Anyone else sitting out on this election?

FionnMatthew

I'm interested to know if there are any people who are not going to vote, and if they have particular reasons not to do so?

Personally, I'm not voting. The foremost reason is a deep crisis of confidence in this mode of civic involvement, and the certainty that I don't want any of the people I could vote for actually elected.

So, anyone else? And for what reasons?

Daisy03

If you don't think any of the candidates are up to the job why didn't you run yourself? Personally, I will be voting. I think it is our responsibilty to do so.

Dave!

If you don't vote, then the decision gets made without you, simple. Vote for the lesser of the evils if you have to, but abstaining is pointless IMO. Just like spoiling your vote, it doesn't get registered as a protest, or as 'none of the above', it just gets thrown in with the people who were too apathetic or ignorant to get off their arse and visit the booth.

Unless you genuinely don't understand a thing that's going on, or there is some practical impediment preventing you from getting to the booth, then IMO you should be voting.

zig

you also have absolutely no moaning rights if you dont vote. Any complaints you make from the election onwards should be completely ignored.

As Dave said, you must pick someone that you least disagree with, nothing is going to cater for your personal demands.

FionnMatthew

Daisy03 wrote: »

If you don't think any of the candidates are up to the job why don't you run yourself? Personally, I will be voting. I think it is our responsibilty to do so.

Hi. I guess it's not off topic if I answer your question with respect to the reasons for why I made my choice.

If I didn't have more important things to do, and no resources with which to consider doing so, I would possibly consider running. But I'm also inclined to think running would be pointless, because I'm pretty certain that any platform I'd run on would instantly limit my chances of election.

It is, of course, your choice to exercise your vote. I don't conceive of the disposition of voting rights as an express responsibility.

FionnMatthew

zig wrote: »

you also have absolutely no moaning rights if you dont vote. Any complaints you make from the election onwards should be completely ignored.

Respectfully, I don't agree with this. I think it's a cliché, that needs to be retired.

It's trivial that a nonvoter still has 'moaning rights' - those are logically implicit in the speech rights that everyone has.

But I sense that you mean that nonvoters have no moral credibility, or moral prerogative, in the criticism of the government. I disagree with this too.

In a democratic regime where candidate choice is so impoverished as to ensure that any government/legislature I could possibly have is one I do not want, I have as much moral prerogative in complaining about that as I would if I lived subject to a nondemocratic form of government.

sdanseo

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Hi. I guess it's not off topic if I answer your question with respect to the reasons for why I made my choice.

If I didn't have more important things to do, and no resources with which to consider doing so, I would possibly consider running. But I'm also inclined to think running would be pointless, because I'm pretty certain that any platform I'd run on would instantly limit my chances of election.

It is, of course, your choice to exercise your vote. I don't conceive of the disposition of voting rights as an express responsibility.

I'm afraid you're in a tiny minority. No politician worth their salt could possibly promote voter apathy, which is what you'd be doing if you did run. As such, you'd lose.

If you don't vote - and this applies to everyone of course - you lose your chance to have a say in what goes on. Even if you spoil your vote you'd be making a statement but not voting (and then coming on here to find justification) is just plain irresponsible. And I think it should forfeit your right to ask a TD to represent you or advice you on a particular issue in the next 5 years, tbh.

gk5000

Make your choice or allow others to choose for you.

Like boards, you can browse or not browse; post or not post
...its your choice to be informed; to influence the outcome...

FionnMatthew

Dave! wrote: »

If you don't vote, then the decision gets made without you, simple. Vote for the lesser of the evils if you have to, but abstaining is pointless IMO. Just like spoiling your vote, it doesn't get registered as a protest, or as 'none of the above', it just gets thrown in with the people who were too apathetic or ignorant to get off their arse and visit the booth.

Unless you genuinely don't understand a thing that's going on, or there is some practical impediment preventing you from getting to the booth, then IMO you should be voting.

Thanks. I don't think the lesser of evils argument really works, Dave. I've taken a lot of time to inform myself, but I really can't decide which of the available candidates I loathe the least. That, and the fact that I feel this is an absurd position to be in. It's even worse when I look at party affiliations. Even if I didn't have serious misgivings about our party political system, I am cordially averse to almost every political party operating in Ireland.

