Convince me that I should vote

Tiddlypeeps

I've voted in every referendum and election since I've been eligible. This time around I'm really just not bothered going to the polling station. I have no idea who to vote for as I've been totally disheartened by the entire system. I'm convinced it makes very little difference who gets elected, they all do the same thing once they get into power. Their are no repercussions for lying during elections and they do it so regularly that I have actually just started turning canvassers away at the door because I can't be bothered to listen to more lies and fake smiles. Even when you do get a candidate elected who is genuine they are surrounded by corrupt self serving people so they have no power to change anything.

I don't like thinking this way and I hope I am wrong. Can anyone convince me that voting is actually a worthwhile exercise?

pajor

For the Fiscal Compact referendum I wrote "Cowboys Ted, they're a bunch of cowboys!" on the ballot paper.

Important to be part of that turnout figure imo.

Tiddlypeeps

pajor wrote: »

For the Fiscal Compact referendum I wrote "Cowboys Ted, they're a bunch of cowboys!" on the ballot paper.

Important to be part of that turnout figure imo.

I used to believe that and would sometimes spoil my vote if nobody stood out until I learned that they decide how many positions can be awarded based on the number of votes. I was told that was true for general elections anyway, not sure if it holds true for local elections or if it's even true at all.

oscarBravo

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I used to believe that and would sometimes spoil my vote if nobody stood out until I learned that they decide how many positions can be awarded based on the number of votes. I was told that was true for general elections anyway, not sure if it holds true for local elections or if it's even true at all.

If by "positions awarded" you mean "seats filled", it's not true at all.

Tiddlypeeps

oscarBravo wrote: »

If by "positions awarded" you mean "seats filled", it's not true at all.

Ah, nevermind so. My dad told me that and it's one of those things I just never thought to question until now.

Is there actually a good reason to spoil your vote? Can anything actually happen if a very large portion of the population spoil their vote?

Scofflaw

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Ah, nevermind so. My dad told me that and it's one of those things I just never thought to question until now.

Is there actually a good reason to spoil your vote? Can anything actually happen if a very large portion of the population spoil their vote?

Not really. Neither not voting nor spoiling your vote actually affect anything. The most they're likely to achieve is to ensure that some money is spent at the next election on glossy ads telling you voting is fun and meaningful.

The reason I vote, despite the meh factor, is that those decisions that are made by the representative body I'm voting on - be it the Dáil, the European Parliament, or the local council - will continue to be made if I don't vote, and will continue to be made by those people elected with or without my vote.

Even if my vote doesn't actually elect my preferred candidate, my recorded preference serves as an indicator of public opinion to those who are elected. If there are a lot of left-wing votes, then even if the electoral arithmetic produces mostly centre-right candidates, those candidates will know that, and are likely to want to appeal to those voters and soften their rightwards tendencies.

If none of the candidates particularly attract me, I vote by national party in national/local elections, and by European group in the European elections.

First preference will go to the Greens, because I want more Greens in the EP.

Although I don't really want to vote Labour this time round, and despite thinking pretty much nothing at all of Emer Costello, #2 preference probably to Labour in the European elections because I want a more left-wing European Parliament, and Labour are S&D, which is the main centre-left EP party.

Both of those are quite likely to be eliminated, and my #3 preference will probably go to Sinn Fein. Their EP party, GUE-NGL, is left-wing and green, and their candidate in the Dublin election is an environmentalist, so that's OK by me.

I don't expect to have a personal relationship with any of these people. I don't expect to discover that they've been "working for me" or "working for Dublin" in the European Parliament. What I expect is that they will help make up the numbers of those tendencies in the EP that I prefer, in the hopes that European legislation will be thereby made somewhat more left-wing and green.

As I said, the decisions in question will have to be made. I vote in the hopes of biasing those decisions in my preferred direction. The candidates are largely irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Vote 4 Pedro

If you vote for Pedro, all of your wildest dreams will come true.

Reformed Character

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I've voted in every referendum and election since I've been eligible. This time around I'm really just not bothered going to the polling station. I have no idea who to vote for as I've been totally disheartened by the entire system. I'm convinced it makes very little difference who gets elected, they all do the same thing once they get into power. Their are no repercussions for lying during elections and they do it so regularly that I have actually just started turning canvassers away at the door because I can't be bothered to listen to more lies and fake smiles. Even when you do get a candidate elected who is genuine they are surrounded by corrupt self serving people so they have no power to change anything.

I don't like thinking this way and I hope I am wrong. Can anyone convince me that voting is actually a worthwhile exercise?

Your own quote "Even when you do get a candidate elected who is genuine", by accepting that there are genuine candidates you must accept that they deserve a chance to make a difference.

uck51js9zml2yt

To those who won't vote or will spoil their vote . Don't let me see you complaining about decisions made by your local council or Europe in the next 5 years.
You will have had your chance to decide future outcomes tomorrow and will have given up your right.
You chose not to be part of the process so you've no legitimate rights to complain when you don't like what happens.
I voted last weekend but postal vote.

tommy2bad

Not voting is not an act of rebellion, it's an act of surrender.
If you were attacked by a bear, you would still throw the odd punch, the same with voting, it might not make much difference but at least you don't let people say you let the bear eat you.

