I'm with David Tebb on this one - while I did choose to vote in the previous presidential election (and the more recent congressional election) I was disgusted with the fact that I did not feel like any of the presidential candidates represented my views or desires with the way that the country should be run. So what David has pointed out is correct; if you vote for someone simply as a protest vote or the lesser of two evils, that may be your consideration in your mind, but at the end of the day, you give that individual more of a mandate to rule than if you hadn't voted at all, because you are implying that you support them as a candidate. It is only your vote that is counted, not your intent.
That being said, I can't offer any other way to make your political voice heard. As is fairly apparent, even political protesting has become marginalized, millions of people around the world and hundreds of thousands in the United States protested yesterday, and today the Bush administration reiterated its intent to force some of action as soon as possible. So there does not seem to be any effect. Maybe civil disobedience is the next necessary step, I don't know.
-mike
The Australian political environment is slightly different to the U.K. or U.S. Firstly voting is COMPULSORY, democracy is your obligation to maintain not rely on others. We have two major parties, either of always seems to get enough seats in the lower house to form government. "Minor parties" tend to exsert their influence in the upper house, where for almost a decade (i could be corrected) they have held the balance of power. To make it clear what I mean, the government does not have enough seats in the senate to form a majority therefore they need the agreement of the smaller parties to pass legislation. Meaning they could reject legislation and send it back to the government with amendments.
The pros and cons of having a smaller party controlling the upper house. A few years ago the government received a majority in the lower house and considered it had a mandate to pass a very unpopular piece of legislation. However, a lot of Australians had voted for one of minor parties in the upper house. This particular party campaign had clearly started the it did not agree with the legislation and would block it in the upper house. After months of negotiation the legislation was allowed to pass the senate. In the next election the minor party lost most of its seats.
Is this how democracy should work ?
Another question on democracy in Australia occurred thirty years ago, our esteemed Governor General (the royal office in Australia since technically we are still a monarchy) saw fit to dismiss the government. I am not going to debate his reasons, but the point is this is still possible though forgotten by many Australians.
-mike
ps The Australian prime minister recently said he does not care what popular opinion says about the war in Iraq he is doing what he thinks is morally right. Who said Australia was a democracy ?
Originally posted by legionnaireNo candidate is going to be able to represent the views of every one of his/her constituents. Voting
...So what David has pointed out is correct; if you vote for someone simply as a protest vote or the lesser of two evils, that may be your consideration in your mind, but at the end of the day, you give that individual more of a mandate ...[text shortened]... because you are implying that you support them as a candidate. ...
for someone necessarily involves compromise. You weigh the quantity and value of the various
positive traits against the negative and make a decision. If the two primary candidates in America
didn't stimulate you, then vote for the third party candidates. Not voting says that you cannot:
1) Help a candidate you support; or
2) Hurt a candidate that you oppose.
Not voting hurts all candidates, true, but so does voting for third party candidates or writing in a
vote.
But voting is more than that, too. By voting, even writing in a person who might receive only 2
votes, you are saying that you support the notion of the voting process. Simply saying that no
candidate stimulates me, therefore I am not going to vote does a disservice to the people who
fought for that freedom and takes for granted that privilege that many countries do not have. By
voting, you say "I care" about a principal that is fundamental to this country.
Now, if America or England had a voting record of say 75-80%, then, ok, fine, maybe I am being
extreme. But we vote in embarrasingly low numbers; less than 35% during presidential elections,
if I recall correctly (worse on off year elections). That means, of the people you see on the street,
13 out of 20 didn't vote. Do you really think that none of those 13 had anything in common with
any of the four main runners in America's last presidential election? Do you really think that
indifference (the "all politicians are the same" argument) didn't play a role? Do you think all 13
conscientiously objected to voting because of the people who ran? Research/polls don't indicate
that this is the case.
Do you really think Gore, Nader or Buchanan would be handling this Iraq situation in the same way?
Same economic policies? Same notions on welfare, education, crime, taxes or business?
If one thinks they are all the same, then, yes, the system cannot help them.
But the fact is that they aren't. Anyone who does their homework on candidates will discover this. This is part of the apathy I am talking about. If you really think that not voting helps the system,
you are mistaken.
Originally posted by David TebbExactly right. In the last presidential election the only candidate worth a damn (Ralph Nader) was prevented from participating in the televised debates. He was, in fact, removed from the premises where the debate was taking place, even though he had a ticket to the event. There is only one party in the U.S. at present, and that party stands for corporate interests.
I made up a scenario with two candidates. I did that to illustrate the futility of voting when there is no real choice between candidates, as many people feel is happening in Britain and the USA at the moment.
If it would make you happier, imagine a scenario in which all of Saddams relatives stood for election. There would be plenty of candidates to choose from, but nothing worth voting for 😉
Dave
Originally posted by richhoeythere are 8 points of democracy-universal suffrage (1 person, 1 vote), free use of own vote (secret ballot), equal vote value (equal constituencies), regualr elections, ability to participate in political process, government all elected representatives, government based on majority support and a written constitution. at the present moment, britain doesn't have a fully elected government (the house of lords), nor does it have a government based on a majority support (first past the post system), and nor does it have a written constitution (she does have rights, but they are "by use and wont" so they can be withdrawn at time of crisis, like during a war). democracy???
That said, I'd be the first to admit that the British electoral system is far from perfect.
G