The decision, indeed, gets made without me. But given the options available to the electorate, I am indifferent to whatever decision gets made.

Abstention, in this context, affords me the peace of mind of knowing that I had no complicity in whichever morally bankrupt combination of officials the country ends up with. Whereas many partake in voting under the knowledge that they thereby exercise their role in the citizen body, I infer back from the options available the undesirability of belonging to such a body. This is at least as legitimate a stance, in terms of civic awareness, as the fellow feeling that voters often express.

FionnMatthew

sdonn wrote: »

I'm afraid you're in a tiny minority.

This is a major part of the problem, yes.

No politician worth their salt could possibly promote voter apathy, which is what you'd be doing if you did run. As such, you'd lose.

I'm not promoting voter apathy. At least, I am not promoting political apathy. I would claim to care more about politics than most would. I was just saying that the political sympathies I have are so far in the minority that there is no credible reason to run on them.

FionnMatthew

gk5000 wrote: »

Make your choice or allow others to choose for you.

Like boards, you can browse or not browse; post or not post
...its your choice to be informed; to influence the outcome...

Once again, I am really quite well informed, if by 'informed' you mean being familiar with local candidates and party leadership, understanding the party legislative manifestos, the legal and political context to which they are addressed, the functions and composition of our political structures, the processes by which political and legislative powers are exercised, etc. I have taken great care over the last 8 years to become aware of these things - a deficit in my education I have felt very strongly.

I am not especially informed about finance or economic policy, but I am no less informed about the theory behind these than the average voter.

kippy

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm interested to know if there are any people who are not going to vote, and if they have particular reasons not to do so?

Personally, I'm not voting. The foremost reason is a deep crisis of confidence in this mode of civic involvement, and the certainty that I don't want any of the people I could vote for actually elected.

So, anyone else? And for what reasons?

"deep crisis of confidence in this mode of civic involvement"
Can you elaborate on that please?
I don't understand.

I get your second reason however dont think it's a good enough reason not to actually go to the polling booth and at least perform the action that many in this world dont have the right to do.

And, by the way, if you've come on here expecting lots of agreement with you on your stance, I hope that you are sorely disappointed.

loldog

Not voting is the greatest insult to our ancestors, who lived generation after generation in slavery and degradation back through thousands of years.

If you don't vote I hate you.

.

iMax

This election should have the absolute highest turnout of any this country has seen. Forget about any historic or patriotic reason for voting/not voting. You have a responsibility to yourself to vote. If you don't want to vote for a party, vote independent.

Irish Fire

iMax wrote: »

This election should have the absolute highest turnout of any this country has seen. Forget about any historic or patriotic reason for voting/not voting. You have a responsibility to yourself to vote. If you don't want to vote for a party, vote independent.

Have to agree if you can't pick a party pick an independent. This is an election where the people really need to voice their opinion. We as a nation generally just stand by the sideline and complain but we need to get up off our rear ends and GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!

Dave!

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Thanks. I don't think the lesser of evils argument really works, Dave. I've taken a lot of time to inform myself, but I really can't decide which of the available candidates I loathe the least. That, and the fact that I feel this is an absurd position to be in. It's even worse when I look at party affiliations. Even if I didn't have serious misgivings about our party political system, I am cordially averse to almost every political party operating in Ireland.

The decision, indeed, gets made without me. But given the options available to the electorate, I am indifferent to whatever decision gets made.

Abstention, in this context, affords me the peace of mind of knowing that I had no complicity in whichever morally bankrupt combination of officials the country ends up with. Whereas many partake in voting under the knowledge that they thereby exercise their role in the citizen body, I infer back from the options available the undesirability of belonging to such a body. This is at least as legitimate a stance, in terms of civic awareness, as the fellow feeling that voters often express.