Tiddlypeeps

upyores wrote: »

Your own quote "Even when you do get a candidate elected who is genuine", by accepting that there are genuine candidates you must accept that they deserve a chance to make a difference.

I don't see them having a chance to make a difference. The party system forces them to agree with the majority, and the majority are corrupt and self serving.

Not that anyone stands out as an honest candidate in my constituency anyway, none of them can even adhere to the poster regulations never mind anything else.

Tiddlypeeps

Isaias Clever Haze wrote: »

To those who won't vote or will spoil their vote . Don't let me see you complaining about decisions made by your local council or Europe in the next 5 years.
You will have had your chance to decide future outcomes tomorrow and will have given up your right.
You chose not to be part of the process so you've no legitimate rights to complain when you don't like what happens.
I voted last weekend but postal vote.

But what if you genuinely believe that how you vote will have no bearing on decisions made? It's not that I think my single vote is worth so little among the other hundreds of thousands. It's that I don't believe anything the candidates say and I don't believe they have much power to change anything even if they wanted to. I currently feel I would be as well to just throw all the names into a hat and randomly pick my vote.

Scofflaw

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

But what if you genuinely believe that how you vote will have no bearing on decisions made? It's not that I think my single vote is worth so little among the other hundreds of thousands. It's that I don't believe anything the candidates say and I don't believe they have much power to change anything even if they wanted to. I currently feel I would be as well to just throw all the names into a hat and randomly pick my vote.

On the councils, I tend to agree.

On the European Parliament, I'd very strongly disagree. If you don't think the choice of MEPs influences outcomes there, I suggest you ask tommy2bad there about vaping and the Parliament.

Sure, the candidates are mostly talking about stuff that they can't do - water charges, austerity, pylons, blah - none of those are European issues, and who you elect won't make a blind bit of difference.

But on energy policy, trade, environmental regulations, climate change, product safety, and others, it will make a difference. If you vote FG, for example, you're voting EPP, and that's a vote for TTIP - vote SF or Green, you;re voting against TTIP, vote S&D and it's uncertain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Metroid diorteM

I've voted all my life and I'm also disillusioned.

Ill vote tomorrow but all the votes have a negligible impact IMO.

There should be repercussions for broken promises. We're heading the same way as the states where the vote is further diluted due to corporate impact.

There should be a voting system online for regular issues. This crap of voting for personalities every few years is completely pointless because the circumstances change and politicians don't seem to give a crap about who voted for them and why once they're in the door.

CatFromHue

Voting gives you the right to give out and politicians and politics.

If you don't vote you never put forward your opinion when it matters and so you've nothing to be annoyed about if it goes tits up!

maccored

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

There should be repercussions for broken promises.

There is - by never voting for them again .... but that doesn't seem to get through to many voters in this country.

Amirani

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the councils, I tend to agree.

On the European Parliament, I'd very strongly disagree. If you don't think the choice of MEPs influences outcomes there, I suggest you ask tommy2bad there about vaping and the Parliament.

Sure, the candidates are mostly talking about stuff that they can't do - water charges, austerity, pylons, blah - none of those are European issues, and who you elect won't make a blind bit of difference.

But on energy policy, trade, environmental regulations, climate change, product safety, and others, it will make a difference. If you vote FG, for example, you're voting EPP, and that's a vote for TTIP - vote SF or Green, you;re voting against TTIP, vote S&D and it's uncertain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know how the EU parliament works in theory, but how does it actually work? Is there a whip system? Do MEPs generally always vote with their Euro party?

Scofflaw

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I know how the EU parliament works in theory, but how does it actually work? Is there a whip system? Do MEPs generally always vote with their Euro party?

There's a whip system, but not in the sense we understand it from the Dáil. In the Dáil, it's pretty much 100% loyalty all the time, every vote, or leave the party.

In the EP, nine times out of ten, MEPs will vote the same way as their group, but they don't have to. National parties within an EP group may disagree with the group's position on a vote, and vote the other way as a bloc, and individual MEPs can also vote differently both from their EP group and from their national party.

The records of the Irish MEPs standing for re-election are:

MEP|EP Group|Loyalty to EP Group|Loyalty to national party|# votes
Brian Crowley|ALDE|83.12%|96%|2719 out of 3271 votes
Pat the Cope|ALDE|87.17%|98.96%|5281 out of 6058 votes
Marian Harkin|ALDE|89.24%||5514 out of 6179 votes
Jim Higgins|EPP|93.36%|98.18%|5750 out of 6159 votes
Sean Kelly|EPP|93.37%|98.21%|6300 out of 6747 votes
Mairead McGuinness|EPP|92.87%|98.72%|5587 out of 6016 votes
Paul Murphy|GUE-NGL|87.53%|100%|4029 out of 4603 votes
Phil Predergast|S&D|95.54%|100%|4329 out of 4531 votes
Emer Costello|S&D|95.87%|100%|3691 out of 3850 votes
Alan Kelly|S&D|98.01%|100%|934 out of 953 votes


The # of votes there is the number of votes where they voted the same way as their EP group in the 2009-2014 session. As you can see, MEPs do a lot of voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mousewar

I intend to vote for the local elections but am considering not voting on the European one or even spoiling the ballot.
Now I could be badly wrong here but it strikes me that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point to it. There's 766 seats. Ireland has 11 of them. Germany has 96.
I mean does it matter who we send over - will they have any power whatsoever given their tiny representation?

