenched in an awful war in Iraq.

There's a difference & your vote counts. Please vote!

written 4th May 2005

rhia replies: "Please, please reconsider. The notion that there is no difference between parties is the most dangerous of all to democracy and world peace."

I fear that it is then down to you to realise that the original poster is far closer to the mark that you'd like to realise.

It's true, and politicians even admit it - the world really is becoming a dangerous place.

The UK isn't left out of that fact.

written 4th May 2005

cali dem replies: "It's true, and politicians even admit it - the world really is becoming a dangerous place."

Turning your back on participating in democracy by casting a vote when you still can is not helping to make the world any safer.

There are differences. If an illegal and immoral war isn't convincing than I don't know what would be...

written 4th May 2005

cali dem replies: "It's true, and politicians even admit it - the world really is becoming a dangerous place."

Turning your back on participating in democracy by casting a vote when you still can is not helping to make the world any safer.

There are differences. If an illegal and immoral war isn't convincing than I don't know what would be...

written 4th May 2005

Caesar replies: I am becoming quite unpopular here for being such a pro-vote guy, but it is really important and you are important enough for me to explain to you why you should make the trip.

1) Voting ensures that governments are accountable and work for the people, not their own agenda.

2) The more people that vote, the less chance there is of an extremist party getting in.

3) If all the people who didn't normally vote (40%) went out and voted tomorrow, they could decide precisely who won.

written 4th May 2005

john replies: Hi "Caesar"

You MIGHT be interested in THIS document. I found it fascinating.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf

For a start, it shows that UK TURNOUT in elections since 1945 was at its highest in the 1950's (80%) but to be honest with you I CANNOT see a trend in TURNOUT apart from the fact that the 2001 election with a 59.4% turnout was the lowest in the document.

Is Blair REALLY more extreme than Maggie T ? I don't think so.

Certainly no-one has overturned porsches in Trafalgar square (YET !!) over HIS policies, and that's EXACTLY what they did over hers (or don't you remember the Poll Tax Riots).

written 5th May 2005

Janet replies: So,let me get this right. You insist I should vote even if none of the political parties on offer remotely come close to aligning with my conscience?

Perhaps I should just pick a colour and get a blue, red, or yellow traitor that will continue to hand over any small amount of remaining power to an unelected, unaccountable fascist(by Mussolini's definition) state - the EU. (Try reading 'England our England' by Vernon Coleman)

Or perhaps I should choose the pink one (is that UKIP's colour?), When I find everything else they propose to be completely abhorent.

Should I vote for the continued and dramatically escalating devestation of our planet, because no party offers an alternative to the ridiculous paradigm of growth economics. A tenet they all persue like a bunch of heroin addicts, and subordinate everything else to. Even the 'Greens' have swung over to the idea of 'sustainable growth'- an oxymoron. If you have not understood the reasons why we cannot continue growing all our economies at a rapidly escalating pace in a world of finite resources and limited capacity for pollution then I urge you to read Ted Trainer 'Towards a sustainable economy' - you will be astonished that you did not think of it before, and even more astonished that those entrusted to 'lead' (dictate to) us, have not thought of it either. Please also read 'The last hours of ancient sunlight' by Thom Hartmann, and find out how we have almost used up sunlight energy reserves from our planet, that took millions of years to condense in the carboniferous period, in the blink of an eye relatively speaking. Being a vegetarian and cycling to the bottle bank every now and then just isn't going to change very much. Nobody is taking this seriously, remotely seriously. We can all save our planet when capitalism of some flavour, ie state or individual, has made enough money to save it -what utter nonsense. And you want me to vote for one of these imbeciles?

Sometimes a process of negation is the only way we can hone truth.

When one votes it is taken by the candidate that you voted for, that you voted FOR them, and what they stand for.
Why should I vote for someone whose belligerent ignorance of the above puts their closed-minded, short-sighted ideals light years away from anything that is likely to preserve human existence, let alone free human existence for anything much beyond our children's generation. This is no exaggeration when you begin to look into the matter. Am I expected to ordain this ignorance?

