Voting

In the recent British election, I was faced with a choice between three parties, who all, more or less, occupied the centre. The Conservatives were slightly to the right, The Liberals slightly to the left. Where's the choice?

And as I don't trust any of the parties as far as I can throw them (apart from the Lib Dems, who seem okay), I didn't see the point in voting.

I just don't see the point. The way I see it, if 40-50% of the population don't vote, then maybe someone, somewhere will realise that Things Aren't Right. Maybe instead of parties, we'll get independents. Maybe we'll get a party who listen, believe in what they do and don't break promises. Maybe we'll get something a bit more radical.

To clarify, voting, even for a candidate with no chance of winning is not apathy. NOT voting at all is apathy.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

To clarify, voting, even for a candidate with no chance of winning is not apathy. NOT voting at all is apathy.

Take care all.

---

No, not to vote is a possible consequence of apathy, and a reason coming from it, but apathy is not the only reason for not voting. And you can be voting without even thinking, with not really caring, just for the hell of doing it: that's apathy too.

In Australia, voting is mandatory. You get a fine (not a huge one) for failing to vote. Thus, we regularly get 80% or higher turnout.

Well I would hate to see that(mandatory vote). Personally even if I was of age for the Bush-Kerry election I would not have voted. Both were "*fools", and I didn't see any real potential in any other canidate.. therefor no vote.. give me something to vote for, and I will gladly do so, but I won't support those that are "*fools".



*I am using fools in a very very unhashed form and as a general insult to intellegence and of the ability to perform the actions of the presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

In Australia, voting is mandatory. You get a fine (not a huge one) for failing to vote. Thus, we regularly get 80% or higher turnout.

---

O_o


That's plain sick.

You can choose to vote for no candidate, though. Or spoil your ballot. But there are enough parties kicking about there's something to choose from. Plus, you don't neccessarily waste your vote on a minor party, because you list candidates in order of preference.

61% in Britain.

Hmm, I don't live in America, so I can't be sure of what I say. Although, I thought Eminem's "Mosh" video would spark up more people to vote.

The UK's recent election had it's lowest turn-out.

I vote . . . but I prefer to stay out of other people's politics.

America's most recent election had the highest turnout (in numbers, not percentages) in our history, even though many people were disgusted with both candidates. And it was still, what, barely 100 million? Many times, people must vote for what they consider to be the "lesser of two evils". The candidate I voted for, I didn't like him all that much, there are some things I disagree with him on, and I would have voted for somebody different in a primary--but, that was the candidate, and I voted for him not because I wanted him to be President, but mainly because I didn't want the other guy to be President.

I also noticed that in Iraq, voting made people targets--not just the process of voting, but being a voter and being temporarily "marked" ("inky finger" ;) ) and everybody being able to tell that person voted for a few days. And still, what was it, seventy-something, eighty-something percent went out and voted? I was out on a route-clearing mission that day, and we must have seen 1500 people walking to polling stations--some dozens of miles away. Iraqis feel so strongly about their new freedom that they're willing to literally risk their lives and walk ten or twenty miles, maybe more, to vote, and us lazy-ass Americans can't turn off Oprah and drive two miles to our local library? It's sickening.

However, I do agree with The Redneck and nik0tine on this. If somebody's too lazy to get out and vote...good. That's one vote that shouldn't be cast.

I also agree with Behold the Viod -- This last election, as I have said, wasn't about the better candidate, it was about who wasn't the worse candidate. But I think the Democrats just put somebody up that was easy to push over so that they wouldn't have to worry about an incumbent come 2008 when they put Hillary up. Mark my words...and I wouldn't doubt Condi will run against her.

So, in order to cure this laziness, what we need are better candidates perhaps?

Take care all.

I think that people who care about their country and the people living in it, will vote. In a country where politics are a major part of what's going on, and important decisions have to be taken every single day, the vast majority of the nation's populace want a good leader in charge, and would also want to pick that leader themselves.

Here we usually have 80-90 percent of the people voting, which makes sense considering how critical things are here. When the the burning question is whether to increase tax on coffee, it's obvious why most people won't vote... but when the outcome of the election can determine how people will live or die, they'd better vote.

To get better candidates having a primary where every state goes on the same day would be a good step in that direction. Far too often people follow the mob mentality in a primary instead of voting for who they want to win because it would be a "wasted" vote. But also in the primary you would get a lot more media coverage that way and you could even get the media to help re-enforce the idea that the primary is voting for who you want. Its not like a real election where that person will make decisions. That would help gain some better candidates I think.