a reply to: grandmakdw
If you do not vote, then you cannot complain is the most touted phrase during election cycles, and is also the most illegitimate garbage argument I
have ever heard, for anything.
For a start, even when there are more than two parties which might see themselves winning an election, if the choices are a) a bastard, b) a bastard
for different reasons c) a bastard with yet another angle, who is yet a total bastard, you should not be forced to pick between these. All arguments
to the contrary clearly miss the point, which is that even a tactical vote can give a mandate to a candidate or party, with whom the voter themselves
shares not one singular value in common.
Because it is impossible to run a campaign which has a hope in hell of winning, unless one happens to have a millionaire or three on hand to pump up
ones public image, with PR moves, and a whole bunch of other fakery, normal, regular folk who want to do right by their nation will never get a look
in at a position worth a crap. So, not only is the election rigged from the get go by the lack of decent candidates, but it also is rigged against
good candidates coming forward, because cost is prohibitive.
Voting for any candidate in that scenario legitimises the hegemony, one which most people on balance, do not agree with!
Unless ballot papers have a section which clearly reads "none of the above" and unless putting your mark on that part of the paper means that enough
people voting that way will result in NO government until better candidates, candidates and parties which really DO represent the people are allowed a
shot, then there is no value in engaging with the process. No vote, IS a protest vote, and it should be read that way.
Low voter turnout is NOT bad for elections. It is bad for parties, candidates, and policies, because during a term of office which was won by a
poorly attended ballot, a party cannot be said to have gained a real mandate to enact policy. If only twenty percent of people voted and fifty five
percent of those elected an official, that official is not legitimately in control.
If candidates were engaging the public, if they could be trusted to be honest, and OBEY the will of the people in all matters, then people would
vote. It is the fault of those running, those backing them, those spending obscene amounts of money on campaigning, those who believe party politics
is relevant in this century, that folk are believing that not voting is a legitimate way forward, because it is the behaviour of political parties,
politicians, and their benefactors which disgust people, causing voter apathy in the first place.
The people are the ones who ought to be served by the politics of their nation. It is not within their power however, to force change at an
acceptable rate by voting, and this they know now, as the illusion has grown thinner every year. Politics is the problem, not voter apathy. Eligible
persons who do not vote, are no less patriotic, and have EVERY right to complain. They are the only demographic worth a brass damn in the whole
edit on 4-11-2014 by TrueBrit because: Grammar error removed.