Is it the Duty of every citizen to participate in the political system.

[Nightshade]

I was brought up to believe that if you don't vote you loose the right to complain about who you get. To the extent that in the last election last year my mum and I literally dragged my sister out of bed and to polling station and shoved her into the voting box thing. We didn't care who she voted for , we don't as a family discuss who we vote for, we maintain a its only my business stance, just as long as you vote.
I love discussing politics and social reform granted there is alot I can't get my head around- EU and US politics for example. But this thread is NOT about politics rather I want to discuss whether you think everyone should and must participate in choosing their leaders and monitoring them, or whether only those leaders should be concerned with the details and the rest of us should just follow along with what we are told and rely on their wisdom?
:D
And Remember do so WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE POLITICS!

[Nax]

In australia you are forced by LAW to vote, if you dont ur slugged with a very hefty fine.

Sounds good in theory, the only issue is you have a horde of uneducated, ignorant voters who have no idea who is standing for what or why, and they even have a box for "majority" which just gives your vote to whoever is more popular.

I find it a little flawed when the RIGHT to vote becomes forced.

[Nightshade]

Maybe that is my question is voting a right or an obligation? anyway I am on my way out I have more comments on your post nax but it shall have to wiat till tomorrow!

[Lokasenna]

In australia you are forced by LAW to vote, if you dont ur slugged with a very hefty fine.

Sounds good in theory, the only issue is you have a horde of uneducated, ignorant voters who have no idea who is standing for what or why, and they even have a box for "majority" which just gives your vote to whoever is more popular.

I find it a little flawed when the RIGHT to vote becomes forced.

I suppose that depends on whether you consider the ability to vote a right or a responsibility. There is an argument to be made both ways - political apathy generally favours the extremist parties, but on the other hand if people are politically ignorant and forced to vote, they may just go for a name they vaguely recognize, which is usually an extremist party.

Personally, I think voting should be compulsory - people still have the option to spoil their ballot paper, but they at least have to turn up to do so!

[Emil Miller]

Whether one likes it or not, this is a political question and should not be posted on this forum. However, before the thread gets closed down, I think it is a pointless idea and certainly wouldn't work in the UK where without proportional representation a significant number of the voting public are effectively disenfranchised anyway. The only people to benefit from compulsory voting would be the politicians who would say that the huge turn out shows that the voting population support the system.

[Virgil]

Not voting is as much a political statement as voting. Yes, people should vote, but there are times when the right thing to do is protest and not vote. Now those times are probably rare, perhaps once in a life time. And in an election where there are a number of ballots and issues, I can't imagine one protesting the entire thing.

To be forced to pay a fine if one doesn't vote is not freedom to me. I should be free to not have to vote. I agree with Brian above on it not being compulsory.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree with Brian and Virgil and I am quite shocked to learn that it is compulsory to vote in Australia.

[Themis]

I was brought up to believe that if you don't vote you loose the right to complain about who you get.

Me too, Night.

There should alway be a choice whether you want to vote or not. Still, I think one should remember that we're not only voting for ourselves, we're determing what happens to the whole nation. As often it's a moral choice, I think.

[Nightshade]

I guess what has made me think of this is the collective responsibility system the school has in place basically one kid in the class misbehaves and the whole class gets punished for it, which isnt fair but it made me think of wider implications. Do we as a human society need to all take more responsibility for everything that is said and done, for everything that goes wrong should we all be held accountable for not trying to stop it from happening? Or should the lay people stay out of it all because we mostly just dont understand it. But isnt that condescending and dangerous giving a few people power without accountability? Should we all be forcefully educated about the variety of politics in our own communities as well as international politics?
Just a brain splat that...

[Hurricane]

People should vote (if they know what they're voting for!), but it seems silly to force them to. I mean, enough uneducated and uninformed people in the US vote as it is, if you forced people to vote it'd be even worse.
If you don't vote, you already feel the consequences of your inaction. If you don't like those consequences, then tough tiddlywinks, maybe you should have cared enough to get a ballot. The world's run by people who show up, and I don't know that the world would be a better place if you had the people who are too lazy to go to a polling station on their own accord participating against their will.

