Stand Up - Challenging Voter Apathy

fitz

It's fair to say that there's a lot of anger, resentment and frustration around at the moment as a result of our economic and political situation.

That energy, that appetite for change, for improvement, for survival even, is present and palpable everywhere you go right now. Next Friday's election is our single greatest opportunity, as voters, to influence and shape the political and economic landscape for the next five years.

The song below, Stand Up by Susie Soho, was written as both a commentary on the causes of the Irish electorate's anger and frustration, and a call for people to get involved in the process of turning the country around. We've recorded the song, produced a video for it and made it available for free download. We hope that people will share it, re-tweet it, blog about it, post about it, and use it as a vehicle to get the message out there: This is the most important election of our generation, and we need to make it count.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lFt0YHRcLs

(HD version here: http://vimeo.com/20056080)

It's not enough to complain while doing nothing, decisions are made by those who show up. This is the core of the issue: With only 67% turnout in the 2007 election, only 67% of us had our voice heard. Our outgoing government may have been quite different if it had represented closer to 100% of the electorate. We need to do everything we can to make the voices of the the remaining 33% heard.

If you were one of that 33%, if you aren't going to vote this time around, or if you know someone who else who isn't, let us know why on this thread so we can have an open discussion about it, and see if we can do something about it.

Thanks to Dav and boards.ie for letting us shill the video to make our point - this isn't about songs or videos - this is about using your vote and making it count.

nesf

Thread has been approved by Community Moderators. (so don't report the thread as shilling or similar please)

Jim Stark

Not voting is not a protest.

I've no time for people who complain about the government, and state of the country, and then come out with bs excuse as to why they won't vote for anyone. They're just wasters.

cavedave

Jim Stark

I've no time for people who complain about the government, and state of the country, and then come out with bs excuse as to why they won't vote for anyone.

And do you have time for people who do vote and complain? I frequently hear that people who don't vote have no right to complain. I vote and my complaints are ignored. What is the difference?

fitz maybe people have goood reasons for not voting. Maybe they feel they don't understand the issues. How can I tell someone they have to vote?

de5p0i1er

I've always said that if you don't vote then you don't deserve the right to complain about the Government. If you have a chance to do something about the way this country is run and you do nothing about it then you can't go around complianing about it.

nesf

cavedave wrote: »

fitz maybe people have goood reasons for not voting. Maybe they feel they don't understand the issues. How can I tell someone they have to vote?

The thing is, it's their responsibility to go out and educate themselves on the issues! Voting is a civic duty and it is everyone's responsibility to inform themselves to the point where they can engage in the process properly.

cavedave

Compare voting to betting on the lottery. Voting positively correlates with IQ and buying lottery tickets negatively but which one is more likely to have you being the winner?

The argument goes that lotteries are stupid because you have a very low chance of winning. The odds are so low in fact that you are more likely to die before you win then to win.

This argument is weird because we are encouraged to do more difficult tasks where we are even less likely to affect the outcome. Voting in an election takes more effort and time then buying a lottery but your vote virtually never decides an election.

There has been one case of a single vote deciding the election of an Irish TD. In the 2002 Irish general election, Dan Neville won a seat in the parliament by just one vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_West_(D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency)

We must have had over 100,000,000 total votes in Irish Elections and only 1 has ever decided an election. Even then no one person could claim they were the deciding vote. Each person had less then 1/8,563 of the responsibility for electing Dan Neville. Also if you do win the lottery you get millions of euro. If you elect a TD and they act really competantly in your interests it will result in a very marginal change on your life

You might argue “But if no one voted there would be no point having an election?” Well if no one bought a lottery ticket the lottery would not keep running for long either. So the chance of your vote being one of the thousands of deciding ones a very close election is less then your chance of winning the euromillions lottery.

nesf

cavedave wrote: »

Compare voting to betting on the lottery. Voting positively correlates with IQ and buying lottery tickets negatively but which one is more likely to have you being the winner?

The argument goes that lotteries are stupid because you have a very low chance of winning. The odds are so low in fact that you are more likely to die before you win then to win.

This argument is weird because we are encouraged to do more difficult tasks where we are even less likely to affect the outcome. Voting in an election takes more effort and time then buying a lottery but your vote virtually never decides an election.

