They're not voting because...
- Not voting does ...
Not voting does make a difference.
Simply voting because 'people died for [my] right' is a painfully glib argument, which shows a tremendous lack of perspective.
Voting for a party, not on merit, but because i have the right cheapens both my vote and the legacy of the people who fought to ensure i had one.
written 7th Apr 2005
Responses
-
Richard replies: The difference that not voting makes, is that people with extreme views are more likely to be elected. The crackpot extremists tend to be very committed to their cause and so certainly turn out to vote. Under normal circumstances the sheer numbers of ordinary moderate people voting will overwhelm them. If there is a low turnout however, those extremists become disproporionately represented.
Thus not voting makes a difference, but it is a difference that is considerably for the worse.
written 7th Apr 2005 -
Dave replies: It may well encourage extremists. Perhaps after that has happened people will take interest and someone or some group who actually represent the people will stand up.
written 7th Apr 2005 -
Hamish replies: Yeah, maybe, or maybe after that has happened a whole lot more people will have to die before we even get the chance to vote with limited choices again.
If everyone behaves like you, nobody will stand up, they'll just sit there complaining. Why not be the representative for whom you want to vote?
On your scale, in which voting is a negative thing, not voting is at best a neutral thing. Why not do the positive thing and spoil your ballot? I bet you can't think of any way in which that cheapens the legacy of people who fought for your right to vote.
written 24th Apr 2005