[MarkBastable]

I was brought up to believe that if you don't vote you loose the right to complain about who you get.

First off, I'd suggest that it's always a good idea to stop believing what you were brought up to believe. If it's any good, you'll get back to believing it by your own path, and then the fact you were brought up to believe it will no longer be a support of believing it as a grown-up.

Secondly, and less importantly, it's 'lose'.

Thirdly, I'd support the idea of compulsory voting if the ballot compulsorily had a box for 'None of the above'.

[OrphanPip]

I agree with Brian and Virgil and I am quite shocked to learn that it is compulsory to vote in Australia.

I'll add my support to this as well.

When the stakes really matter to the populace people will show up. When Quebec had the separation referendum 99% of eligible voters went to the polls. If people care about what they are voting about they'll make the effort to show up at the polls.

A tangentially related voter's right issue is the accessibility of poling stations. I don't know what the law is elsewhere, but here in Quebec your employer is required to give you 3 hours off of work on an election day if you request it.

Edit: Mark I believe you always have the ability to spoil your ballot or leave it blank since it is still anonymous.

[Nightshade]

First off, I'd suggest that it's always a good idea to stop believing what you were brought up to believe. If it's any good, you'll get back to believing it by your own path, and then the fact you were brought up to believe it will no longer be a support of believing it as a grown-up.
.

hmm fair enough opinion,
a

Secondly, and less importantly, it's 'lose'.
I am going to pull the dyslexia card here and say hey at least nowadays I am attempting to make my posts readable with the help of a spellchecker, unfortunately these things are not infallible.

Thirdly, I'd support the idea of compulsory voting if the ballot compulsorily had a box for 'None of the above'
I agree with pip you can always draw a smilie face on the ballot, scribble all over it choose every single candidate or leave it blank.
I really don't think my mum will bother forcing anyone to vote again until the next sister is at voting age, the point was my sister has a tendency to gripe about politics but was too idle to do anything about it. She knew who she wanted to get in but was hoping other people would vote enough for them so she wouldn't have to.


People should vote (if they know what they're voting for!), but it seems silly to force them to. I mean, enough uneducated and uninformed people in the US vote as it is, if you forced people to vote it'd be even worse.
I have to think some more about this... I can't just agree Id kill off the thread I am sure there is some argument against this I will have go off and look for it though!


The world's run by people who show up, and I don't know that the world would be a better place if you had the people who are too lazy to go to a polling station on their own accord participating against their will.
Actually now you have got me thinking of the homer Simpson's of the world and how we don't need them making all our decisions

If you don't like those consequences, then tough tiddlywinks, maybe you should have cared enough to get a ballot.
Actually that is what I mean by loose your right to complain, and if you are intending to complain which lets face it most people do then go vote.

[Emil Miller]

...and I don't know that the world would be a better place if you had the people who are too lazy to go to a polling station on their own accord participating against their will.

Obviously there are people who are too lazy to vote but there are also those who refuse to vote on principle because they will not support an unrepresentative system such as that in the UK; where politicians are so desperate to ensure that the current system survives that they even urge people to vote for their political opponents. If there is no party standing that I believe is worthy of support, I simply don't vote. I do not think it is worthwhile walking to the polling station simply to spoil my paper.

[MarkBastable]

Mark I believe you always have the ability to spoil your ballot or leave it blank since it is still anonymous.

You do - but that's a negative and non-specific action. When the votes are counted up, they can't separate the number of deliberately spoiled papers from those on which too many boxes were accidentally ticked, or those in which nothing was ticked at all. I'm not sure, actually, that when they announce the results, the spoiled papers are mentioned.

Under the system I suggest, the returning officer's last two returns would be,

"Spoiled papers - twenty-nine. None of these self-serving, sanctimonious, hypocritical wankers deserves my vote - twenty-five thousand nine hundred and sixty-three."

And the BBC voiceover would say, "That figure represents forty-one percent of those eligible to vote in this constituency, which reflects the general trend we've seen nationwide tonight."

[prendrelemick]

I aways vote, but am often struck by the pointlessness of it all. The two main contending parties are basically the same anyway.
When I realized this I decided to to always vote for the opposition, whoever they are. A party in power for too long gets too arrogant.


