It would be far more effective* if all those who choose to spoil ballot or not to vote at all instead travelled down to Westminster to do a collective poo on that big bit of grass outside the houses of parliament where they always put reporters... *Not strictly true, but it would be stinky and fun.
I would respectfully disagree, when someone doesn't bother to vote it is seen as not caring. When someone spoils their vote it shows they do care, just not for any of the candidates. There is a big difference IMHO, one shows they don't care who runs the country, the other shows they do care who runs the country but don't want, trust, or share the same opinion as those people who wish to govern them.
I know it's becoming standard to state that all elected officials are corrupt/incompetent/mad/bad/etc, but come to think of it there were a few MPs elected in 2010 that I knew at college and I wouldn't say they were particularly awful people. Are we just rubbishing democracy with this "they're all *******s the lot of them" attitude? Shouldn't we judge each one as an individual and not blame all of them for everything bad we hear of?
Is it really democracy though when someone gets elected every five years, and can then do what ever they please. Sure it maybe a case of the odd bad apple but if you leave bad apples in the barrel long enough they make the whole barrel rotten.
I said it once and I say it again: if you want a better government, take personal responsibility for your local community as much as you can. Don't expect big daddy to make it all alright for you; all you'll get is ineffectual parents inconsistently managing and lying to undisciplined demanding children. Happy families.
Sadly taking personal responsibility for your local community only goes so far, what should the local community do about things like TAX, wars, foreign policy, infrastructure, etc, etc.
I'm not sure how it works over here, but here politicians pay attention to the letters and phone calls they get at their offices from voters, as well as things like letters to the editor of the paper, etc. These are the ways in which people communicate to their elected officials as to what's important to them. The problem is that it allows a small but vocal group to have greater influence on policy than the silent majority. This is another inherent limitation of representative democracy. We vote for people, not issues, and it's hard for the people we elect to communicate effectively with the masses they represent to find out what they really want. In many states, including mine, we have an initiative process by which the people can propose and vote for legislation. It has the advantage of allowing the populace to vote directly on issues, but the disadvantage that the results are sometimes a bit ridiculous. This is how we got marijuana and gay marriage legalized in this state. The problem is that the process has also been hijacked at times by corporations for their own ends, like the big warehouse store that convinced people to pass a law that allowed them to sell liquor.
Don't vandalise stuff. Don't litter. Support your local community centre. Support your children's school with volunteer involvement and buy its library just one book --if 1000 parents do this, any inner city comprehensive can compete with the best public schools. Regularly talk to your local MP --as a group. Regularly talk to council leaders and demand accountability for how your council tax is spent --as a group. One vote can be ignored. But the thousands of votes of a whole community?
You should see politics here before calling for mandatory voting. We have eight people running for county sheriffs. None are honest, three have announced they only want it for a year just for the retirement, one is a known thief and one is no lie a federal felon charged with police brutality, unlawful arrest, assault and battery and is a well known drug addict to boot. I should know, I went to school with him. We abstain to show no faith in the process. There is no candidate I wouldn't use for target practice when my new bow arrives. I don't want to help elect someone I would fear with that power. I could spoil my vote, but it would be the same as not voting. Except I don't have to lug my old wheelchair around.
Yes they do pay attention to such things but when it comes down to it, do they vote the way the community wants, or do they tow the party line. I also don't know how it works in America, but in the UK parliament we have party whips who's job is to get MP's to vote the way their party wants them to, by some very dubious means from what i hear. Yet MP's still ignore the community. Most of the time they will vote the way their party wants them to, not the way the public wants them to, not to do so would mean you put your political career at risk. And just like no man is an island, so is no community or country, there is only so much you can do locally before you are forced to rely on others. I didn't call for mandatory voting, or at least i don't think i did. IIRC i suggested it maybe a good idea, so that all the people that don't bother voting, thinking it's the same as spoiling their vote (when it's not) actually do more than staying at home, present company excepted.
I always vote and if I didn't want to vote for anyone on the I'd spoil my ballot. There is a proud tradition of spoiling ballot papers in this country. I think it's a shame more people who don't vote because they dislike all the candidates don't actually get out there post a spoilt ballot. They are counted and declared for a reason. A substantial proportion of spoilt papers could make a real statement. It would make it impossible to right off anger as apathy. People ask for a none of the above option when effectively they already have one. ------------------------- I do have some sympathy for compulsory voting as an idea, but on balance I don't think it is the way forward. My idea would be to lower the voting age to 16 then have discussion of and the act of actually voting (should the student wish) on the curriculum in the last year of compulsory education.
