They're not voting because...
- Not to vote is a strong protest against...
Not to vote is a strong protest against the whole questionable system.written 8th May 2005
If everyone understood this and did not cast a vote something would have to be done about it !
Congratulations to those who protested for this reason.
mark m replies: I would agree that not voting should be used as a protest. The question how do you get this reflected into a democratic system?written 8th May 2005
Paul replies: How can doing nothing be a protest? Noone is going to take any notice of you if your idea of protest involves no actual effort on your part whatsoever!
A solution to this problem (as in Australia) would be to make voting compulsory, but to include a "None of the Above" catagory. So people can voice their disillusionment properly. (If None of the Above wins, then the parties must all re-submit their manifestos and there is a re-election)written 8th May 2005
Noreen replies: Paul
A 'None of the above box 'seems OK to me. I think a lot of people would use it. You see people standing in their booth trying to decide who to vote for when they don't really want to vote for any of the options available.written 9th May 2005
I've been there myself and if you end up voting for someone and later find through preference votes your vote has ended up just where you didn't want it to go you get very sorry that you voted al all.
Andy P replies: It is obvious that abstaining is not 'a strong protest.' Voter turnout has been declining for decades. As a nation, we are getting close to the point where the majority of voters abstain. This is already the case in some constituencies. Overall, more people don't vote than vote for any single party. If not voting were counted as a vote for 'none of the above', then there would have been very few MPs returned in the General Election.
Has something been done about it?
So how worthwhile a protest was it?written 9th May 2005
Tiger43 replies: To poster.....Your`e quite right. I think that everyone that voted should be punished for doing so. For not seeing the obvious and cataclysmic mistake they had made. If only we were all as brave and strong willed as the original post.written 11th May 2005
dcd replies: It's perfectly easy to understand, really! What's the problem?
Even in terms of Christianity -- "turn the other cheek" (do nothing).
"Doing Nothing" is one of the strongest, most powerful protests possible! Perhaps even THE most powerful.
Resist the knee-jerk reaction, count to ten, don't rise to the bait, just ignore them, don't get involved -- all are commonplace sayings... and for good reason.
Retaliation, retribution, revenge, putting up walls, painting yourself into a corner, being intransigent -- all inflexible, fundamentalist, fanatical, reactionary ways are widely held to be negative, and immoral/wrong.
Just voting on the grounds that you feel you have to, even though none of the candidates and parties offer what you want is not just ridiculous, illogical and nonsensical -- it makes a mockery of democracy (where you are "supposed" to have a voice).
Why give your voice away when you can be silent (and honest, and true)?
It is unlikely that enough people will be so passionately dissatisfied at the same time to bring about a revolution...
If people continue to abuse the system by voting dishonestly, then the ONLY REMAINING OPTION is not to vote.
This has a very good chance of success; it would inherently include the apathetic and forgetful or busy as well as the silent protestor.
When the turn out at an election dwindles to a significant degree, the validity of the system naturally comes into disrepute and representation becomes the issue -- then we can get a better system that does a better job.
People died for us to have a better system... we are doing them a disservice, but (sadly) I see no one willing to die again to continue their work.
I reckon it would be easier to sell a "don't vote" campaign than incite a bloody revolution, don't you?written 14th May 2005