You do - but that's a negative and non-specific action. When the votes are counted up, they can't separate the number of deliberately spoiled papers from those on which too many boxes were accidentally ticked, or those in which nothing was ticked at all. I'm not sure, actually, that when they announce the results, the spoiled papers are mentioned.

Under the system I suggest, the returning officer's last two returns would be,

"Spoiled papers - twenty-nine. None of these self-serving, sanctimonious, hypocritical wankers deserves my vote - twenty-five thousand nine hundred and sixty-three."

And the BBC voiceover would say, "That figure represents forty-one percent of those eligible to vote in this constituency, which reflects the general trend we've seen nationwide tonight."

If you want to become an MP, change your name to "None of them" and stand at the next election.

[BienvenuJDC]

No "uninformed" individual should ever take part in voting just for the sake of "taking part".

[prendrelemick]

The uninformed individuals vote virtually the same way as the informed ones.

The procesess may be different but the conclusions are the same.

[MarkBastable]

No "uninformed" individual should ever take part in voting just for the sake of "taking part".

I agree with you in principle. But unfortunately - regardless of whether it's compulsory - there's no way of knowing how many informed individuals don't and how many uninformed do.

I'd tend to the view that the better informed you are, the less likely you are to vote.

In which case, making it compulsory would increase the proportion of informed people voting.

[Hurricane]

Obviously there are people who are too lazy to vote but there are also those who refuse to vote on principle because they will not support an unrepresentative system such as that in the UK; where politicians are so desperate to ensure that the current system survives that they even urge people to vote for their political opponents. If there is no party standing that I believe is worthy of support, I simply don't vote. I do not think it is worthwhile walking to the polling station simply to spoil my paper.

Maybe this is more common in the UK, but most people in the US that I know who don't vote usually don't have that much reason behind it. More common for people who care and don't like any of the big, two-party options is to vote for a third party. While this is basically throwing away the practical value of your vote, since no third party has ever won a presidential, it's intended to serve as a message to the parties to change their tune or they'll lose support. This has been a pretty big deal with several past elections, particularly 2000, 1992, and 1912 (Bull Moose Party for the win!).

[Lokasenna]

Maybe this is more common in the UK, but most people in the US that I know who don't vote usually don't have that much reason behind it. More common for people who care and don't like any of the big, two-party options is to vote for a third party. While this is basically throwing away the practical value of your vote, since no third party has ever won a presidential, it's intended to serve as a message to the parties to change their tune or they'll lose support. This has been a pretty big deal with several past elections, particularly 2000, 1992, and 1912 (Bull Moose Party for the win!).

It's what the Monster Raving Loony Party was created for...

http://www.omrlp.com/

[OrphanPip]

Joke parties are sometimes amusing.

From wiki:

On August 7, 2007, Satan — born Brian (Godzilla) Salmi, then-president of the Rhinoceros Party — announced a $50-million lawsuit contesting an election reform law that had stripped his party of its registered status in 1993.

Satan had planned to run under the Rhino banner in the September 2007 by-election. However, the Liberal government essentially killed the Rhinos in 1993, passing a law saying registered parties must run candidates in at least 50 ridings, at a cost of $1,000 per riding, to keep their status. In protest of the new law, the party planned to abstain from the election. Canada's then-Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, rejected the abstention and ordered the party removed from the Registry of Canadian Political Parties, effectively abolishing the Rhinos and ending their 30-year run of preposterous campaign promises and gleeful mockery of Canadian politics. The lawsuit was filed as a result of the removal from the National Party Registry by Mr. Kingsley. Since Mr. Salmi had legally changed his name, the lawsuit was filed as Satan vs. Her Majesty The Queen.

[JuniperWoolf]

You do - but that's a negative and non-specific action. When the votes are counted up, they can't separate the number of deliberately spoiled papers from those on which too many boxes were accidentally ticked, or those in which nothing was ticked at all. I'm not sure, actually, that when they announce the results, the spoiled papers are mentioned.

I know that they aren't in Canada. I had a friend who's job it was to count the ballots in Grande Cache (small town, easy job), and he said that they just toss them in the trash without counting them or reading what they say.