I don't see how you can hold all candidates and parties in equal contempt. There are overlaps between party policies, but there is still enough of a difference to say that if party A got into power with an overall majority, they'd do X, whereas if party B got into power they'd do Y. In an extreme example, if the only candidates running in your constituency were from the Nazi party and the Communist Party of old, then you'd no doubt find them all reprehensible, but you could make a decision between them. It would be an absurb situation to be in, but there would be certain outcomes if you elect one or the other.

Even on a personal level, you could probably form an opinion on their integrity or honesty, which would distinguish them from one another.

Do you just hold them all in equal contempt by virtue of the fact that they're standing for election (therefore they must be corrupt)?


To be more specific -- Fianna Fáil have been in power for the last 15 years or whatever, and have overseen the destruction of our banking system. Do you want them back in power?

FionnMatthew

kippy wrote: »

"deep crisis of confidence in this mode of civic involvement"
Can you elaborate on that please?
I don't understand.

I get your second reason however dont think it's a good enough reason not to actually go to the polling booth and at least perform the action that many in this world dont have the right to do.

And, by the way, if you've come on here expecting lots of agreement with you on your stance, I hope that you are sorely disappointed.

Second question first: I'm not that disappointed. I had expected widespread disenchantment with national political culture to decimate the traditional political parties. But I have been deeply disappointed already, by how completely conservative this election is turning out. I personally can't believe I belong to a population that is now going to elect an FG government.

As to the first question, I mean a lot of things. I mean, for one thing, that I am so disenchanted with political and civic duty in Ireland that I feel as if it demeans one to willingly proclaim oneself part of the electorate. Further, I hold, with many analysts of governance, that the system is arranged so as to insulate the exercise of power from the influence of the electorate. The sheer prevalence of corporate and sectional lobbyists plays more of a role in the guidance of legislation through our parliament than we do, vicariously, and at several levels of remove, having voted for candidates who count as votes for a policy bloc or legislative programme that is only ever vaguely defined at the outset.

I am inclined to think this is so minor a political role for us as to be tokenistic - the opiate of a people convinced of the value of "democracy," but ill appraised as to precisely what's going on. I am beginning to believe that the best way of advocating for my own political beliefs is not in the ballot, but through the exercise of influence by more direct channels to policy, such as involvement in NGOs, thinktank work, or lobbying.

Beside these, I look on voting as something people do to tell themselves they are being good citizens, but with largely symbolic influence.

kippy

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Second question first: I'm not that disappointed. I had expected widespread disenchantment with national political culture to decimate the traditional political parties. But I have been deeply disappointed already, by how completely conservative this election is turning out. I personally can't believe I belong to a population that is now going to elect an FG government.

As to the first question, I mean a lot of things. I mean, for one thing, that I am so disenchanted with political and civic duty in Ireland that I feel as if it demeans one to willingly proclaim oneself part of the electorate. Further, I hold, with many analysts of governance, that the system is arranged so as to insulate the exercise of power from the influence of the electorate. The sheer prevalence of corporate and sectional lobbyists plays more of a role in the guidance of legislation through our parliament than we do, vicariously, and at several levels of remove, having voted for candidates who count as votes for a policy bloc or legislative programme that is only ever vaguely defined at the outset.

I am inclined to think this is so minor a political role for us as to be tokenistic - the opiate of a people convinced of the value of "democracy," but ill appraised as to precisely what's going on. I am beginning to believe that the best way of advocating for my own political beliefs is not in the ballot, but through the exercise of influence by more direct channels to policy, such as involvement in NGOs, thinktank work, or lobbying.

Beside these, I look on voting as something people do to tell themselves they are being good citizens, but with largely symbolic influence.

This is the kind of thing I expected........

First of all, an observation.
Every election that I have voted in has had under (well under in some cases) a 50% turnout.
How do you think politicians value your vote if you don't have a history in voting (they know who votes regularly).
Theres obviously a major set of voters out there who don't vote. If you dont vote your opinion and that of others who dont vote is almost completely irrelevent to politicians and as such is it surprising that the politicians aim their policies at those who do vote?

If perhaps those 50% would make it obvious what policies they would vote for then perhaps one party would take notice.


Secondly, have you studied a country whereby the electorate have a significantly different role in the running of the country?

