h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is not a question about the current election so I should be within the guidelines by asking it here

In discussions where one person says that another has no right to complain about the government if they didn't vote, do people often fail to make the distinction between complaining about the government and holding a political opinion? I've a feeling that a lot of arguments take place because that distinction is not made.

Yes, I know that people died so that we can vote, but they also died so that we could choose whether or not to (and in my case I don't have a vote as a resident alien of a foreign country). I'd rather not get into a discussion about whether or not you should vote... but I suspect I'm asking the impossible there

If you choose not to vote (or can't vote) you shouldn't gripe about any policies the government enacts, but that shouldn't preclude you from having an opinion about the government. To say that you should clam up is to effectively ban freedom of speech, and perhaps, it could be argued, freedom of thought and opinion. I'm pretty damn sure that most people around here would be against that.

First lets deal with the 'can't vote' option. In this case it's just tough luck. The powers that be have decided that you, for what ever reason, don't have the right to vote (*).

As for those who chose not to vote. Well of course they are entitled to an opinion on the government that they didn't vote for. And equally everyone has the right to answer any of their complaints with the lines, "Yes, but you chose to do nothing about it when you were given the chance. So why should I value what you have to say."




(*)In your specific case, Gosho. I believe that you do have the right to vote in British elections, as you've been living abroad for less than 20 years. At least I think that that is the case.

Sorry, I was lying. It's 15 years - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/your-vote/yourvotefaqs.cfm/faqs/94

Well, that seems like a perfect example of one of two things:

Either stating the obvious (or something that should be taken as read, although in a debate should anything be taken as read?), or precisely what I was hinting at in the first post.

If someone chose not to vote but has a political opinion about the government - *not* a specific complaint about how one particular government policy is affecting them, I will give their opinion every bit as much value as if they *had* voted. Why would the fact they hadn't voted make their opinion any less valuable than it was before the election, as long as that's all it is - an opinion. We're all entitled to hold those aren't we? Not voting doean't disenfranchise us from freedom of thought.

Sure, everyone else is entitled to disagree with them, but in this instance people often seem to want to deny the person's entitlement to hold an opinion by claiming that they're not allowed to because they didn't vote. That, in my opinion, is just not right. It's a misunderstanding that people make - confusing the right hold an opinion with the right to make a complaint.

As I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I can't say whether that opinion is valid or not, as I haven't heard what they have to say.

I only start getting testy when they have a *complaint* and haven't voted.

We have agreement. I repeat, we have agreement. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem. Please relax, you will be sent for

Ok

Let's flip this one around for a moment. What about those that do go out and vote, but don't have an opinion. They just vote that way because, well, they always have done, or that's the way their parents/ family/ spouse etc have always voted.

I'm not sure what I feel about them...

tribal loyalty to party is much less strong than it used to be in the UK (although fairly common where I live in South Wales)
at least they bother to vote
I tend to feel it is a civic duty to vote (or at least spoil your ballot papers)
still your MP is supposed to represent you even if you didn't vote for them so they should still listen to a non-voter who has a complaint
I'd still listen to the opinions of someone who didn't vote but I'd try and convince them to vote in the next election
one thing that annoys me is people who vote on national issues in local elections and vice versa

What if someone has such strong held beliefs that voting for anyone would be an unthinkable idea to them?

Although they have not voted, it could be argued they have a stronger opinion than many that have voted because they refuse to compromise their ideals.
I suppose that is where spoiling the ballot papers comes in.
By actively not voting in my view is different to passive non-voters.

When I was 17 (1987) I was so angry I couldn't vote because I was angry about the government and the policies. I did my bit though - I sent off for info and ended up a member of a political party anyway. I have voted each time since then and have become less enthusiastic because I feel screwed either way - just depends on which party wins as to how it happens.

I am no less angry and passionate about the things I believe in but as I have got older I feel let down and disillusioned with the system. However I will continue to vote.

(I also believe that people died so I have the *choice* of a vote.)

I am not very clever in this area, and don't articulate my points as well as I should, but it is something I have thought about many times.

Off course now I live in bonny Scotland it is a whole different ball game!

For the last couple of months there has been an advert running on tv about a bloke who says he doesn't do politics. He then complains about roadworks, petrol prices, drinking hours etc and each time he complains his mate says 'argh but you don't do politics'. I don't know if that is UK wide or just up here.


Mort

That advert has been running nationwide - and very good it is too.

It neatly shows in a wholly un-party political way how everything that goes on around us can in someway be tracked back to decisions made by our elected representatives. And that if we don't put our voice into electing those representatives, then we have few grounds to complain if we encounter something that we don't like.

I would extend it. If you haven't tried to change things then you shouldn't complain.

We're being asked if neglecting to vote disenfranchises a person.

I think not. The person's arguement may be weakened by their having failed to vote, but there can be valid reasons for it. Even without a valid reason, assuming they haven't removed their name from the electoral roll to get out of being tracked by the CPS or something, they should still have the right to complain. (Of course they should also therefore praise them when they get something right.

Oooh good point, everyone has a right to complain. But if you didn't try and change things that gives me the right to say, 'well you didn't vote so there's no point in complaining'.