[OrphanPip]

I know that they aren't in Canada. I had a friend who's job it was to count the ballots in Grande Cache (small town, easy job), and he said that they just toss them in the trash without counting them or reading what they say.

They record when you vote though, obviously to stop multiple voting, so Elections Canada knows how many people went to the ballots.

[JuniperWoolf]

They record when you vote though, obviously to stop multiple voting, so Elections Canada knows how many people went to the ballots.

Yeah, that's true... they'd be able to tell how many ballots have been spoiled by the difference. Some people waste a lot of thought and time jotting down a little rant on their ballots though, and it's completely pointless because no one is ever going to read it.

[Emil Miller]

It's what the Monster Raving Loony Party was created for...

I was walking along a London street in the 1960s during an election campaign when a Monster Raving Loony van passed by shouting through the loudspeakers mounted on top: "Vote Monster Raving Loony. You know it makes sense."

Given that Harold Wilson's party won the election, it probably did.

[Hurricane]

It's what the Monster Raving Loony Party was created for...

http://www.omrlp.com/

On August 7, 2007, Satan — born Brian (Godzilla) Salmi, then-president of the Rhinoceros Party — announced a $50-million lawsuit contesting an election reform law that had stripped his party of its registered status in 1993.

:lol: Didn't know about either of those, Lokasenna & OrphanPip. That's kind of awesome. And to think the most entertaining the US gets with third parties is The Guns and Dope Party, which still manages to have semi-serious aims (also, equal rights for ostriches).

[Virgil]

If you don't have the initiative to get off your ***, learn the issues, and vote, you shouldn't be forced to. That person's vote is a cynical exercise and shouldn't be counted.

[kasie]

Of course we should vote, if only to acknowledge the struggles of those who went before us for the right to have a say in government and to acknowledge that there are still too many people in the world who do not have the right to determine how they are governed.

And if we do not like the political parties we have? Whose fault is that? We get the politicians we deserve - if you don't like it, do something about it.

And I know this is supposed to be non-political - and I have no idea what Forums in other parts of the world are getting - but in UK this page has one advert from the Liberal Democrat party and another for a link from David Cameron explaining why one should vote Conservative. Who chooses which adverts go out with each page? Is there some kind of 'key word' system?

[MarkBastable]

Of course we should vote, if only to acknowledge the struggles of those who went before us for the right to have a say in government and to acknowledge that there are still too many people in the world who do not have the right to determine how they are governed.

And if we do not like the political parties we have? Whose fault is that? We get the politicians we deserve - if you don't like it, do something about it.

Ideally, yes to all that.

The problem, I think, is the implication that there could ever in the real world be such a thing as a politician who did not start out self-serving or did not become self-justifying. I don't know what one could do about that.

If the suggestion is that, for instance, one goes into politics oneself, then I'd say that anyone who had the talent to do it would by definition have the weaknesses that would render them unfit to do it.

For instance, the instinct to gain power in order to effect change for the good of the majority is pretty likely to become the instinct to retain power in order to sustain the status quo for the good of whoever got you there.

It's not as easy as 'power corrupts'. It's more that the system is built to mitigate against change, and in order to get anywhere, you pretty much have to adopt the mechanisms of the system.

For that reason, the very concept of a 'career politician' is a bit disturbing. Though, on the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want an amateur running the show.

All of which is only a part of what I consider to be a very serious and considered decision to abstain from voting unless I'm presented with specific policies proposed by personalities who I think might get something done before they are reduced to dust by the grind of being politicians.

[Nightshade]

Hey could you all please stop mentioning current politics good natured as this thread is it s a not the purpose of the thread and taking us off topic and b) liable to get me in trouble so hush!

I thought about a flippant reply, something along the lines of so maybe we should force people to take an exam to prove they are informed before they are allowed to vote. But surely being uniformed as it were is really being differently informed. Different people different values and all, so really so called 'uniformed' may really be voting in what appears to other people as stupid ways, but in actual fact they are merely expressing their different slant on life.

But I was thinking if you force people to vote then you also as infrastructure to support this are forced to educate and inform the masses about politics, make it transparent and simpler. Make it an aspect of society that is truly controlled by all the members of a society rather than just the few privileged , 'informed' or power holders.

