The local elections are coming up in England (and possibly elsewhere in Britain).
I constantly hear people saying "If you don't vote, you can't complain".
But if I vote for someone I don't agree with, then I become responsible for anything they do once elected.
For example, I voted Labour in 1997 so I am responsible for Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq.
If there is no-body worth voting for I should be able to with-hold my vote without being told I have no right to complain.
Someone once told me "If there is no-one worth voting for then stand yourself!".
Originally posted by VargCancel your vote as a signal of disagreement with the poor political offer. That is, go to the ballot area and cancel the paper with an "X" as a statement -or write your name or the name of someone you consider as a good option. Either way, the vote shall be considered eliminated.
The local elections are coming up in England (and possibly elsewhere in Britain).
I constantly hear people saying "If you don't vote, you can't complain".
But if I vote for someone I don't agree with, then I become responsible for anything they do once elected.
For example, I voted Labour in 1997 so I am responsible for Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq.
...[text shortened]... mplain.
Someone once told me "If there is no-one worth voting for then stand yourself!".
Originally posted by VargYes. I think we should hAve the option of checking a box labelled 'None of above suitable', or words to that effect.
The local elections are coming up in England (and possibly elsewhere in Britain).
I constantly hear people saying "If you don't vote, you can't complain".
But if I vote for someone I don't agree with, then I become responsible for anything they do once elected.
For example, I voted Labour in 1997 so I am responsible for Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq.
...[text shortened]... mplain.
Someone once told me "If there is no-one worth voting for then stand yourself!".
Originally posted by NargagunaI think one way of making politicians somewhat more honest is to have, instead of voting elections, just use a lottery. That way, statistically you will get people who are not in bed with oil companies or whatever. Then nobody can complain about not voting. You could find yourself in the PM office or the president or maybe a senator.
Yes. I think we should hAve the option of checking a box labelled 'None of above suitable', or words to that effect.
It would take awhile for companies to corrupt those dudes and dudettes.
Originally posted by sonhouseHey now! That really is a good idea. Full marks.
I think one way of making politicians somewhat more honest is to have, instead of voting elections, just use a lottery. That way, statistically you will get people who are not in bed with oil companies or whatever. Then nobody can complain about not voting. You could find yourself in the PM office or the president or maybe a senator.
It would take awhile for companies to corrupt those dudes and dudettes.
After all we could hardly get a more incompetent gang than Toniblair.s minions currently wrecking the UK
Originally posted by SeitseThat's right, the best way is to spoil your paper. The number of spoilt papers is always announced in every constituency, it would be marvellous if spoilt papers gained a majority in some constituency.
Cancel your vote as a signal of disagreement with the poor political offer. That is, go to the ballot area and cancel the paper with an "X" as a statement -or write your name or the name of someone you consider as a good option. Either way, the vote shall be considered eliminated.
Originally posted by princeoforangeIt's a thought.
That's right, the best way is to spoil your paper. The number of spoilt papers is always announced in every constituency, it would be marvellous if spoilt papers gained a majority in some constituency.
Then I can proudly announce that I made an effort to take part in the political process, yet cannot be blamed for the actions of any of these elected freeloaders (councillors are worse than MPs).
Make everyone have to be a politician at some point - sort of like jury duty. You're call comes up, you head off to parliament for a few weeks or months or whatever, serve your time, then someone else takes over.
No issues there with power and corruption.
Everyone has their say, eventually.
No one has to vote - ever.
Originally posted by princeoforangeThe spoilt papers are actually the only ones the candidates/agents ever actually see properly, so there is scope for creativity.
That's right, the best way is to spoil your paper. The number of spoilt papers is always announced in every constituency, it would be marvellous if spoilt papers gained a majority in some constituency.
When you are in disagreement with a given regime, there is no better way than to massively undermine legitimacy from the status quo by not participating either way -that is, not supporting the opponent either- but participating at the same time by going paralel.
Canceling the vote is participating but at the same time sending a clear message that you are voting for a different status quo they (the politicians) just don't offer at the time. If enough people does this, yeah there will be a 'winner' group, but such tribe will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the society, forcing them to modificate their agenda to address the 'participative outcasts' -just to name them in a manner.
A given system wants two kinds of people: (1) controlled robots driven by apathy, or (2) controlled robots who play by their rules [in an induced 'child psychology' of the like "son, do you want to do your homework while drinking ice tea or juice?"] They are just panicked by people who says "yes, I will participate but in my terms".
Independency is the best weapon. Cancel your vote. Legitimately rebel against the status quo.