Also,
you can still "lobby" via the means you mention AND vote.

ejmaztec

loldog wrote: »

Not voting is the greatest insult to our ancestors, who lived generation after generation in slavery and degradation back through thousands of years.

If you don't vote I hate you.

.

I don't think so.

wyndhurst

Maybe instead of thinking about who you least despise and not voting you should think about who you most despise and vote against them - what I would call tactical voting.

My tactical vote is along these lines (and yes - I know this will drive some ballistic)
IMO I could'nt careless who gets in with the exception of Sinn Fein & the looney left. I don't want a stong SF presence in the next Dail (for many different reasons). So in my constituency it is clear that the SF candidate is battling for the 5th seat with another candidate.
That other candidate gets my vote solely as a vote against SF.

someoneok

I also won't be voting because if I did, I see it as giving legitimacy to an inherently immoral system. People on this island are given the illusion of choice,a choice which I will not be making.

I have no choice to act on my preference to do with my wealth what I want. The government with their shoddy services seem to think that by offering me a monopolized and substandard service that I should be happy to give over some of my wealth to them, I don't have any choice in this matter which is tantamount to extortion. For this reason I will not pay any heedance to this crooked system. I will wait for a voluntary system to emerge where there can be real debate about how we can organise society. Until then I'll let the parasites get on with their vulturing of the chest and euphemise about imaginary things like 'the public good'.

FionnMatthew

kippy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I expected........

First of all, an observation.
Every election that I have voted in has had under (well under in some cases) a 50% turnout.
How do you think politicians value your vote if you don't have a history in voting (they know who votes regularly).
Theres obviously a major set of voters out there who don't vote. If you dont vote your opinion and that of others who dont vote is almost completely irrelevent to politicians and as such is it surprising that the politicians aim their policies at those who do vote?

If perhaps those 50% would make it obvious what policies they would vote for then perhaps one party would take notice.


Secondly, have you studied a country whereby the electorate have a significantly different role in the running of the country?

An assortment of responses to this:

I used to vote. I'd agonize about it, over-read, find myself interminably frustrated that I had to wade through all the PR, and eventually, reluctantly, vote green or independent. And then feel both as if nothing had happened, and also much as a child at a coconut shie, who has thrown all the balls, and now feels as if he ought to have put more effort into it, and knows that it will be a year until he gets a chance again.

I have also tried to make my opinion known to candidates. I've engaged candidates in order to discuss their party policies, and found they understand them less than I do. I attempted to discuss the abolition of the Seanad with a Labour candidate recently, and found his appreciation of the doctrine of the separation of powers lacking in the extreme, for someone who proclaims ideological support for the notion of leaving us with a unicameral system. In the majority of cases, I find I am just an annoyance to these people. They really want to shake hands with people who do not deviate too far from the mean, and mention the word "jobs" and "change," and move on. They are not interested in knowing what I think, never mind aggregating the deviant views of outliers like me, so as to calculate the most economic array of policies for bringing in that 50% of invisible franchise. I discover that I live in a country that mostly just doesn't care about the things I care about, and that puts me at a significant disadvantage.

I take exception to the idea that it is voting that helps politicians and parties decide what policies to run. It's such a decidedly blunt instrument for determining what policies were operative in selection trends. In a one-to-one context, politicians don't know whether or not you've voted for them in the past. The fact that I actually have doesn't stand in the way of the notion that, even had I not, it would have had little effect on the sort of policies that candidates run on.

Besides all this, I find it difficult to respect the idea that, by voting, I would effect some improvement by telling politicians how better to connive for my vote, by pretending to support policies that might entice me. I guess a politician *could* suddenly happen on an idea by hearing from a constituent, but otherwise, I feel as if it's rather cynical if a politician adopts a policy simply in order to hit a certain demographic.

IngazZagni

Anybody that is eligible to vote and doesn't, well that's fine but keep your mouth shut for the next five years. You don't deserve an opinion on any matters in politics for this term. That or organise your own political movement if you hate the system so much.

crazygeryy

i think everyone should vote and punish the last government/party for the mess they have left us in.you cant say your not gonna vote and in the same breath complain about the state the country is in.