[Nax]

The issue with forcing education on the masses is that generally it would be under the control of the current government in power, and thus the system would be swayed in their favor.

Really the only way to do it is if you had a non profit organization with no political position to run it.

Even if you got an outside source, say from the UK, they would be biased towards watever party they had there, or a similiar reflection of.


I think the only real solution is anarchy, lets just make a bunch of EMPs and send the world back to the stone age:D

[Nightshade]

yeah but then we would loose the litnet, find another soloution Nax! :p

[applepie]

I've wavered a bit back and forth on whether or not I wanted to even take a stab at this. I was basically raised with the mentality that if you don't vote then you have no room to complain about the outcome. For the most part you have an out, even if you don't wish to vote for a candidate you can write another in etc. There really just isn't an excuse to not turn out to the polls other than saying you are refusing to vote in protest as a way to not bother and still have room to gripe as opposed to just admitting that you didn't feel like making the time (I'm not meaning that in an offensive manner, and it actually applies to a number of people that I know).

I suppose that if it is an option of having people uneducated about the issues turn up and vote willy nilly for whatever they think looks good, or just have them not vote then I would take the option of having them not bother. That said, I'm a huge proponent of having to prove a basic knowledge of politics and the issues before being allowed to vote. I can't help but be appalled that someone can show up, make a picture on their ballet with the circles, and their vote will be counted. I suppose that demanding people complete a test each year to prove their eligibility to vote is a bit elitist and considered a violation of any number of civil rights, but I still stand that it is a good idea. If it meant that I couldn't vote one year, or my vote wasn't counted because I failed the test... well that's still better than me making decisions about things that I know nothing about.

[OrphanPip]

In the USA it was made illegal to put special conditions on voting specifically because it was abused. Literacy test and such were used as ways to exclude black voters in the southern US for decades.

The idea of requiring certain test to decide who is fit to vote is disgusting and an insult to the political process. Central to proper democracy is that suffrage is UNIVERSAL.

Edit: How long have we had Chevrolet product placement in our emoticons? :Chevy_anim:

[BienvenuJDC]

The idea of requiring certain test to decide who is fit to vote is disgusting and an insult to the political process. Central to proper democracy is that suffrage is UNIVERSAL.

But also when the votes of uneducated and uninformed people are bought or stolen by through coercion, intimidation, and propaganda, the political process suffers as well, maybe even more. Anytime that "community organizers" guide the community in their voting (in contrast to individuals taking voting responsibilities according to their own motivations) there is likely going to be a corruption of the political process.

[OrphanPip]

But also when the votes of uneducated and uninformed people are bought or stolen by through coercion, intimidation, and propaganda, the political process suffers as well, maybe even more. Anytime that "community organizers" guide the community in their voting (in contrast to individuals taking voting responsibilities according to their own motivations) there is likely going to be a corruption of the political process.

Except for the stopping the government itself from participating in direct coercion of individuals, I don't think we have a way to distinguish between educating voters and mere propaganda. Likewise, it is difficult in an objective fashion to distinguish between the ideologically brainwashed and those who have come to those decisions on their own. It is also difficult to determine who an educated voter is.

Statistically though, a higher income, a higher level of education, and reading the newspaper correlates with higher voter turn-out. Even in communities that stress active political participation, like black churches in the USA, the individuals who actually show up at the polls are still usually the highest educated and most involved of the group.

A system of universal suffrage that makes voting accessible to everyone who wants to is clearly the best possible system. No system will be perfect, but this is about as good as it gets.

[BienvenuJDC]

I suppose that if it is an option of having people uneducated about the issues turn up and vote willy nilly for whatever they think looks good, or just have them not vote then I would take the option of having them not bother. That said, I'm a huge proponent of having to prove a basic knowledge of politics and the issues before being allowed to vote. I can't help but be appalled that someone can show up, make a picture on their ballet with the circles, and their vote will be counted. I suppose that demanding people complete a test each year to prove their eligibility to vote is a bit elitist and considered a violation of any number of civil rights, but I still stand that it is a good idea. If it meant that I couldn't vote one year, or my vote wasn't counted because I failed the test... well that's still better than me making decisions about things that I know nothing about.

