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

Rather than re-post an edited version of my four-yearly rant, I am just going to post a link to the entry: A3857448

Though conversations arising out of that entry should be posted here, and not there of course.

Ben

Aye, she's right you know

Absolutely right.

Spoil your paper by all means, but not to vote is to spit i the face of all those who since Magna Carta have lost their lives in the cause of freedom.

Oh and by the way that includes the service personnel lost in Iraq, they were [allegedly] fighting for freedom too.
Novo

I, for one, will not vote in this election... being a citizen of Germany living in Germany . However, if I were not going to vote in our next election, anyway, I would definitely go vote after reading B's post.

I have never considered the spoil-your-ballot action, though I did often wonder who to vote for as I was certain that whoever I voted for would sooner or later turn their backs on me. I doubt that I will resort to the spoil-your-ballot action as I tend to vote for the guys I feel least uneasy about, but now that I have become aware of this spoil-your-vote option, I will go voting even if no-one on the ballot seems trustworthy enough!

Thanks for the dedicated entry, B.

Y.

I never even realised this was a possibility... now I feel kinda stupid for all the times I didn't vote.

>> I tend to vote for the guys I feel least uneasy about

Don't tell anyone, but me too! I've never actually spoilt a paper in my life, I live in hope that a Green or a member of the Monster Raving Loony party will be standing.

But, as Mr D says, lots of people don't know it's an option.

Thanks for reading the entry, everyone. The falling turnout is something I feel very strongly about, as you may have noticed!

Ben

Mm, spoiling your ballot paper is all very well and good if you simply disagree with all the candidates standing in your constituency, but what if you genuinly dislike/disapprove/don't want to support the whole election/democratic process? If you disagree with the politic system, full stop?

I have yet to come across anyone who can argue that cogently, though, KA. There is a first time for everything, of course.

But so far, everyone who has said to me "I don't buy into the political system" actually turns out to mean that they don't like any of the candidates, or that they dislike the parties on offer.

No-one has ever told me that they think that they should have no say and no rights in the who runs the place.

Ben

I have met people who don't vote because they feel they don't understand the issues properly, and feel that an ill-informed vote would be irresponsible. Which is a different, but related position.

Please note that I am not one of them, everyone who knows me knows who I'll be voting for, primarily because the current incumbent is a useless waste of space that somehow fails spectacularly to be any use either locally or nationally.

Not voting because you don't understant the issues is actually extremely responsible - but in that case why not turn up and say so on a ballot paper?

What is lacking - partly because I don't have the arguments fully formed in my own head yet - is the piece of joined up thinking which explains why lower turnouts undermine our democracy, and what the possible consequences of lower turnouts will be.

The turnout at the last election was so appalling and the turnout at this one will be even worse, and that worries me.

Ben

One likely result of low turn out is a more extreme Government. If the majority of people are too apathetic to vote, and think it 'doesn't matter', then you're left with those that really passionately believe in something, and in that senerio it only takes a small number of extremists to install a Government that the 'silent majority', who are probably of a moderate opinion, do not agree with.

Being faced with polarizing candidates might raise the turnout. I saw this happen in Minnesota, USA, when Jesse Ventura, a former Pro Wrestling star ran for gouvernor. Some people loved him, others downright despised him. The thought of having a brainless heap of muscles appaled many, the thought of a non-established free thinker roused some more. In some places, voter turnuot was near 100% that year. The man won. Turns out that Jesse was not even as bad as some expected, though probably not as good as others had hoped. But whatever you say about him, he sure had the masses polititcized.

Y.

Would you like to revisit the remarks on Zimbabwe?

Sure. Why?

(They are a quote, and the source is linked from the footnote).

Ben

I don't think it's too hard to argue a disagreement with the system. There must be dozens of problems

1 Campaigning. Every time an electon draws near there are adverts on every lampost for the two main parties, the lib dems have at least on per street and nobody else does. Billboards are liberally scattered with advertising, much of which tells you little about the parties policies. Media coverage is uneven and more often than not based on who the execs will benefit from getting in power most. If these things didn't work the parties would not spend any money on them. If they work then effectively the parties are spending money to buy votes. How can you have a fair election under those circumstances?

2 Tactical voting. The number of people stating 'I hate what Labour have done but I'll vote for them anyway because they are not the conservatives' is astounding. If a party had been formed that would do exactly what 90% of the country wanted it to do I don't think it would have much chance of getting in (unless it's advertising department had a blank cheque signed by god)

3 Promises. It seems more and more likely (though I don't have statistics because I have no idea how you'd measure this) that the number of votes a party gains from making promises it can't keep exceeds the number of votes they lose when they fail to keep them.

I don't see it as at all unlikely that a person could object to the system rather than the people who happen to be in power.

Well, (1) and (3) are a function of the behaviour of politicians, and indeed ourselves.

(2) Is a function of the fact that we have First Past the Post voting here, and - yes - that a good example of a bad system and one which it is possible to disagree with.

On the other hand, if someone is sophisticated enough in their thinking to understand and dislike First Past the Post, then they are also unlikely to be sloppy enough in their thinking and personal standards to lie to themselves and to others by saying "I don't vote as a protest".

It's that smug bit of self-seving hypocricy that I am trying to winkle out and expose in the daylight.

Ben

Good for you :D

I would, however, argue that (1) is a result of the system. If you assume that votes *can* be bought the only time it won't influence the system is when (a) There isn't a single party that would sacrafice ethics for votes or (b) The parties that would have no money.

I don't think that we have greedy unethical politicians who own money is a feature of the candidates we happen to have available. I think it is a result of the system. Assuming a decent variety of polaticians, at least some of them will be greedy and unethical and the system ensures that these are the ones that will rise to the top.

First of all, Ben, let me say once again that I totally agree with you on this one, and I am proud to have voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in. I have no intention of ruining that record now.

However, I have just discovered that the party for which I am earnestly campaigning in a nearby marginal constituency isn't fielding a candidate in the constituency where I actually live! So in order to maintain my 100% voting record, I'm going to have to vote for a party other than the one for whom I've been leafletting, or spoil my ballot paper. I don't want to spoil my ballot since that would imply that I don't think there's any real difference between the options on offer; and given that one of those options is the BNP, I feel I should make a positive choice. (I won't say what I think of the BNP, as I once got moderated for doing that even when there *wasn't* an election on. But this news story says it all, I feel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4419133.stm).

So I have two decisions to make: who to vote for, and whether I tell my colleagues on the campaign that I'm probably going to vote for one of the other parties!

Curses, that link doesn't work! This one should do: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4419133.stm

I presume that you're Bradford West, Ormy. If that's the case, then I suggest that you vote for the Labour party, as the seat is a bit marginal and you don't want a Tory getting now do you