They ignore the community because there is no community. People are divided and they all expect someone else to solve their problems for them. So what is in it for the MP? Pleasing Mr. Bloggs may get you his vote, but not that of his neighbour (who may want you to do the exact opposite of Mr. Bloggs). But pleasing a few thousand highly motivated and informed citizens who all want the same thing is a more attractive proposition. Moreover it is easier to achieve results by working with people than doing things for them. The clients that I experience most success with, and enjoy working with most, are those who are motivated to help themselves; who collaborate rather than just sit there passively demanding for you to change their lives for them. There is very little that we really need from national government. Most of our daily life needs are met at a local level. The government has no power but what we choose to give it.
And that is why the political parties put so much faith in what polling tells them, then come up with ideas that poll well with the public. It doesn't need a few thousand people to organise them selves into a group, a thousand people in a group still have the same amount of votes as a thousand individuals. Of course it is, then you can sit back and chat to us on the forums J/k sorry i couldn't help myself. Joking aside, of course we get better results by working with people, versus the people that just want us to do things for them. That's because some people know there is a problem, but don't have the skills, tools, knowledge, or know-how, to be able to fix the problem, we just need to give them the right tools to empower them to do something about it. The people that want us to fix things, don't care, lack understanding, feel it's someone else problem, and many, many other reasons. National government sets laws, provide national defense, and collects taxes that in turn pays for everything local councils provide. Now it's debatable how blurred the line is between national and local government is, but at the end of the day it's a hierarchical structure that works better than each street, or town fixing their own roads, providing their own health care, prisons, law enforcement, etc, etc. Even in olden days we had a hierarchical structure with someone or something providing a overarching structure to the way groups of people interact or organise large projects.
Another issue here is that the US is a representative democracy. We tally all our presidential votes, then hock them in the skip and an electoral college that we can't vote for and is not beholden to us in any way actually decides on the president. They have chosen to ignore the states in the past, and can be expected to do so in the future. When your vote actually doesn't count, why bother with it? They still refuse to pass a popular vote as lobbyists own the electoral college. Voting only gives a sense of doing something to those who don't know how it works.
Well the electoral college accounts for the fact that it is the "United States" rather than the "United State". It's a pretty big constitutional change to take the states out of the process altoghter. While in theory the electoral college can vote contrary to the election result, this is illegal for many states and hasn't affected a result to date (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)
It's happened eleven times since the founding of the country. And illegal counts for nothing in voting or governance.
The Electoral College system isn't without its problems (it basically shifts the focus from large states to small states), but the 1836 Presidential election is the only time an entire state's electors went against that state's popular vote when Virginia's electors refused to support Richard Johnson for Vice President. Without a majority needed to win, the vote went to the Senate where Johnson was elected Vice President. There have been a few 'faithless electors' throughout history, but their decision has never changed the outcome of an election. 29 states now have laws punishing faithless electors, so the problem is not as bad as you think it is. As to the broader question of whether or not your vote counts, the answer is yes - for a given value of 'counts.' Your vote counts as much as any other vote in your state. I think there is a legitimate argument in the way the Electoral College math creates a situation in which a person can win the popular vote but lose the general election. Because of this math, although your vote counts as much as any other vote in your state, it may count more or less than a vote cast in another state. One of the problems I have with the Presidential election in America is actually related to election coverage. So much analysis goes into the numbers that some states are called before the polls even close, and a good half of the country is done (and the results reported) 3-4 hours before the polls in Alaska and Hawaii are closed.
I like the idea of everyone having to vote (it legitimizes the process and the results), but this is a very valid concern. I know a guy who knows a girl who voted UKIP simply because a flier came through her door and she liked the colours. That was literally her entire thought process. She only happened to go because her family were going down to the polling station to vote. Imagine how many more like her would turn up and vote UKIP because they like the colours - all those people who presently don't know or care enough to vote, forced to choose a party based on what they do know (superficial f***-all). In a perfect world, I'd like everyone in the country to be given a crash course in politics, forced to watch a few lectures and debates, forced to read a paper other than the Daily Mail, and then forced to vote. That would be a country taking care of itself. But we can't do the former, so it'd be catastrophic to do the latter.
Forcing people to vote does not legitimize it, it just makes it easier to pass it off to simpletons and the sedated masses as legitimate. Forced vote between me stamping on your left testicle or your right testicle. You vote left testicle. I stamp on and totally obliterate your left testicle. You have nothing to complain about as you voted for it. Sounds legit .
I'd rather be arrested for not voting. I refuse to vote on the grounds that they're all liars and assholes. I fully accept that that's what most of adult life is full of, but I don't have to take part in it.