I would tend to agree with this. Another point to consider, should those not paying into a tax structure be given the right to voice how it is spent?

[papayahed]

I would tend to agree with this. Another point to consider, should those not paying into a tax structure be given the right to voice how it is spent?

When you are old or disabled and living on social security do you want your vote taken away?

[MarkBastable]

I would tend to agree with this. Another point to consider, should those not paying into a tax structure be given the right to voice how it is spent?

Well, of course they shouldn't - because they might vote on the issue of how they come to find themselves not paying into the tax structure.

Then again, housewives - no point in them voting. Oh, unless they are properly married to a fine upstanding wage-earner. Though if he loses his job, she should too. So one lost job - two lost votes. Students - obviously they don't get to vote. Unless, I suppose, they have a part-time job. Then they can have a vote that only counts as half a one. The disabled and the old - as papayahead says - should not get to vote. Not unless they have taxable savings - but as soon as they've got through their capital, no more representation, bub.

This would have worked brilliantly during the Depression. There would only have been about eighty-six people voting. And most of them would have been Hollywood stars and career politicians - so, you know, people with their finger right on the pulse of society.

Actually, I think that people's votes should carry weight in proportion to their tax contribution. Then the really rich folks - like bankers, who quite obviously understand how to make as success of the system - would have much more say in how that system should be sustained than would, for instance, a guy running a deli. I mean, if he wants a voice, he should make more money and pay more taxes. Loser.

It's only common sense. I can't imagine why no one thought of it sooner.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not making a reference to those who have already paid into the system, nor am I saying that the wealthy should get weightier votes. What I AM saying is that those who don't work (while having ability) should not be able to vote for the guy who promises to give them MORE of a free ride.

"Vote for ME and I will ensure that you will NEVER have to work for a living!"

[Nightshade]

I am finding it interesting that there are people that we in general feel shouldn't vote.
Now just to play devils advocate ( and I don't expect or even want any replies just a point to think on) are we 100% the people we consider uninformed are not mostly people who don't vote the way we would like them to?

Now this

A system of universal suffrage that makes voting accessible to everyone who wants to is clearly the best possible system. No system will be perfect, but this is about as good as it gets.

is really pretty much what I believe I just thought it would be interesting how people felt .
So far our arguments seem to be lending another meaning to the words Knowledge (information) is Power.

Can I also add ( hopefully without jinxing this) I am seriously impressed by the way we have manged to avoid politics yay us! ( can you tell I have been practicing using my positive words? :rolleyes: )

[applepie]

Except for the stopping the government itself from participating in direct coercion of individuals, I don't think we have a way to distinguish between educating voters and mere propaganda. Likewise, it is difficult in an objective fashion to distinguish between the ideologically brainwashed and those who have come to those decisions on their own. It is also difficult to determine who an educated voter is.

I see no real reason to distinguish. The propaganda is part of politics, and while I despise it, I wouldn't take it away. What I talk of isn't necessarily a literacy test or anything like that. Simply some sort of test that shows you are paying even a bit of attention to politics. Something like being able to describe a policy that at least one presidential candidate is including in their platform. Something that shows that you have taken some small bit of time and energy to even attempt to educate yourself about the issues. I don't really care if the information is correct or not, only that they have put time into making their decision.

[Nightshade]

Oh you could have like a points system. Before anyone sees red bare with me, you have to earn points by logging onto a political website/ or talking to a candidate/ or waht is the thing they have on tvs that allows them to montier how many tuned in watch even one politcal tv thing to vote. I mean like one point, you log in that you have done such and such when you register to vote and if you have you automatically get a vote if not you get a whole speel of politics thrown at you when you register so at least you have something.
Of course this doesnt mean people will actually read/watch it they could just walk away. But at the same time if registering becomes a hassle then only the people who care would vote. Of course this is in itself an issue because the mainstream people tend to be the ones who don't really care.

[virginiawang]

But is it just an insult to a candidate to have won me to his /her side, when I do not know anything about politics, vote, or anything, except a name perhaps?