Do I have any alternatives to the current completely unsustainable system of certain doom? Probably the next question? Yes, plenty, as I'm sure many others reading this do to. Perhaps we should start another forum for that purpose? Love J x

Ps. In anticipation of another criticism, yes I am politically active and regularly challenging both politicians and media to come to their senses, at the same time as making it clear that I cannot possibly vote for them without a radical change in their outlook.

written 8th May 2005

Ad replies: Funny isn't it how threads, draw out, interweave and get tangled. I made the original post and I never expected things to get quite so , well.. political. As promised I didn't vote, and I won't complain (I don't have the right) but it is nice to see that there are others who share my view of the indistingishableness (sic?) of the parties.

My problem is that I want to vote for an ideology, and there aren't any. Every party is just saying what ever it needs to say in order to come to power. Each party has a deep ideological history, but in recent years they have re-invented themselves so many times that they are converging asymptotically towards an aristotealian (meaningless) golden mean.

Couple this with the short termist nature of the electorate, which I feel very disappointed about, and we have a series of mediocre 4 year terms with little direction, no ideology, and only one purpose - to get re-elected.

Rather than voting for a 10 rise in pensions or for a local candidate who will stop the local bypass, would it be wrong to choose a party with a strong globally focussed direction and a sound and strong ideological basis. But then tax cuts win votes, saving the world unfortunately doesn't , and will rarely feature at the front of any manifesto. In 100 years we may all die in the next ice age, but who cares, we will have had 100 years of tax cuts and low interest rates.

At least the likes of Lenin, Mussolini, (even hitler), Thatcher, Ghandi, Themistocles, Mao, had an ideology, and stuck to it. Blennedy, Koward and Hair just seem to merge into one for me.

written 9th May 2005

dcd replies: Yes, Ad, it would be wrong to vote for a party on the basis of the manifesto promises and electioneering. Even if you did manage to find a party manifesto with which you agreed wholeheartedly. here's why...

A party puts together a manifesto of pledges and promises supposedly based upon ideology, such as capitalism, socialism, communism and so forth (except in the case of the Liberal Democrats, of course, who are the only party who compile their manifesto from democratic votes of party members).

It is not compulsory, merely customary, for the monarch to ask the leader of the party with the majority of seats won, to lead the government and form a "cabinet", similarly, it is customary for the runner up to be asked to lead and represent all the other parties in the commons as "the opposition".

However, there is the unelected upper house -- of Lords and bishops to factor into the equation... they can scupper whatever was pledged in the manifesto.

Then there is the Civil Service -- the unelected "Whitehall Mandarins" and so forth (Remember "Yes, Minister" and "Sir Humphrey"?). These, together with the unelected diplomatic, military and intelligence personnel, have a massive effect on the effect of the manifesto pledges.

On top of all that, there is the "Privy Council" -- those Hons. and Rt.Hons who act as personal advisors to the monarch, and who excercise massive influence on policy and law.

Then we have the cross-party committees, inquiries, QANGOs and lobbyists along with petitions and protest groups -- amplified by the media -- that can change priorities, law and policy... look at the "Poll Tax" or Jamie Oliver's School Dinners.

Hey... when you think about it, the vote cast by the public, plays a very minor role in the context of this "bigger picture"

written 9th May 2005

jk5 replies: If you vote you have already HAD your say!

Only those who do NOT vote should be entitled to voice further opinion since they have not surrendered their opinion in a vote.

www.jk5.net

written 17th May 2005

About Not Apathetic

NotApathetic was built so that people who are planning not to vote in the UK General Election on May 5th can tell the world why. We won't try to persuade you that voting is a good or a bad idea - we're just here to record and share your explanations. Whether ideological, practical or other, any reason will do.

A lot of users would like us to mention that if you spoil your ballot paper, it will be counted. So if you want to record a vote for "none of the above", you can.

Search