Actually, from a self-interested point of view, it makes no sense for any individual to vote, since the effect of any single vote on the election, and therefore on their personal situation, is insignificant. Furthermore, an individual suffers small but nontrivial negative consequences by voting (standing in queues, mailing absentee ballots, etc.). Therefore, the rational advice to give any individual is to tell them not to vote.
The group has much to gain and little to lose if everyone votes, for obvious reasons. Therefore, the rational advice to give people at large is to tell them to vote.
In short, my post here should say 'VOTE!' and I should PM all of you, saying 'DON'T VOTE!'.
This is obviously ridiculous; anything the group does is the effect of individual's actions, so the optimum situation (in which everyone has voted but no single person has voted) is absurd.
I still haven't thought of a resolution to this, and, in view of similar feelings to the ones expressed in this thread, will not register to vote until I do.
Originally posted by royalchickennice tongue twister 🙂
Actually, from a self-interested point of view, it makes no sense for any individual to vote, since the effect of any single vote on the election, and therefore on their personal situation, is insignificant. Furthermore, an individual suffers small but nontrivial negative consequences by voting (standing in queues, mailing absentee ballots, etc.). The ilar feelings to the ones expressed in this thread, will not register to vote until I do.
Edit. Ok, ok 😛
Originally posted by SeitseRec and respek!
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 ...[text shortened]... ency is the best weapon. Cancel your vote. Legitimately rebel against the status quo.
Abstaining doesn't send a clear message. Although the British media generally grasp the fact that the low turn outs in recent years reflect a disillusionment with party politics, there is no consensus as to exactly what it is that all these non-voters want.
Nor does "spoiling" your ballot paper by writing a message such as "anarchist" or "no war" send any clearer message. Spoilt ballot papers are counted, but never analysed or reported.
There will be times when abstaining is the ethical and right thing to do, perhaps when faced with a choice between three right of centre and pro-war candidates and three right of centre parties. But don't delude yourself that it will change anything. If you get the chance, register a meaningful protest by voting Green or Respect.
The only meaningful message you send by voting BNP is that you're a Nazi, and you mean it.
I really don't know how I'm going to vote. Normally I'd hold my nose and vote Labour anyway, but this time I'll probably find a more left-wing alternative or, failing that, leave an insulting message for Tony Blair on the ballot paper.
Originally posted by AmauroteYou certainly need to hold your nose if you vote 'Labour', old or new.
The only meaningful message you send by voting BNP is that you're a Nazi, and you mean it.
I really don't know how I'm going to vote. Normally I'd hold my nose and vote Labour anyway, but this time I'll probably find a more left-wing alternative or, failing that, leave an insulting message for Tony Blair on the ballot paper.
A more stinking bunch of inadequates, crooks, clowns, and perverts has never before occupied governmental office. But that is thanks to those like you and Redmike's Glaswegian ruffians.
Originally posted by royalchickenLets look at that scenario. Is there any law that says, for instance, if only one person voted, the party they voted for would win but there were not enough votes? I don't think so. So every individual voter shows displeasure and stays home. However, that still leaves the incumbant, who, at least in America, can vote. You can be sure you would know who that vote was for. So the incumbant would win with 100% of the vote, an obvious mandate!
Actually, from a self-interested point of view, it makes no sense for any individual to vote, since the effect of any single vote on the election, and therefore on their personal situation, is insignificant. Furthermore, an individual suffers small but nontrivial negative consequences by voting (standing in queues, mailing absentee ballots, etc.). The ...[text shortened]... ilar feelings to the ones expressed in this thread, will not register to vote until I do.
Originally posted by NargagunaSince Stephen Milligan choked to death on an orange peel in his best suspenders?
A more stinking bunch of inadequates, crooks, clowns, and perverts has never before occupied governmental office.
I accept responsibility for voting Labour all these years, but I think you'll have a hard job pinning the blame for New Labour on Mike, he's strictly an SSP man.
Originally posted by AmauroteWell don't do it again.
Since Stephen Milligan choked to death on an orange peel in his best suspenders?
I accept responsibility for voting Labour all these years, but I think you'll have a hard job pinning the blame for New Labour on Mike, he's strictly an SSP man.
Originally posted by AmauroteThats all too complex for naziguna - you're either on his side, or you're an evil commie.
Since Stephen Milligan choked to death on an orange peel in his best suspenders?
I accept responsibility for voting Labour all these years, but I think you'll have a hard job pinning the blame for New Labour on Mike, he's strictly an SSP man.
He needs things simple.
Originally posted by RedmikeWe've seen what comes of your ideas in politics. Just look at the present mess, and also remember the Wilson/Callaghan performance in the '60s and '70s which ended in the UK having to be bailed out by the IMF.
Thats all too complex for naziguna - you're either on his side, or you're an evil commie.
He needs things simple.
Originally posted by NargagunaRemarkable, though, for a party only formed 5 years ago.
We've seen what comes of your ideas in politics. Just look at the present mess, and also remember the Wilson/Callaghan performance in the '60s and '70s which ended in the UK having to be bailed out by the IMF.
Which bit of 'I am not a labour party supporter' don't you get?
As I said, try and see things beyond everyone who disagrees with you must be a 'commie'.
Originally posted by RedmikeI assumed that as you proclaim yourself to be a proud member of the 'Scottish Socialist Party' you would probably be in favour of socialst remedies for the World's economic and political ills.
Remarkable, though, for a party only formed 5 years ago.
Which bit of 'I am not a labour party supporter' don't you get?
As I said, try and see things beyond everyone who disagrees with you must be a 'commie'.
That being so I also thought it relevant to point out that these phoney remedies have consistently failed in the UK; I could have gone on to point to their equal failure elsewhere such as Russia, but thought that too obvious to warrant mention.
So, if you now renounce any connection with 'Labour', or communism (despite your admiration for the commie/marxist/anarchist, Red Robbo, who helped Wilson bring the Uk to bankruptcy) can you please tell us in what way your 'socialism' differs from all the other failed brands?