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...

60.2% of the population actually voted...

60.2% of the population actually voted this May. Of those who voted 36.2% voted Labour. Yet with our outdated constituency system Labour controls 55% of the seats in parliament (345 of 645) when proportionately only 21.8% of the entire UK public voted for them. I see this as unrepresentative and a mockery of 'democracy'. It would be equally unfair were the Lib Dems or Conservatives to win in this way. We now have the technology and communications available to have a fair and representative parliament, but none of the major parties support this as they would inevitably loose ground and influence. By definition (in which ever dictionary to which you wish to refer) we do NOT live in a democracy.

written 7th May 2005

Responses

dcd replies: Spot on!

written 7th May 2005

Gavin replies: Most other voting system have their own failings. The current system is certainly imperfect, especially as national politics are ultimately far more important the local politics, but still that local factor is important. If we had a PR type system, we would lose our "own" MP. I'm sure it's possible, but it brings its own problems. The technology is theoretically here, but has not yet been properly implemented (the US system is hardly a great success).

written 8th May 2005

Andy P replies: I don't like this system either, but that doesn't make it undemocratic. Democracy just means government 'by the masses'. We have that, because the vast mass of the people gets to choose the government.

Of course, there are many different ways to implement democracy. Here in the UK we have a particular set of rules with its pros and cons.

On the one hand, it tends to produce decisive results, with a single party in overall control, which allows a coherent platform of policies to be enacted. Coalition wrangling and gridlocked parliaments are more or less avoided. It reduces the influence of small, extreme parties, who often end up holding the balance of power in a hung parliament.

On the other hand, the results are not very representative. Small parties with geographically-spread support get no representation. Parties have no incentive to cooperate, so we get the very confrontational brand of politics we see on TV.

The bottom line is: there are many forms of democracy. This is one. Visit the Electoral Reform Society for details of others. If you want a change, work for it.

written 9th May 2005

Rich B replies: Write your response...
You say 60.2% of the population voted. You have ignored individuals that are so disenfranchised they are not registered to vote - I know a good number - myself included. I would hazzard a guess that 39.8% of non participation is considerably lower than the reality.

How anyone can then go on to form a government with such a majority of seats over rivals when essentially well over two thirds of the population haven't given you a legitimate mandate is indefensible.

Whilst we can endlessly argue whether this is a democractic system or not - it seems rather pointless to me. Honest representation is paramount in any system for legitimacy. A party is running the country without the will of the country. Labour isn't alone in this - by all means correct me - but I don't believe a single election since the war has delivered a 'winning' party with over 50% of the (registered) popular vote.

They have had enough time to reform the system, but conveniently lack the will. Non participation is a solution to force them into reform - if turnout levels become embarrassing low to be totally unrepresentative, legitimacy goes out of the window.

But as Andy says, at least it produces a decisive result...

written 10th May 2005

Rich B replies: Write your response...
You say 60.2% of the population voted. You have ignored individuals that are so disenfranchised they are not registered to vote - I know a good number - myself included. I would hazzard a guess that 39.8% of non participation is considerably lower than the reality.

How anyone can then go on to form a government with such a majority of seats over rivals when essentially well over two thirds of the population haven't given you a legitimate mandate is indefensible.

Whilst we can endlessly argue whether this is a democractic system or not - it seems rather pointless to me. Honest representation is paramount in any system for legitimacy. A party is running the country without the will of the country. Labour isn't alone in this - by all means correct me - but I don't believe a single election since the war has delivered a 'winning' party with over 50% of the (registered) popular vote.

They have had enough time to reform the system, but conveniently lack the will. Non participation is a solution to force them into reform - if turnout levels become embarrassing low to be totally unrepresentative, legitimacy goes out of the window.

But as Andy says, at least it produces a decisive result...

written 10th May 2005

Mike replies: Gavin - If we had a PR type system, we would lose our "own" MP.

No we wouldn't, not necessarily.

Look to Scotland. Look to Wales. There they have a form of PR and in both cases you still have the concept of a "local" MP. I'm entitled to go with any of my problems to either my local constituency MSP (a Labour man) or one of my area's "top-up" MSPs (probably the Green woman, who I actually cast a vote for)

Ireland has had PR for their elections using the single transferable vote since their independence, yet every citizen in Ireland can claim to have a local TD (each constituency elects 3-5)

written 11th May 2005

dcd replies: Correction:
"60.2% of the population actually voted this May"

should read:
"60.2% of those eligible, registered and able to vote actually voted this May"

Please, let's not exaggerate, especially with statistics! Remember that many of the population could not vote, or were not allowed to vote -- and that some people outwith the population were allowed to vote from abroad.

written 14th May 2005

james replies: Good point dcd. The kids, the prisoners, the certified insane, the royal family -- a lot of people don't have a "voice" when it comes to voting. Not that it would make any difference if they did -- the orders still come from Washington and the City...

written 16th May 2005

james replies: Good point dcd. The kids, the prisoners, the certified insane, the royal family -- a lot of people don't have a "voice" when it comes to voting. Not that it would make any difference if they did -- the orders still come from Washington and the City...

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