FionnMatthew

IngazZagni wrote: »

Anybody that is eligible to vote and doesn't, well that's fine but keep your mouth shut for the next five years. You don't deserve an opinion on any matters in politics for this term. That or organise your own political movement if you hate the system so much.

crazygeryy wrote: »

i think everyone should vote and punish the last government/party for the mess they have left us in.you cant say your not gonna vote and in the same breath complain about the state the country is in.

Guys, If you don't mind me saying, I've already responded to this line of argument on page one.

FionnMatthew

wyndhurst wrote: »

Maybe instead of thinking about who you least despise and not voting you should think about who you most despise and vote against them - what I would call tactical voting.

My tactical vote is along these lines (and yes - I know this will drive some ballistic)
IMO I could'nt careless who gets in with the exception of Sinn Fein & the looney left. I don't want a stong SF presence in the next Dail (for many different reasons). So in my constituency it is clear that the SF candidate is battling for the 5th seat with another candidate.
That other candidate gets my vote solely as a vote against SF.

Best reasoning I've yet seen. To tell the truth, though, I can't conceive that differentiated an aversion to any particular party either.

MyKeyG

Dave! wrote: »

If you don't vote, then the decision gets made without you, simple.

With all due respect Dave that's very naive. If there's one thing I've learned from Irish politics time after time it's that the decisions will be made without all of us anyway. As soon as the 'promise makers' get their positions at the behest of Joe Soaps vote then the gulf between the government and the common man opens. IMO to vote for any of them is a vote against my own dignity.

FionnMatthew

loldog wrote: »

Not voting is the greatest insult to our ancestors, who lived generation after generation in slavery and degradation back through thousands of years.

If you don't vote I hate you.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBT4ZWy6Lm4

nialldabass

someoneok wrote: »

I also won't be voting because if I did, I see it as giving legitimacy to an inherently immoral system. People on this island are given the illusion of choice,a choice which I will not be making.

I have no choice to act on my preference to do with my wealth what I want. The government with their shoddy services seem to think that by offering me a monopolized and substandard service that I should be happy to give over some of my wealth to them, I don't have any choice in this matter which is tantamount to extortion. For this reason I will not pay any heedance to this crooked system. I will wait for a voluntary system to emerge where there can be real debate about how we can organise society. Until then I'll let the parasites get on with their vulturing of the chest and euphemise about imaginary things like 'the public good'.

I could not agree more with this sentiment. The problem as I see it, is that we have moved from a country that was created as a constitutional republic, which is a rare and precious thing, where our rights are protected and upheld from the poorest to the wealthiest, and have moved towards this idea of democracy,mob rule, where 51% gets to tell the other 49% what they can do.
Coupled with the party whip system, this creates very unaccountable goverment and rarely serves the wishes of the people.

However I will be voting for Independants, as I feel they are much more accountable to their electorate. Now a government made up of independants would be a very stagnent goverment, which in my opinion is the best government, every couple of years we get change, and it always seems to be for the worse, schools and health never seem to be left alone with a system long enough to get going before its all change again,

Hows the change in america and britain working out? oh! thats right, not too great.

IngazZagni

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Guys, If you don't mind me saying, I've already responded to this line of argument on page one.

If everyone took your approach, then democracy goes out the window. Crooks would be in power election after election because they would know people won't vote them out. The voters are here to moderate the politicians. If the politicians didn't have to worry about an election then we could be in a much worse situation as they wouldn't have any consequences for their actions. Your approach is a selfish approach. Vote for who you think is the lesser of evils or against someone you hate, do it not for yourself but for the Country!

Mezcita

OP, I think that the problem with not voting is that that it immediately places you in same group as people who don't vote because they don't give a damn. The very same people who later bitch and whinge about things being bad.

None of these potential parties are the dream ticket. To me, they all (even SF :eek:) have some policies which sound credible. There is no denying that there is quite a diverse range of parties and independents, each with their own plans on how to fix the situation the country is now in.

Think it would be a shame not to vote as this represents our chance for significant change.

the_syco

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Personally, I'm not voting

You may as well vote for the party you hate, then. The more people that don't vote, the more of a chance of an extremist party getting voted in.

