Thread: Thoughts from a non voter

We were discussing politics one night and some upcoming election and i made the comment that i didn't vote.
This caused a bit of an uproar that i wasn't expecting and someone made the point that "so many people have died so i can have the vote, what would they think if you didnt and waa waa"
my response to this argument was that if all those people who died could look at the political system now, would they be happy?

In my opinion democracy, especially in england, is a shadow of what was promised. The competition is only between 2 parties realistically, and i don't want to vote for any of those fat, corrupt, arrogant schoolboys.

I was once aghast at the thought of citizens not votuing. I have read a few articles on the matter and currently believe it is a valid way to make a point.

My history classes at high school seemed to suggest that non-voters were just apathetic and lazy. A very narrow view in my opinion, many if not most of those who don't vote, do so for the reason you stated. On the other hand, my Physics prof, said that in Australia (where he is from) it is illegal not to vote. You get fined a whole $5 or something like that, I think that is based on the clearly biased view found in our history classes.

Voter apathy is a sign of a healthy country. It means most people are content with the status quo and don't see any need to rock the boat. It means they are equally satisfied with whatever result the current election might have. High voter turn outs usually come from countries where democracy is on a shakier footing, and the results of the election can decide the very continued existence of the right to vote. Or when there is a larger proportion of dissatisfied people.

Likewise, the two party system is a sign of a stable country. When one party is in power, it's position is "stuck". It doesn't flip flop on any major issues, and represents what a majority of dissatisfied voters can compromise on. The other party, usually just ousted from power, then takes time to reexamine its priorities and reinvent itself. It's core position can drift slightly to rebalance against the needs and beliefs of the electorate whos needs are not being met by the in-power party. But since it needs to get elected with a majority to gain control, the ousted party has to remain essentially centrist. The two parties orbit around each other like this absorbing any extremist views in the electorate before they can fester.

Although neither party really represents any voters' actual views, they represent two major foci for more extreme voters to orbit around. And since the ones who vote tend to be the ones dissatisfied with the way things are (or might be), the ousted party can placate any revolutions before they happen just be changing the party platform to cater to this extreme group or that one, without leaving its centrist position. Each party represents a mish-mash of compromises, and each voter gets to vote on which compromise is least worse.

The end result is that the parties take turns reinventing themselves for new generations. In the US, Lincoln Republicans and Reagan Republicans are very different, for instance.

In a multi party system, every fringe view is given a voice, and finding a consensus can be more difficult, because it has to be done by egotistical politicians instead of emergently by the electorate.

All this is IMO obviously.

Originally Posted by Numsgil

Voter apathy is a sign of a healthy country. It means most people are content with the status quo and don't see any need to rock the boat.

It is... as long as they are 'actively' apathetic. If a person makes an active choice not to vote because they are perfectly happy with the way things are... then you are absolutely correct. However, let us be honest with ourselves... most non-voters are non-voters because they are actually apathetic. They don't care. Hell, more than one student in my government classes have no idea they even can vote.

Likewise, the two party system is a sign of a stable country.

Ehhh. On one hand, you have a dual-party system that is mired in repititon and in a idealogical rut. On the other hand, you have nations like Italy whose government falls every other week because some guy in a odd-ball political party who makes up the '+1' in the 'Majority +1' coalition got in a bad mood and withdrew his support.[/i]

The passively apathetic aren't likely to revolt any time soon, so the government doesn't really have to worry about keeping them happy anyway

It's my personal policy to vote, as I am allowed to select "Other". Not voting is a great way to simply be IGNORED, meanwhile voting for someone that isn't running or is very unpopular but supports your views better is a great way to make your voice heard. "I don't want to be a part of this shit, I want someone else."

Originally Posted by Philogogus

Voter apathy is a sign of a healthy country. It means most people are content with the status quo and don't see any need to rock the boat.

It is... as long as they are 'actively' apathetic. If a person makes an active choice not to vote because they are perfectly happy with the way things are... then you are absolutely correct. However, let us be honest with ourselves... most non-voters are non-voters because they are actually apathetic. They don't care. Hell, more than one student in my government classes have no idea they even can vote.

He's saying that life is so good, the apathetic aren't motivated to actively seek change.

Very interesting, Numsgil.