[Nax]

see, I am telling you, the reason that we are having this argument is because the system is faulty, just like all systems.

no singular form of government can ever tick the boxes for everyone, so they apply to factor x or group y just to stay in power.

the system is flawed, but there is no substitute, so we are trapped in a continual loop of getting bent over by beaurocrats. They no no matter what they say or do, there will be ten other crooked husks with lying smiles and greedy eyes to take their place. We as a society have reached a point where our own want of safety and "morality" have trapped us in a method so twisted and complex, so flawed and yet efficient, that we cannot escape.

Anything that we try to put in its place, be it communism, dictatorship, monarchy, anarchy, will have its own inherent flaws because each one will have severe negative impacts on particular groups, which makes them sad.

The reason we havent come up with a better solution, is because there is no better solution right now. We are not concious enough as a species to advance to the next level. We are stuck between our technology, our government, and our own inability to progress. We have become complacent and tolerant and stagnant. And the outdated system exploits our comfort to exasurbate this, because it makes us good little workers. And at the end of the day, thats all the government, or any other form of control wants, money.

Find a big hill, wait for the sun to start setting, and watch it all burn.

[Revolte]

I prefer direct action for change and progression. If you think about it, nothing close to a revolution came via paper.

[Musicology]

It is the duty of every patient suffering from amnesia to vote for more of the same. If, however, they forget, they now have access to health care for their amnesia. Take two spoons of television, mixed together with corporate spin, adding a drop of quantitive easing. Stir together, bake well for 5 years, and eat while witnesssing that it changes but always stays the same.

[blazeofglory]

In fact all I feel is that man is a political animal and without politics man cannot be free in today' world at all. Of course every citizen must be aware of his or right and duty. In today's world where we are moving in the direction of democracy and democracy means people's participation and wherever there is no people's participation there can be no democracy. People's participation or democratic rules will materialize when people can have very active participation in the political system.

Maybe only in a communistic country citizens have no participation in politics. In China or South Korea they cannot participate in the political system at all.

while the idea of people participating in the political system of any country cannot be ruled out if we beleive in democracy. But under some circumstances some other systems or not direct participation or n non-participation can fit in. For example in Singapore during Lee's rule for a long time Singapore prospered and even now there is no western democratic system. China is a superpower and it has prospered tremendously through a government regulated system.

Looking at the past few political systems in the country I have come to know that democracy failed in Nepal and the main reason is what is there in a good democratic system cannot find its roots in Nepal context. Political leaders can spend money lavishly and can buy ballots and at times even bullets are used for ballots. The poor and weak in Nepal are very vulnerable and give in to an aggressor.

Therefore, theoretically I choose democracy, but through a practical standpoint or based on my experience with it I often choose the Singaporean type, a regulated political system.

This ideology limits public participation but it fits in under certain circumstances.

[Musicology]

I notice that some nations defy gravity by exporting more democracy than they produce for their own home consumption. This rare animal (democracy) is never defined, quantified, or costed and may be the equivalent, politically, of the Philosopher's Stone.

It seems to me that there are only two kinds of government. There are governments which serve the people and there are governments that function by being served by the people. Somewhere in this haystack is the mythical democracy.

We might compare this to a sailing ship which has no sails. Which is becalmed in the Sargasso Sea with no wind. Whose freedoms are so great they are under attack. The response to which is to limit freedoms even more. And thus, if one is democratic, it produces a society less free than if they were never attacked in the first place.

A recipe for absurdity.

It is not that man is political. It is that we are taught and even compelled to believe the opposite. Men everywhere want to grow potatoes and have a normal life. The political world wants the very opposite.

[cacian]

No. It is not my duty.
I don't agree with politics as a concept and so no I will not get involved. That is my choice and I respect it and so someone else will have to learn to respect it too.

[stlukesguild]

No. It is not my duty.
I don't agree with politics as a concept and so no I will not get involved. That is my choice and I respect it and so someone else will have to learn to respect it too.

You don't agree with the political... as in the electoral process? So what alternative would you have? Anarchy? Hereditary Aristocracy? Military Dictatorship?

[Delta40]

Voting is compulsory here. It isn't a perfect system especially with the preferential system in play which nobody has power over. On the bright side, pollies don't spend the nations budget on campaigning across the country, and everyone gets a small say on the day - including the donkey vote which is a vote for nobody but you have to turn up at the polling booth and get your name crossed off to do it otherwise you'll be fined. I've been told donkey votes automatically go to the party currently in power but I don't know if that is true. The same is said about no shows too.