FirstHundred

I'm going to have to agree with the OP. There is certainly a dearth of choice in these elections such that I cannot in good conscience endorse any candidate in my constituency. I have no party affiliation so I won't be voting along those lines.

I also intend to emigrate very soon, so I feel that I should not have any say in the future running of the country as I will not be living here. Better to let the immigrants who have thrown their lot in with the Irish people have a say instead.

To the person who said that voting gives the politicians an indication of where you stand on various issues, I must disagree. Voting gives them an indication of where people stand on issues that form part of their platform, but for the most part no politicians have espoused any opinions on the issues I actually care about. I would even call into question how much voting for a certain candidate can be corollated with agreeing with their policies, given that these latter are in general so ill-defined. At most, voting only tells them where you stand on the issues that they have predetermined to be relevant.

I also think that the much vaunted distinction between not voting and spoiling one's vote as a form of protest is exaggerated. Its effectiveness as a form of political expression is clearly minimal. To the vast majority of people you are just a statistic - 3,275 votes spoiled - and the only person who actually sees your ballot is a tallier who doesn't have the time to read or consider your scrawled complaint. If the point of democracy is to afford a political voice to each citizen and allow him a chance to form public and political opinion, then the spoiling of votes does not serve that end. It is much better to debate on a website like this where there is at least some sort of engagement with the ideas.

Should people who don't vote be entitled to express their opinion on political matters? Of course they should! I know some of you want to demonstrate your democratic credentials by suggesting that non-voters should shut up, but you should consider how undemocratic it is to desire to silence any segment of the population or insulate yourselves from any political opinion.

To the person who commented about not voting being an insult to our ancestors who were subjected to slavery for thousands of years: What is slavery but compulsion? There is scant difference between being compelled to till a field and being compelled to cast a vote. You can give people freedom, but would you force them to be free?

FirstHundred

IngazZagni wrote: »

If everyone took your approach, then democracy goes out the window. Crooks would be in power election after election because they would know people won't vote them out. The voters are here to moderate the politicians. If the politicians didn't have to worry about an election then we could be in a much worse situation as they wouldn't have any consequences for their actions. Your approach is a selfish approach. Vote for who you think is the lesser of evils or against someone you hate, do it not for yourself but for the Country!

It's already like that!

IngazZagni

FirstHundred wrote: »

It's already like that!

Yes, but now they will face the consequences of being voted out of power and their party possibly becoming as small as Sinn Fein. It may be a long, long time before they get back into power.

gcgirl

Hell no over a 100 yrs ago a woman like myself cound not vote so I'll be baiting it down to the polling booth on the 25th:)

Dave!

MyKeyG wrote: »

With all due respect Dave that's very naive. If there's one thing I've learned from Irish politics time after time it's that the decisions will be made without all of us anyway. As soon as the 'promise makers' get their positions at the behest of Joe Soaps vote then the gulf between the government and the common man opens. IMO to vote for any of them is a vote against my own dignity.

I meant the decision of who gets into power gets made without you. Once they're elected, yes the government make the decisions, until the next election at least. That's the case whether you like the party elected or not, whether you agree with their policies or not, whether they're corrupt or not. If they don't follow through on their promises, then vote them out next time around.

I'm not sure what alternative you suggest anyway? Democracy is imperfect, but it's the best system available. Unless you can think of a more accountable form of government, then you're stuck with what we have, and you can either choose to participate in the process and choose which of a bad bunch you would like to see govern the country, or you can let other people choose. Or you can form your own party.

Isn't democracy great!

FirstHundred

"Hundreds of years ago nobody had the right to [practice sodomy]. Thankfully, we live in a more enlightened time and now nearly everybody has the right to [practice sodomy]. It is an insult to the memory of our oppressed ancestors to not exercise your fundamental right to [practice sodomy]. If you don't [practice sodomy] you have no right expressing any opinion on the matter. I think society would be much improved if we made [the practice of sodomy] mandatory and encouraged children to [practice sodomy] as soon as they are old enough."