There has been one case of a single vote deciding the election of an Irish TD. In the 2002 Irish general election, Dan Neville won a seat in the parliament by just one vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_West_(D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency)

We must have had over 100,000,000 total votes in Irish Elections and only 1 has ever decided an election. Even then no one person could claim they were the deciding vote. Each person had less then 1/8,563 of the responsibility for electing Dan Neville. Also if you do win the lottery you get millions of euro. If you elect a TD and they act really competantly in your interests it will result in a very marginal change on your life

You might argue “But if no one voted there would be no point having an election?” Well if no one bought a lottery ticket the lottery would not keep running for long either. So the chance of your vote being one of the thousands of deciding ones a very close election is less then your chance of winning the euromillions lottery.

You can't really analyse this on an individual basis. Individually voting is irrational since you make no difference to the outcome 99.9999% of the time. But on a group basis voting is very rational and in fact makes a huge amount of sense. If say, young people (as a group who don't vote in extremely high numbers) don't vote then they are simply ensuring that their interests aren't represented by Government and screwing themselves over.

Wolfe Tone

I know a number who will spoil their votes as there is literally no one they wish to vote for.

cavedave

Do on an individual level voting is not utility maximising but we want everyone to do it?

nesf

The thing is, it's their responsibility to go out and educate themselves on the issues! Voting is a civic duty and it is everyone's responsibility to inform themselves to the point where they can engage in the process properly.

Driving well is a civic duty. One where the individual has massive amounts more power then you do voting to effect the lives of others. Yet look at the standard of driving on our roads. Why encourage study of issues rather then driving?

Dav

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I know a number who will spoil their votes as there is literally no one they wish to vote for.

This is the reason I insisted that we include a spoil vote option in our poll. I think that's as important a decision as picking a candidate if they will represent you, but I'm a bit of an anarchist and I think that our system of democracy is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.

Wolfe Tone

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I insisted that we include a spoil vote option in our poll. I think that's as important a decision as picking a candidate if they will represent you, but I'm a bit of an anarchist and I think that our system of democracy is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.

Yeah the lads I know are the same, spoiling your vote is not being apathetic but is a statement, just as much as voting for a candidate is.

reallyrose

At the last general election there was a group in college handing out stickers reading "I do not choose any of these candidates - I vote for electoral reform" (or words to that effect). The idea was that you could stick the sticker to your ballot paper, and it would form a consistent "spoiling".

Are the number of spoiled votes counted? And is the method of spoiling recorded? So say 5% of votes are spoiled (I made that figure up), would there be a record of how many are spoiled because the voter made an error on the paper and how many were spoiled because the voter voted for Jeremy, the hat wearing ferret?

I'm rambling a bit. I guess my general point is .. if you don't want to vote for anyone, spoil your vote. If the 30% of people who did not vote in the last election turned up and wrote "I vote for electoral reform" on the ballot paper, would it send a message?

ixtlan

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I insisted that we include a spoil vote option in our poll. I think that's as important a decision as picking a candidate if they will represent you, but I'm a bit of an anarchist and I think that our system of democracy is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.

Well I have more respect for a personal choice of spoiling a vote rather than for not voting at all. However I would still exhort people to make some informed choice even if it involved voting in order of who you hated the least/most.

BTW... this probably belongs on another forum... but since you are a live semi-anarchist Most anarchists are left-wing, but is that a consistent view? A proper anarchist desire is ultimate personal freedom unfettered by government interference, which surely conflicts with the idea of a socialist state sharing wealth... Probably belongs in political theory...

Ix.

ixtlan

reallyrose wrote: »

Are the number of spoiled votes counted? And is the method of spoiling recorded? So say 5% of votes are spoiled (I made that figure up), would there be a record of how many are spoiled because the voter made an error on the paper and how many were spoiled because the voter voted for Jeremy, the hat wearing ferret?

No official count of such votes. Correction - of course the total spoiled votes are totalled... but there's no official comment on the type of spoiled vote. However the tally people would be very aware of any such trends in spoiled votes and it would be reported to the various parties.

Ix.

nevsky

I think there is a lot more interest this time in voting than last time. The problem I see is about half of my friends and people I went to college with have left.

I'd be gone only I got a place back in college studing something completely different.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dozen Wicked Words

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I insisted that we include a spoil vote option in our poll. I think that's as important a decision as picking a candidate if they will represent you, but I'm a bit of an anarchist and I think that our system of democracy is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.

I thought only doddery old people who didn't understand how to vote spoilt their vote. Just stay at home, its easier and not a waste of your time. Just out of interest, what system of democracy do you want?

DeVore

One which doesnt reward parish pump politics for one.

DeV.

