I have seen some discussion in several threads about what to do if you don't like the candidates on offer. If you don't vote, there is a danger that it will be assumed you were just too lazy to vote.
How many countries have an 'abstain' option on their ballots, to indicate you showed up but did not choose to support a candidate?
I believe some countries let you write in the name of anybody you like, so that is one way to express your discontent, however I am not sure if the statistics are released as to how many people vote that way.
Originally posted by PhrannyThere are, of course, many different motives for not voting. A libertarian friend of mine thinks that voting is itself immoral (because it involves him indirectly telling other people how to live their lives). So for him, writing in a name would still be endorsing the system.
In the US we can write in a candidate's name. No excuse here for not voting. Based on the percentage of those eligible to vote who actually do so , despite the heated issues, there is tremendous apathy in the US.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat would be a great idea right there!!!
I have seen some discussion in several threads about what to do if you don't like the candidates on offer. If you don't vote, there is a danger that it will be assumed you were just too lazy to vote.
How many countries have an 'abstain' option on their ballots, to indicate you showed up but did not choose to support a candidate?
I believe some countrie ...[text shortened]... ntent, however I am not sure if the statistics are released as to how many people vote that way.
It just won't work.
Here in Ireland they are very strict with ballot papers
and I am sure they are too in the UK.
You can vote for who is on the ballot paper
1,2,3,4,5 and so on. If you write anything else
on the ballot paper it is then spoiled and invalid.
The way I see it you should vote. If you have a vote
then vote. It is inexcusable not to vote.
I think that in Parliament or Congress wherever you may be
if you are an elected representative of the people and a bill
comes before the house then vote on it.
That's what you are there for.
Abstaining is wrong. Vote one way or the other.
The people deserve nothing less.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyIf a person voted for someone who starts unjust war or enables taxpayer money for abortion, do you think the voter has some bloodguilt?
It just won't work.
Here in Ireland they are very strict with ballot papers
and I am sure they are too in the UK.
You can vote for who is on the ballot paper
1,2,3,4,5 and so on. If you write anything else
on the ballot paper it is then spoiled and invalid.
The way I see it you should vote. If you have a vote
then vote. It is inexcus ...[text shortened]... e for.
Abstaining is wrong. Vote one way or the other.
The people deserve nothing less.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyCan you justify that stance? Why should peoples opinion be diluted with the random choices of those who have no opinion?
The way I see it you should vote. If you have a vote
then vote. It is inexcusable not to vote.
I think that in Parliament or Congress wherever you may be
if you are an elected representative of the people and a bill
comes before the house then vote on it.
That's what you are there for.
Abstaining is wrong. Vote one way or the other.
The people deserve nothing less.
I have never voted in my country, partly because I don't live there any more, but partly because when I did, I either didn't like any of the choices, or I didn't know enough about them to make an informed decision. For my local councilor, for example, I didn't even know his name.
Going and voting at random, or based on how good a person looks etc is not democracy, at all, and doing so just gives the illusion of democracy which is bad.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by joe beyserIt is the implicit assumption and in some cases stated position of militant jihadists that the citizens of a democracy are complicit in its military aggression and therefor are legitimate targets for attack. So the attacks are not terrorism but are part of a just war. By this logic these citizens are targets whether they vote or not, because they do such things as pay taxes to support the military of their nation.
If a person voted for someone who starts unjust war or enables taxpayer money for abortion, do you think the voter has some bloodguilt?
Originally posted by joe beyserThe person voted in is supposed to represent the wishes of the people.
If a person voted for someone who starts unjust war or enables taxpayer money for abortion, do you think the voter has some bloodguilt?
If a war is among the wishes of the people then that's what they get.
Originally posted by twhiteheadVoting is about choice, there's nothing random about it.
Can you justify that stance? Why should peoples opinion be diluted with the random choices of those who have no opinion?
I have never voted in my country, partly because I don't live there any more, but partly because when I did, I either didn't like any of the choices, or I didn't know enough about them to make an informed decision. For my local council ...[text shortened]... ks etc is not democracy, at all, and doing so just gives the illusion of democracy which is bad.
If you are lucky enough to live in a country where you CAN vote,
then you SHOULD vote.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyIf you do not prefer either option, but must pick one anyway, then your 'choice' is random.
Voting is about choice, there's nothing random about it.
If you are lucky enough to live in a country where you CAN vote,
then you SHOULD vote.
So you say, but I am asking you to justify that statement.