This is the form of many of the arguments here. I suppose what I am trying to say is that just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you have a duty to do it.

tombonker

just spoil it then, go to the booth and spoil the vote it still shows you bothered to vote

FionnMatthew

tombonker wrote: »

just spoil it then, go to the booth and spoil the vote it still shows you bothered to vote

Yes, that would be about equivalent to not reading the thread before you post, actually.

someoneok

Dave! wrote: »

Democracy is imperfect, but it's the best system available.

To you this might be true. I personally see a stateless society as the best idea and the most moral and fair for all. If everything is in private hands ie.yours and mine, people cannot complain.
Also in a free market stateless society the fact that you get to voluntarily chose who you do business with will also be a concept people will be delighted to see happen as I'm sure there are very few who like the fact they pay extortionate prices for their substandard 'services' which their tax money pays for at present.

Dave!

someoneok wrote: »

To you this might be true. I personally see a stateless society as the best idea and the most moral and fair for all. If everything is in private hands ie.yours and mine, people cannot complain.
Also in a free market stateless society the fact that you get to voluntarily chose who you do business with will also be a concept people will be delighted to see happen as I'm sure there are very few who like the fact they pay extortionate prices for their substandard 'services' which their tax money pays for at present.

Well I'll leave debates about anarchism to political scientists and other such folk.

someoneok

Dave! wrote: »

Well I'll leave debates about anarchism to political scientists and other such folk.

Do you fear it?

Dave!

someoneok wrote: »

Do you fear it?

No I'm just happy with democracy, thanks.

FionnMatthew

Dave! wrote: »

No I'm just happy with democracy, thanks.

Just on point of theory, there are various forms of anarchism that are not counterdemocratic.

someoneok

Dave! wrote: »

No I'm just happy with democracy, thanks.

What about those who are not happy with it,should they be afforded the luxury of acting on their preferences? Or do you agree that extortion should be enacted on them to take their property from them on a weekly/monthly basis?

MyKeyG

IngazZagni wrote: »

Anybody that is eligible to vote and doesn't, well that's fine but keep your mouth shut for the next five years. You don't deserve an opinion on any matters in politics for this term. That or organise your own political movement if you hate the system so much.

What an ignorant statement.

MyKeyG

Dave! wrote: »

I meant the decision of who gets into power gets made without you. Once they're elected, yes the government make the decisions, until the next election at least. That's the case whether you like the party elected or not, whether you agree with their policies or not, whether they're corrupt or not. If they don't follow through on their promises, then vote them out next time around.

I'm not sure what alternative you suggest anyway? Democracy is imperfect, but it's the best system available. Unless you can think of a more accountable form of government, then you're stuck with what we have, and you can either choose to participate in the process and choose which of a bad bunch you would like to see govern the country, or you can let other people choose. Or you can form your own party.

Isn't democracy great!

Wait a second we're not talking alternatives. We're talking about the right NOT to vote, that's my issue. My point is what the heck does it matter who gets into government my voice isn't going to be heard anyway so why should I bother now? I choose to let the blind sheep of the country select the next bunch of crooks.

johno2

I think the whole election should be called off and we should sent Mary McAleese over to the Queen to beg her to let us back into the Empire. We've made a complete dogs dinner of trying to govern ourselves.

johno

MyKeyG

johno2 wrote: »

I think the whole election should be called off and we should sent Mary McAleese over to the Queen to beg her to let us back into the Empire. We've made a complete dogs dinner of trying to govern ourselves.

johno

Yes because God knows the British have a firm handle on their own affairs :rolleyes:

Dave!

someoneok wrote: »

What about those who are not happy with it,should they be afforded the luxury of acting on their preferences? Or do you agree that extortion should be enacted on them to take their property from them on a weekly/monthly basis?

No I'm afraid it's not feasible for groups of people to decide what kind of government they want within a single state. Anarchism, alongside democracy, alongside fascism, alongside.... etc. Yeah that'd be great. For better or worse, we live in a democratic country, so until that changes you can either participate in the process or not.

If you want to debate the relative merits of anarchism over representative democracy, then you should do that in another thread, with someone else.