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

I've never yet failed to use my vote, and I never intend to do so.
I agree with all the sentiments here, but I'm unsure about the conclusions.

Is spoiling a ballot paper really making an effective point? Except in respect of self-esteem, is it truly different in outcome from not turning up? Maybe the distinction is drawn more on principle than in practicality.

Looking at the other side, are we really so sure that falling turnouts won't eventually force politicians to change their ways? Can't we hope that the decadence of the system will draw honest, committed people into politics; people we'll feel able to vote for?

Finally, if *all* someone does is to cast their vote at every local and national election, then just how democratic is that? Couldn't it be argued that politics fails the public *precisely* because we're all docile enough to file into polling booths once every four years, and justify the b*ggers all over again?

I'm not sure, I'm really not. But I've personally concluded that the worst denegrators of democracy aren't the voting stop-aways at all. Unfortunately, they're the prostitutes we're offered as candidates.

Are you calling the candidates prostitues? Help I don't want to be part of the oldest profession.

>> Can't we hope that the decadence of the system will draw honest, committed people into politics; people we'll feel able to vote for?

We can of course. I don't, myself.

I find the decrease in turnout very very scary for what it says about peoples' disengagement with politics.

B

OK, here's a technical point - but one that's really important IMO.

We make an issue of the importance of separating the Judiciary and the Executive, but then we go and run them both on the same principles.

The fundamental weakness here is the Principle of Advocacy. You can't make intelligent decisions my espousing two versions of truth, one black, one white, both partial. I've heard it argued (unconvincingly, I think), that advocacy is a necessary instrument in a system of justice. I've never heard anyone explain why we should emulate anything so arbitrary in public administration.

So, politicians are untrustworthy because they're lawyers. Decent people are turned off, and many don't vote, because all politicians practise systematic mendacity.

Things have got worse in recent times, because politicians no longer even make a pretence of public service. In fact many of them have gone still further than spurious claims of leadership, and try to persuade that they are some perverse kind of celebrity. This behaviour is utterly vacuous : most of us want only to choose our servants.

That's why the use of a vote has become a dilemma. Far from being a participation in democracy, it's easy to conclude that empowering anyone with such pretensions of grandeur is irresponsible.

(I guess all this makes me an anarchist. I guess I'm saying, among other things, that I don't respect the Rule of Law, at least not the model of the Law that Western society enacts)

Oh well. And there was me thinking I'd said that better than usual.

*re-reads*

Actually, I do get your point. I am suggesting using your vote to register an active abstension, rather than not voting at all and just being one of the apathetic.

I agree with you about the quality of politicians and am suggesting that if other people hold the same opinion they actually say so.

Just an opinion, but one I hold strongly.

Ben

I get yours too, but 'active abstention' sounds a bit oxymoronic.

When I vote, I have to tell myself that politicians are really better than they behave, and that they only act like they do because they have to appeal to people who aren't as intelligent as me.

Now, that's not a very democratic mindset, is it? But what alternative do we have, when the candidates themselves reduce politics to a farce?

Do you think I could get legal aid if I pressed treason charges against a few of them?

Btw: A3772974

B