Anyone else sitting out on this election?

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.

Dave!

MyKeyG wrote: »

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.

Awesome. Clearly put alot of thought into this. Good work.

FionnMatthew

MyKeyG wrote: »

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

Yes, I mean apart from our legal system, our economic system, our road network, our railroads, our basic political system, our de facto national language, and our literary heritage what have the British ever done for us?

Riverston

The OP has raised a point that Ive heard so often through every election or vote/referendum Ive been interested in since I have been able to participate, since the mid 80's. I think the crisis times we're in currently has exasperated the feeling of hopelessness and anger in the electorate, even more than the rough times of the 80's and early 90's. The fall from the highs of the Celtic Tiger to the bank bailout and National Debt closing in on over 200billion which was precipitated and accelerated by incredible bad management from the Government and the agencies and regulators imposed upon us to prevent such an outcome, is matched only in its criminality, by a lack of real opposition with a real alternative and a real vision of how to go forward.

This country needs radical reform across all its bodies, governmental and regulatory, financial and political. Opposition have had a minimum of 18 months to put a coherent, viable, visionary plan before the electorate. With an agreed programme to right some of the wrongs that everyone across the country can see, which would put the country first instead of party politics, they would probably have romped home with such a majority that they would have no excuse to not to bring through the reforms we all know are needed.

However maybe this is just my naievity showing. How dare a politican put the country before his party!!!

The OP and the following responses show to me that there is an incredible frustration in us all, not just with FF, but also FG, Lab and the rest. To me I am drawn to the story in Brewsters Millions where Richard Prior campaigns for 'None of the Above'. The current political system doesnt require a minimum vote as far as I know (however I am happy to be corrected here). If we were to try and organise a protest, it would be this way, not just a few spoilt or non voters, how it would be done is beyond me here and now, but as a signal and a 'two-fingered salute', it probably is the only way we can get our message across.

Personally I would be interested in running for office, but none of the existing parties interest me enough to make me want to join, and as an independent I feel you get lost in the rattle and hum of the big boys. My hope is that over the next few years, once the old guard has been cleared out and some of the new blood has come through, not only will they rebuild the credibility of their parties, but of the political system as a whole.

Sorry for the length of the reply, but I do feel as frustrated, disappointed and let down as you obviously feel. However I have an idea myself of who will get my vote from some of the actions I have seen and observed in this constituency. I would encourage all to vote, but wouldnt hold it against those that didnt.

rodento

It seems that voting is some over rated local popularity contest, what you often get is someone who is completely unsuited to running the country.

gpjordanf1

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?

I Believe you & the Fianna Fail party will be sitting this one out!

kippy

FionnMatthew wrote: »

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.

So, what is your alternative?
The whole country not voting surely isnt a viable one.

FirstHundred

kippy wrote: »

So, what is your alternative?
The whole country not voting surely isnt a viable one.

This response. You don't need to have an alternative prepared for a criticism to be valid. Criticism always precedes the elaboration of an alternative.

kippy

FirstHundred wrote: »

This response. You don't need to have an alternative prepared for a criticism to be valid. Criticism always precedes the elaboration of an alternative.

Ah now,
You have a guy here make a statement in the OP that he is not voting and asking if other people are not voting and why they aren't.
It is VERY easy to complain and moan about something but a completely different matter in trying to make it better.
NOT voting does nothing and NOT having a viable alternative is just as bad an attitude as most of the politicians you claim to hate so much.

namloc1980

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

Empire.......what Empire?

FirstHundred

kippy wrote: »

Ah now,
You have a guy here make a statement in the OP that he is not voting and asking if other people are not voting and why they aren't.
It is VERY easy to complain and moan about something but a completely different matter in trying to make it better.
NOT voting does nothing and NOT having a viable alternative is just as bad an attitude as most of the politicians you claim to hate so much.

I agree entirely that it is easier to criticize than to try to make things better, but I would also suggest that it is pointless trying to make things better until you have tried to figure out exactly what is wrong. Both have their place.

You are right that not voting does nothing, but it also does no harm. On the other hand, talking to people about your voting intentions can only be a good thing, especially if you disagree with them.

Again, not having a viable alternative is categorically not an argument against any of the aforementioned criticisms. The criticisms are valid or invalid independently of any alternative that one could suggest. You might think that our system of government is flawed, but that it is the best one yet invented. That is a perfectly valid opinion, but it is not an excuse for ignoring any of the problems with it. At one stage there were people who thought that monarchy was the best form of government, after all.

In general, opposing criticisms of things based on the absence of a viable alternative is a fairly retrograde way of thinking. Imagine the following exchange.

Charles Darwin - I'm not sure I believe that God made man in his own image. It looks like something else was going on.
Joe Bloggs - I don't know. The Bible says God did it. What do YOU suggest happened?
Charles Darwin - I don't really know, but there are definitely problems with the Creation story.
Joe Bloggs - It's easy to criticize. If you're going to be blasphemous you should at least make it plausible.