Dozen Wicked Words

Ah, so not voting/spoiling will achieve that? My guess is it will achieve nothing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jim Stark

cavedave wrote: »

And do you have time for people who do vote and complain? I frequently hear that people who don't vote have no right to complain. I vote and my complaints are ignored. What is the difference?

fitz maybe people have goood reasons for not voting. Maybe they feel they don't understand the issues. How can I tell someone they have to vote?

If you feel you're being ignored, like many of us, you'll be heard next Friday when you make your vote.

Yeah it really is peoples own responsibility to make themselves aware of the issues, and different parties, or at least listen to advice from someone you trust or respect on who to vote for.

Reesy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I know a number who will spoil their votes as there is literally no one they wish to vote for.

For me, voting's not about voting for candidates, it's about doing my bit to keep the ones I don't want in power out!

Rodin

If a politician told the electorate they would do what Ireland really needs, that candidate would never get elected

Mortgage relief for people struggling to pay mortgages?
What about those with other financial commitments like debts accrued during college that they are struggling to pay because there are so many hands in their pockets now pinching their wages. How fair is that?

lang

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I insisted that we include a spoil vote option in our poll. I think that's as important a decision as picking a candidate if they will represent you, but I'm a bit of an anarchist and I think that our system of democracy is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.

One possible solution to the Spoil Vote thingie is to put a 'None of the Above' or a 'Re-open Nominations'. I mentioned this in another Thread. It would, I feel, need a change to the Constituencies. It would necessitate a change whereby the Constituencies become one-seater. I could not see my solution working in a multi-seater Constituency as if 'RON' got above the quota then it's surpuls would be re-distributed......so lets say that in any constituency you could only have one 'RON' elected. This would not accurately reflect the views of the Electorate in a particular constituency given that the majority would have asked that none of the condidates be elected.

I think we would need also to alter the Electoral System if we move to one-seater constituencies. We would have to move to either first past the post (which i dont agree with), or Alternative Vote. As I understand it, Alternative vote is somewhat like PR-STV whereby the Electorate put preferences on the ballot paper. However these preferences only come into play if no candidate in the first count receives +50% of the first preference votes. Should this happen then Candidates at the bottom are eliminated and their preferences come into play then. It is used in the London Mayoral Election.

Would you as a self-proclaimed bit of an anarchist see this a radical enough change to our electoral system, that more clearly reflects the views of the average Joe Soap? I for one, believe that my proposition gives the electorate more of a direct voice in how they want their country run.

fitz

cavedave wrote: »

fitz maybe people have goood reasons for not voting. Maybe they feel they don't understand the issues. How can I tell someone they have to vote?

nesf wrote: »

The thing is, it's their responsibility to go out and educate themselves on the issues! Voting is a civic duty and it is everyone's responsibility to inform themselves to the point where they can engage in the process properly.

Both good points and some great discussion, on this thread and others...
Cavedave, nesf, I think we're let down by the manner in which the issues are communicated to us. The parties end up getting dragged into petty spats, and their manifestos are 80 page documents that people don't want to have to wade through...

Dylan Haskins website does a good job of making his ideas presentable (whatever your opinion on them), by giving a list of topics, with a "Read More" button to drill into more detail depending on what the issues you care about are.

Candidates and parties should be making it as easy as possible for voters to understand what their policies are.

I think we're let down by coverage too, in particular RTE.
As the public service broadcaster, why have we not had some kind of Prime Time special or something that compares the parties positions across a list of policy areas? Something that doesn't get bogged down in the mudslinging we've seen in the debates, but informs people of the facts presented by the parties manifestos.

How we can have a huge communications push for a second referendum on Lisbon, and have such poor standards of communicating the options of voters for such an important election?

There's been a lot of discussion about spoiling your vote too.
That, at least, is still participating in the process and doing something with your vote. I really hope that no matter what people do once they get to the polling station, that they at least use their vote this Friday.

fitz

fitz wrote: »

I think we're let down by coverage too, in particular RTE.
As the public service broadcaster, why have we not had some kind of Prime Time special or something that compares the parties positions across a list of policy areas? Something that doesn't get bogged down in the mudslinging we've seen in the debates, but informs people of the facts presented by the parties manifestos.

Seems they've finally gotten round to doing something like this, but too little too late imo:

http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/party_comparison.html

cavedave

Jim Stark
if you feel you're being ignored, like many of us, you'll be heard next Friday when you make your vote.

My point is that you are not heard. At best you have a 9000 in a hundred million chance of being one in 9000 heard according to the figures I gave earlier. That is the biggest effect any one person has had on an election in Ireland.