The other issue is how to ensure that homeless people vote. The electoral commission try to provide ways for them to vote before the big day through the shelters and other alternative locations but obviously many miss out.

Despite all that, I'd rather be involved in the process than not at all.

[Darth Fett]

While I do vote, I can see why someone would be disillusioned with the American system. The electoral college is a joke. It. A literally makes some votes more valuable than others (in that states with smaller populations have a higher amount of electoral seats, ratio wise). Plus, when we have elections that have a president win when they don't even have the majority of the popular vote, it can be disheartening.

[Emil Miller]

Thank God we don't have compulsorily voting here, otherwise it would simply be a question of writing bollocks on the voting form. As someone who has a particular interest in politics, I do vote in local and general elections but, as I don't support any of the existing parliamentary parties, I vote outside of the box for parties that are the enemy of those within the Palace of Westminster, who over the past 60 years have created a country that's a joke because so many people have been adversely affected by the willful policies of the governments they have been silly enough to vote for.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well yes, voting here (and in general?) seems pretty much a vote for the six or the half a dozen at times. It wouldn't be too difficult to see the whole thing as a façade. I would find it difficult to disagree with someone who argued that a 'once in every five years say' is really just a vocal illusion. So with this in mind I wouldn't punish the non-voter at all as per the OP question. If you look it is always the politicians themselves who are disturbed by voter apathy. It's always pushed as a crime not to vote, etc, etc, but most of that comes from the politicians themselves and I wonder why that is?

[prendrelemick]

I vote in just about every poll we have, and with a postal vote it is easy. I do it because I like to moan about those in charge, and accuse them of general wankery, and I feel more entitled to do that because I am an active voter - if you don't vote, don't complain is a fair comment.

Neely and Emil are right about there being no real choice, so it doesn't matter who gets in, On that principle I never vote for those in power. Long term Governments always become arrogant.

[cacian]

No. It is not my duty.
I don't agree with politics as a concept and so no I will not get involved. That is my choice and I respect it and so someone else will have to learn to respect it too.

You don't agree with the political... as in the electoral process? So what alternative would you have? Anarchy? Hereditary Aristocracy? Military Dictatorship?

Haha. No none of that either. Just no politics the same goes with religion. There has to be something else and so I am on it right now haha.
In fact you got have some trust in people just not in this time around maybe in another world.
People have to learn to trust in themselves and in others. No one needs someone else above them to tell them what to do and when.

[Shevek]

People have to learn to trust in themselves and in others. No one needs someone else above them to tell them what to do and when.

This is clearly a political perspective though, so you are paradoxically attempting to reject politics through another overtly political idea.

[stlukesguild]

Cacian... how exactly do you suppose this would work? We have heirarchies in all walks of life. How would we function in our daily lives... in school... in our workplace... in society... without a heirarchy... without some form of leadership or authority? Human beings are not likely to be able to work together without disputes and so how do they settle these? Without an established form of government or authority the obvious answer is through force... might makes right.

[Volya]

When I'm older I think I will abstain from voting. There doesn't really seem like much point, both parties are equally poor. However I have considered trying to become an MP when I'm older, as that seems like a much better way of fixing the system than just sitting around complaining about the Tories and Labour.

[LitNetIsGreat]

When I'm older I think I will abstain from voting. There doesn't really seem like much point, both parties are equally poor. However I have considered trying to become an MP when I'm older, as that seems like a much better way of fixing the system than just sitting around complaining about the Tories and Labour.

Well if you can't beat them, join them eh?

[OrphanPip]

I participate a bit in politics, I worked for the Canadian equivalent of Labour in the previous election, and we had an exciting surge in Quebec and won most of the seats (both campaigns I worked on won their seats). I have also worked as a non-partisan for Elections Canada doing voter registration, which was less exciting. Shamefully, I also participate in student politics and am a graduate student representative on a departmental committee which sets the curriculum, I soundly defeated my non-existent competition in the election.

[cacian]

Well if you can't beat them, join them eh?

Nah if you can't join them you must beat them. :smilewinkgrin: