Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yes, because that 73% would *not* simply "vote for someone else". Their votes would split more or less according to the demographic for your area.
Rubbish. It is a *VERY* loud message that nobody is paying attention to at the moment. People have got fed up with politics.
|
But you were making the point that non-voters such as yourself were not happy with the options on offer in an election, yet you want change - I think this is hypocritical as you're not prepared to do anything about bringing change to pass.
Not voting sends a message, correctly or otherwise, to politicians that you're not bothered. Spoiling your ballot paper (en masse) sends a message that your not happy. Or as you said before, a box saying words to the effect or 'you're all useless, bring me someone better' would be even better, as government tends to write off spoilt papers as the work of morons and lunitics!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Despite the majority of people being against the war in Iraq, we invaded anyway. Only after Blair realised that he could actually lose votes if he didn't ban fox hunting did he finally do something about it (and then in a pretty cack-handed and incompetant manner). Faced with fuel protests the government seemed to back down, but very little actually changed.
Our political leaders are taking their positions for granted and it is *NOT* possible for us to do anything about it through the ballot box any more.
|
That just simply isn't true. First, I don't think that given the state this country is in, that fox hunting is an election winner. Most people don't like it, sure, but there are far more serious issues that need resolving far higher up the list IMO.
Second, and most important, as you say the majority of people did not agree with invading Iraq - you're right, but you do have power to do something about it. Vote for someone other than Labour next time. Even reducing Blair's majority sends a huge message to Labour that they screwed up, and if you and your all fellow non-voters voted for someone else then Labour would be out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
That's sheer nonsense. And just as I can't be bothered to vote in a failing and non-representative system, I can't be bothered to point out the fallacies in that argument.
|
Oh come on Graham, I expected better of you
Seriously though, I respect your opinion - but I found it really interesting that yesterday you green rep'd me (much appreciated) for quoting Niemoller's 'First they came for the Communists' line. Is this not the same thing? The quote was about a man who chose not to speak up (in this case I'm inferring that speaking up requires voting).
Believe it or not I share your total frustration with the whole political process in this country. The parties and people in them are an utter waste of public funds, they do not adequately represent me or you by the sounds of it. But if we don't vote that situation will only get worse. By keeping politicians on their toes, keeping on kicking them out when they screw up, we will have an evolving system in this country, which will be far more representative of the people that elected them.