They're not voting because...
- My vote would imply that I approve of...
My vote would imply that I approve of a given party, that I trust them to be honest, rational and fair in the execution of their role and that I endorse all of their policies. There is no such party. No party who's members I trust to tell the truth, to research the issues thoroughly, to act with balanced judgement of all issues - no party who's beliefs coincide entirely with my own. I cannot in all good faith place my support behind people for whom I have no respect.written 8th Apr 2005
Jeffrey replies: Well said!written 8th Apr 2005
Graham replies: Noone has a party whose beliefs coincide entirely with their own, and noone surely trusts their favoured politicians implicitly.written 8th Apr 2005
But surely one of the parties has a general flavour that you find least objectionable?
Anonymous replies: Are you seriously proposing voting on the basis of the "least objectionable" party?
Maybe that's good enough for you, but it sure as hell aint good enough for me.
Would you get married to someone because they were the "least revolting" person available to you at the time?
I'm sure if you were forced to, I'm sure you could be made to choose the least objectionable to you out of the BNP, Communist Party or Nazi Party, but having then arrived at that decision, would you really be happy to support them with your vote?written 8th Apr 2005
David N replies: "Are you seriously proposing voting on the basis of the "least objectionable" party?"
I hate to break it to you but you don't have a choice. You don't get to opt out of the country if you don't like any of the rulers. You see, that is the nature of rulers: they RULE you. Once they get elected, you have to do whatever they say.
You don't get to take it or leave it. You HAVE to take it, and you must do your best to make sure what you take is the least worst.
Would you rather drink urine or eat feces? It doesn't matter if both are horrible. You DO NOT get the chance to say no. You HAVE to choose one or the other.written 8th Apr 2005
SW replies: Those kind of responses from David N makes me think he is some kind of Labour activist intent on persuading people not to waste their vote.
I DON'T have to take it or leave it, and neither do the rest of the electorate. The only reason people believe that is the case is because idiots like you come out with rubbish like that.
If the whole of the electorate (or a sizeable proportion) refused to vote no government would have a mandate from the people. Personally I hope turnout falls below 50%; that way the electorate will really have spoken and told ALL politicians that none of them are worth wasting our time with.written 9th Apr 2005
Chris replies: David N, not everyone is a political whore like you. Some people have principals that they are not prepared to compromise, and if this means putting up with whatever the current incumbent chooses to legislate, then so be it. That is the that price that is paid for not voting. Comments like yours simply make people even more determined that NOT voting is the correct thing to do.
"Those kind of responses from David N makes me think he is some kind of Labour activist intent on persuading people not to waste their vote."
Which is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the site. (See the site's statement of intent on the front page).written 9th Apr 2005
Gavin replies: Surely discussing reasons for not voting is the point of the site? If we all just say "hey, yes, that's a good reason for not voting" in the comments thing, it's a bit of a waste of time. A sensible discussion about the topic is surely far more useful. At some point, idealism does have to meet with reality. While you may not agree with David N's point, it is surely not completely out of place here and I doubt he is an idiot.written 10th Apr 2005