To vote or Not to Vote: That is the question

Dampsquid

At least 50 percent of Poland's registered voters had to vote in the poll for the result to be valid.

58.85% Turnout

77.45% voted YES

22.55% voted NO

If all the people who voted NO, didn't come out to vote. Then it would have been a 100% YES vote, but the turn out would have been 45.58% and the result wouldn't have been valid.

Éomer of Rohan

All very interesting but so what? It is just another example of how modern 'democracy' is failing.

PH01

Originally posted by Dampsquid
If all the people who voted NO, didn't come out to vote. Then it would have been a 100% YES vote, but the turn out would have been 45.58% and the result wouldn't have been valid.

It's an interesting system they have there in Poland. And it just goes to show that 'No' voters are worth something

solice

thats cool, even though they voted and their voices were heard, if they hadnt voted there voices would have been heard even louder.

hmmmm

Éomer of Rohan

So would that mean that anyone who disagreed with a motion should simply not vote at all and sink it that way - which would in fact utilise voter apathy as a political tool and force the supporting side to engage in the uphill job of encouraging voter turnout?

In my humble opinion, that is quite ridiculous.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
All very interesting but so what? It is just another example of how modern 'democracy' is failing.

I would tend to agree, indirectly, for once with young Eomer.

One of the basic principles of modern democracy is that it is tempered by political conflict - that is to say one side of an elected democracy will always act as watchdog to the other, guaranteeing accountability within the system. Enter the post-Cold War era of consensus politics and the difference between political parties is becoming difficult to differentiate. This is superficially a good thing in that it demonstrates that candidates are seeking to mirror public sentiment rather than an abstract, and often academic, ideology. However it also engenders consensus of convenience between political groups; effectively allowing them to maintain what is effectively a multi-party oligarchy, given that there are few issues they cannot agree to compromise on.

Before you know it you’re left with rainbow coalitions and no credible opposition to government policy and you realize that your democracy has become like a headless chicken - it runs about and makes a lot of commotion, but it is in fact quite dead. This is actually why one-party states are a bad thing - not because they’re undemocratic per say (many one-party states have open elections amongst candidates from the said party), just inefficient, ineffectual and eventually corrupt.

Of course the problem lies in the lack of any real alternative to modern democracy. Increasingly, as we move deeper into democratic oligarchy, we will that vested interests - both domestic and foreign - will oppose any such alternative.

Additionally, any alternative presently being proposed is simply not credible. On the far right, we have groups that tout the ideal of racial purity being the answer to all of life’s problems (including, apparently, male pattern baldness), on the far left we are sold outdated and unrealistic concepts of Utopia that were first being peddled in the time of our great-grandfathers. Both sides are on the fringes of not only politics but also reality and so do not do well under critical scrutiny - and as such have little or no support.

I wish I did have a conclusion to all this, but I have none I’m afraid. Modern democracy may be somehow quickened into evolution in the future or overcome by the evolution of an alternative form of government. Either way it’s unlikely to be a painless process, but preferable to the illusion of free will that we are inexorably shuffling, head down, towards.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a referendum to vote in.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by solice
thats cool, even though they voted and their voices were heard, if they hadnt voted there voices would have been heard even louder.

Case in Point Texas Senate Vote quorum .

Personally I don't agree with referendum quorums of 50% let alone the quorum itself. It is undemocratic to say that u need 50% of the voters to vote. That is similar to what alot of ppl are fighting against here in this country; The right to electronically spoil your vote. I would support 2 day voting on weekends and Voter ID cards.

This would mean that you could vote anywhere within the state with your Voter ID card and you would have a whole weekend to do it. No more of this 9am-9pm voting on Thursday's in your original-local suburb. Its unrealistic and helps produce such large voter appity...
Ok. Don't let me get started on the root causes of the apolitical nature of our society or we will be off topic a very long time. I'll leave that for the humanities board..

bonkey

Originally posted by Dampsquid
If all the people who voted NO, didn't come out to vote. Then it would have been a 100% YES vote, but the turn out would have been 45.58% and the result wouldn't have been valid.

Correct...and if I understand how the media explained Polish law, the referndum would then revert to the government who could make up their own minds on the issue.

The idea of the structure in this case is actually a fundamentally good one. When there is an issue of sufficient import, it goes to the people to vote on. If the people show that they are not sufficiently interested to vote on it, then it reverts back to the "normal" legal-making decision.

In this case, given that the government was incredibly pro-Euro (again, from what I've heard), hoping to play for the sub 50% turnout would have been a ridiculously foolish move, as it increased the chance of Poland joining the EU...not weakened it.

I may, of course, have misunderstood what I was hearing...


jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
In my humble opinion, that is quite ridiculous.

In my humble opinion, you should read up on game theory / gaming theory before making such an assumption.

If you actually analyse what is happening, you will see that such "abandonment" tactics make little difference.

One side has to campaign "If you are against bill X, the dont vote", and the other has to campaign "if you are for bill X, then do vote".

