Right, the Americans have got their election coming up, and if you believe the press our next one is pretty much over already.
It is my opinion that it is the fundamental duty of every member of a democracy to vote in every election.
Many of you will say that you don't vote (more than half usually). The reasons for this are many, apathy, disliking all the candidates, got hit by a bus etc etc.
Aside from the last one these views are nonsense. Even me, at the height of anhedonic depression, found the time to walk the five minutes to my polling station and vote in the last London mayoral election. Apathy is simply another word for laziness. Many people would GENUINELY rather stay in and watch TV or drink beer or eat some more cereal than apply one of the most fundamental rights we have. It's sad but true, and I don't really see what I can do to get those people interested. That of course doesn't reduce the number of the EXACT SAME people moaning about the government who DID get in at every opportunity, despite their non-participation.
I have even less time for the other argument, the "none of the candidates are any good" argument. An election is all about you having your say as to which candidate you want elected, not whether they are exactly what you want! Sure, it's a sad situation when you have to choose between racists, Eton old boys, corrupt foils, lame duck figureheads and the like - but election day is NOT the time to state this annoyance. There is ample opportunity, even in the most deprived of areas, to put forward your agenda, to drum up support and get things done. Success in these cases is a function of EFFORT.
This is of course the thing; it's just plain easier to sit around and moan about how you're not represented by any of the political parties out there rather than actually do anything about it. Sure it's hard folks, but it's always the extreme ends of the scale who try hardest. Look at the maniacs in the BNP. If people as insane as that can drum up support with empty promises and good old fashioned lies then surely someone like you can get some support with genuine effort?
It's sad that people view this as being just too hard. But it's even worse when despite the fact they can't be bothered to get involved earlier in the process, they moan about the results of their apathy.
No candidate will be perfect. As an example in the last London mayoral election the choice was between Ken, Brian and Boris. Now, my preference here was complicated, Ken had been a fairly popular mayor for years, but his methods were a little questionable and was seen as possibly corrupt; Brian, while keen, clearly couldn't debate his way out of a brown paper bag; whereas Boris was seen as a laughable buffoon, a frivolous celebrity candidate, an unknown quantity.
None of them was really my idea of an ideal Mayor.
The argument of those I have described is simple. Don't vote.
Well screw that. I had a "least worst" from the candidates and voted for them. In the situation where no-one fits the bill exactly, then just vote for the one who'll do the best job, Goldilocks! The reason for this is democracy is all about your opinion. The question is not, "Who is the best mayor" it is "who, out of these guys, do you want to run your city?"
The thing is, a minority opinion is an awful thing to have from an election. Many people made an awful lot of the low turnouts at the last general election saying that the government didn't have a mandate from the people since so few wanted it in place.
I say if those people wanted someone else so badly they should have voted for them. Simple, really. All that not voting showed was that they didn't care which way it went.
What does not voting achieve? Does it make a point?
Well, no. There's no register of why you didn't vote, so your non-vote means the same as the drug addict dying in a doorway's, or the lazy unemployed guy sitting in front of the TV. Absolutely nothing.
The reason, pre-election, why no-one seems to be speaking to you guys may well be because there's no point! You don't vote, so why should anyone expend an inordinate amount of effort trying and win your non-vote?
Simply put; no-one has ever changed anything by doing nothing.
Next election of any kind. If you don't usually vote - seriously think about why, and what this inaction really means for the election. If you don't vote, you have ZERO right to moan about the outcome - you should have made some noise months earlier.
Whatever you decide, I hope you are happy with your decision and understand exactly what it really says to those in power.
A
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A well thought out and cogent argument, Algo.
ReplyDeleteIt does remind me of my days living in Australia. The government there has solved the 'non-voting' problem by introducing a law which makes it illegal not to vote. After each election the electoral roles are scrutinised and anyone who has not voted is given a fine or a custodial sentence.
However that does beg the question (your above arguments notwithstanding) of "If it is my right to vote, it must also be my right to withhold a vote". Therefore forcing someone to vote does remove the 'freewill' element of having a right to do something.
Take our overseas cousins the Americans. They have the 'right' to bear arms. It is not a mandate requiring them to carry a gun, it is a right to allow them to carry a gun. Not everyone does (in fact I know dozens of Americans who don't posses a gun and hate the things), and making it a law does defeat the object somewhat. In fact requiring someone to do something by law does smack a little bit of facism or Nazism (Did I just invoke Godwins Law on you..?).
I think it is important to separate those who choose not to vote for specific reasons from those who just don't vote through laziness etc. Of course, as you say, they can't then turn around and complain about the state of the country/ city/ parish etc. if they elect not to vote. You get the government you vote for!
P.S. I have voted in every local regional and countrywide election I was eligible for since 1983 - often through a postal vote, but it was still a vote.
Well put. As you'll notice, I at no stage said that you should be forced to vote. In fact, I said that if you choose not to vote you think about WHY and more importantly, whether your "statement" will mean anything more than someone sitting at home eating crisps.
ReplyDeleteIf you note, I did in fact separate the types of people who don't vote. The thing is, no one in the electoral system will.
This means that, because you inferred something I didn't say and the Nazis at the same time, you incur the wrath of Godwin's law and automatically lose the argument.
Shame we're in agreement, really.
A
Alot of people that don't usually vote, will, in Europe and the General.
ReplyDeleteThey will vote BNP.
Be careful what you wish for.
Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteWhat I wish for is for everyone to vote... if the majority of people want the BNP, for me this would be a sad situation, but the nature of democracy is that they would gain power. Simple.
This is why if you abstain from participation in the process, things that you may fundamentally disagree with will happen beyond your control and I'd say serve you right but I be suffering too.
Thanks again, anonymous.
A