Oojakapiv you said " they also died so that we could choose whether or not to"

I am not conviced that anyone died to defend peoples right not to vote, perhaps soldiers or police putting down prottestors, or maybe members of the Confederate forces in the USA. As folks have already said here, you can always spoil your paper. The other coversaton is about the falling electoral turnout.

But I defend your right not to talk about that!







If you can't vote - for example a friend of mine who is German and who has lived here for over 20 years can only vote in EU elections not in UK ones - then I think you do have the right to opine. I cannot affect the outcome of elections in the US, though the outcome of elections in the US certainly affects me. If I could vote in them, I would.

If you *choose* not to vote then it is even simpler:

Put up or shut up.

It's a matter of personal standards and avoiding hypocricy, not a matter of freedom of speech.



>> people often seem to want to deny the person's entitlement to hold an opinion by claiming that they're not allowed to because they didn't vote.

Who? Not me. I think their opinion is cr@p, I think they are woolly-thinking self-serving little hypocrites. I think they are lazy and complacent and willing to take from society without contributing back. But I think they are *entitled* to their opinion, facile though it may be.



>> If you haven't tried to change things then you shouldn't complain.

I went out with a very smug bloke once, who looked like Henry V, which was scary but irrelevant. He said "To know and not to act, is not to know"


As I said - it's a general life rule of mine - put up or shut up.

Ben

I can't vote in Spain. If I could, I would. If I didn't feel that any political party was to my liking I could spoil my ballot (as I have done in the past in Canada).

Not voting - not bothering - means I have no right to complain about the outcome.

Simple. Makes sense to me.


az

Ben, why does the fact that they didn't vote make their opinion facile (ie, superficial, insincere)?

I think Az put it best: not voting means not bothering.

If they can't be bothered to vote, then can they really be bothered to think?

And if they can't be bothered to think, then their opinions are pretty superficial, no?

I have yet to find anyone who does not vote through choice who has a well thought out, coherent and logical reason for not voting.

It is a matter of engagement really, and hypocricy about rights and duties.

Disengagement produces personal disempowerment, whether it is a child who abdicates from school and therefore fails its exams, or a voter who abdicates from voting and therefore feels powerless and disenfranchised.

People will gladly accept the rights this country gives them, but fail in the simplest and least onerous of all civic duties. The hypocricy of that sticks in my throat.

Finally - there are a number of things which give an opinion authority: experience is one, study is another, the quality and coherence of the thinking which backs up the opinion is a third.

But, as I have already said, no-one who has ever said to me "I don't vote because I don't beleive in the system" has been able to back it up with coherent reasons.

If someone is so woolly-thinking in their reasoning about not voting, why should I beleive that they will be any less facile in the rest of their political analysis?

People do have the right to disengage themselves politically - but wanting not to vote and at the same time believing that their opinions on party politics still matter seems to me to be a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Ben

I think (ie, it's my opinion) that that's pretty harsh and dismissive.

Just because they haven't convinced you that they have a valid reason for not voting doesn't necessrily mean they don't have one. It could be that either you have a very high bar set for accepting what constitutes a 'good reason', or they can't explain themselves well. That doesn't necessarily mean that their opinion is any less sincere than is yours. I have very sincerely held opinions about many things, but I can't always get them across as succinctly as I wish I could. Does that make them facile?

No. There is a difference between sincerity and facileness, as well you know.

It may be harsh. I am a lot less tolerant of sloppy thinking than I used to be. Sloppy thinking can be everything from lazy to lethal and back again. Sloppy thinking kills. (Not in this instance, I assume).

>> It could be that ... they can't explain themselves well.

I am a professional asker of questions, I am paid to do it, and have been paid to do it for the last 16 years. I have asked questions in a variety of different roles and circumstances, so I am good at finding out *what* people think and *why* they think it, (if I choose to be). I am also fairly good at helping them change those things, when appropriate.

If you want to change someone's mind, the way to do it is to understand why they think what they think. There is no point at all in shouting them down. It doesn't work.

Example: Acid Overdrive and I had a long debate here on the environment - we both shifted our stance on some things, and neither of us managed to change the other person's mind, BUT by the end of the debate we both understood where the other was coming from. We had different premises, and we both then followed those premises up with high quality thinking. I dont know about AO, but I ended the debate with a degree of respect for his opinions, which were much better argued and thought through by the end of the debate, though I still felt that his premises were wrong. We stopped when we reached stalemate, but we understood each other much better.

The duty to vote thing is something that I do feel strongly about. It is therefore something that I will try to persuade people to do. If I am going to try to persuade them to do something, I will take the time to understand why they don't rather than being instantly dismissive. As I said, no-one I have engaged with has yet produced a convincing argument for not voting.

You are right though, I do set the bar high for thinking. Sloppy thinking, as I have already said, kills.

Sincerity of emotion does not constitute quality of thought.

Ben

I used to have a poster which said "They are free who do not fear to go to the end of their thought".

The problem is that if you do follow most thoughts through to their end, you find it a pretty bleak, cold and lonely place.

Which, of course, is why most of us don't do that.

Ben
*not free*