This is no different in concept to "Vote against/for", which is how standard democracy works. From a gaming point of view, they are identical systems.

In reality, there is some slight difference, as it may prove easier to convince someone who normally votes that it is better they not vote, than it is to convince someone who normally doesnt vote that it is better that they do vote.

However, claiming that such a possible skewing is ridiculous, or a failing of democracy is patently ridiculous. People have the ability to make a difference. If more than 50% of people support an amendment, they cannot be stopped unless they choose to make themselves vulnerable by not voting. If less than 50% support something, then they cannot win, unless their opposition choose to allow them to, again by making thsemselves vulnerable.

By putting a "safety net" behind it of allowing the government to make a decision in the absence of a sufficient turnout of the population, you add a further layer of non-ridiculousness to it. In this scenario, the only way where boycotting can even arguably help is if the government also oppose the amendment.

However, in all cases, voter choice decides the issue. If you decide not to vote in a system which has a quorum or not, then you are still making a conscious decision which will effect the outcome.

There's nothing ridiculous about that.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

In reality, there is some slight difference, as it may prove easier to convince someone who normally votes that it is better they not vote, than it is to convince someone who normally doesnt vote that it is better that they do vote

Now, my assertion of how ridiculous this was was based on incomplete information which you subsequently remedied in your FIRST post on this thread - ie that the issue is not dropped, it simply reverts back to parliamentary government.

I would still like to defend my assertion all the same.

The NO party had 13 % (roughly) of the population supporting them.

The YES party had 45 odd % of the population behind them.

In order to get these, the YES party theoretically had to campaign better and harder on the issue up for discussion. In theory therefore, the YES party would have had to convince 6 more % than they did, to come out and vote.

The NO party had to convince people not to vote - should they adopt the tactics I was describing earlier - and, based on this tactic, they already had a headstart of roughly 42% of the population, they needed a shift to not voting of only 8% of the ENTIRE POPULATION to eliminate the referendum rather than the 13% they had; in other words, it is EASIER for them to campaign for people not to vote at all, is this not correct?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The NO party had to convince people not to vote - should they adopt the tactics I was describing earlier - and, based on this tactic, they already had a headstart of roughly 42% of the population, they needed a shift to not voting of only 8% of the ENTIRE POPULATION to eliminate the referendum rather than the 13% they had; in other words, it is EASIER for them to campaign for people not to vote at all, is this not correct?

On the surface of things, yes it is.

However, you would also find that once the NO party started a "dont vote" campaign, the YES party would start a "Its important to vote" campaign to counter it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a person who says Yes, but normally couldnt be ar5ed voting. You hear about the No side's tactic. It - in and of itself - is possibly enough to force you to change your mind and vote.

The thing about voting patterns is that success is its worst enemy. If you show strongly in the polls, it often galvanises the opposition (my god...they have so much of a lead, I have to vote or we stand no chance), as well as encouraging lathargy in your support (we have so much of a lead, I dont need to bother voting).

The same logic would hold true of the "dont vote" tactic.

But ultimately, the way I look at the system is that if more than 50% of the eligible voting population choose not to vote, then the majority have expressed their wish that the people not decide. Its hard to say that such a statement is undemocratic - with or without the Polish "followup".

jc

Éomer of Rohan

But ultimately, the way I look at the system is that if more than 50% of the eligible voting population choose not to vote, then the majority have expressed their wish that the people not decide. Its hard to say that such a statement is undemocratic - with or without the Polish "followup"

But surely by the same logic, as soon as in a general election, under 50% turn out to vote, then the government should suspend democracy?

In my opinion, it should definitely be compulsory to vote, fly posters should be banned, five minute TV broadcasts should be banned, corporations should be deprived of the right to own information media outlets and TV companies should have laws passed against them forcing them to deal with issues in an objective manner, political parties should be limited to recieving the standard subscription fees from members rather than any other sort of donation at all and maybe then, democracy will start to bite.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But surely by the same logic, as soon as in a general election, under 50% turn out to vote, then the government should suspend democracy?

I would have said that the logical conclusion would be that a < 50% turnout would result in an unchanged government.

In a referendum, if you interpret <50% as "not enough interest to consider change", then why would you conclude that in an election it means "not enough interest to bother with democracy".

As for the rest of your "how to turn democracy into socialism"....sorry....not interested in this thread.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

As for the rest of your "how to turn democracy into socialism"....sorry....not interested in this thread

No offence JC but what I just said there was absolutely unrelated to turning democracy into socialism - because otherwise I would have been saying things like corporations should be destroyed and so on....I didn't; I simply gave my opinion on a few short steps which could be taken to increase any sort of democracy.

Also, you said

But ultimately, the way I look at the system is that if more than 50% of the eligible voting population choose not to vote, then the majority have expressed their wish that the people not decide

and therefore by my reasoning, which may be different to yours but that is allowed lol, if the 50% of a population don't turn up to vote then this is the majority expressing their wish not to choose candidates; hence my comment about the suspension of democracy. Do you detect some flaw in logic here?