Amirani

Mousewar wrote: »

I intend to vote for the local elections but am considering not voting on the European one or even spoiling the ballot.
Now I could be badly wrong here but it strikes me that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point to it. There's 766 seats. Ireland has 11 of them. Germany has 96.
I mean does it matter who we send over - will they have any power whatsoever given their tiny representation?

Vote for whatever European party you support most. It's somewhat analogous to Dail elections, there's no point voting on a constituency basis, you should vote on a national basis. Obviously there's scenarios where otherwise unimportant constituencies may benefit because of slim majorities (think the Healy-Raes), but this is less likely in the European system.

Ideally we'd have a situation where everyone voted in EU elections based on European issues rather than national ones such as scraping the water tax.

Un Croissant

CatFromHue wrote: »

Voting gives you the right to give out and politicians and politics.

If you don't vote you never put forward your opinion when it matters and so you've nothing to be annoyed about if it goes tits up!

I disagree. You don't have to vote to be politically active. That line, in my opinion, is trotted out by governments when it needs to show that you all voted for us on the basis of X bad policy or Y unpopular policy. Not voting, or making it known that you don't see the effectiveness of a vote shows distrust or disappointment with the current system, signalling a change is needed. Obviously there is a certain amount of truth to it, but people aren't voting today for every little detail to come for the next number of years, moreso the party or the face or as a means to give the government a bloody nose.

Scofflaw

Mousewar wrote: »

I intend to vote for the local elections but am considering not voting on the European one or even spoiling the ballot.
Now I could be badly wrong here but it strikes me that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point to it. There's 766 seats. Ireland has 11 of them. Germany has 96.
I mean does it matter who we send over - will they have any power whatsoever given their tiny representation?

They don't vote "for Ireland", so it doesn't matter. Anything that comes up at a European level is European in scope. If it particularly and adversely affected Ireland, it could and would be challenged legally in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

intellectual dosser

If you don't vote, then you're not entitled to come on boards.ie and moan about the Government.

Zubeneschamali

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Can anyone convince me that voting is actually a worthwhile exercise?

Not in the sense that your individual vote will make a difference to anything. It is vanishingly unlikely that any count at any stage will come down to one or two votes so that changing yours makes a difference.

I vote because I like to vote. I like to put the candidates who aggravate me at the bottom of the list, and the more harmless ones at the top. I know it makes no difference to who gets elected, but it makes me feel better.

Mousewar

Scofflaw wrote: »

They don't vote "for Ireland", so it doesn't matter. Anything that comes up at a European level is European in scope. If it particularly and adversely affected Ireland, it could and would be challenged legally in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not really familiar with all these European parties. So are you saying it is wrong to assume that the 96 German MEPs will vote for polices that favour Germany over other states?

Scofflaw

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not really familiar with all these European parties. So are you saying it is wrong to assume that the 96 German MEPs will vote for polices that favour Germany over other states?

Yep. 96 MEPs sounds like a lot, but (a) not all the German MEPs agree with each other, since they're from different German national parties, and (b) they're still a minority within the Parliament.

The main point there is (a). As a rule, MEPs vote with their European group, not nationally. German centre-left MEPs vote centre-left, not "German", because they wouldn't in any case automatically agree with the German centre-right MEPs about whether a particular policy "favours Germany over other states".

The only time you might get all the MEPs from one country to agree that a policy favoured their country would be if the policy blatantly and unarguably did so - and that policy would (a) be illegal for that reason, (b) be very unlikely ever to have emerged from the Commission in the first place, and (c) be objected to strongly by all the other 655 MEPs and by all the other governments on the Council.

If you're now asking yourself "well, then, how come Germany appears to have been telling everybody else what to do throughout the crisis?", the answer is because the response to the crisis wasn't something that was run by or through the EU. It was run intergovernmentally, that is, agreed between the governments directly, on traditional "who pays the piper calls the tune" lines, with the EU institutions effectively sidelined and irrelevant.

The new economic and crisis arrangements that are being set up now, such as the European bank resolution mechanism, will be European mechanisms, decided through the EU, and run rather more through the EU if and when they're called on. There were no crisis mechanisms in place this time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not really familiar with all these European parties. So are you saying it is wrong to assume that the 96 German MEPs will vote for polices that favour Germany over other states?

The drawback with the whole system is for all policy the parliament had no input other than to say yae or nay. And even when they vote nay the whole thing goes back to the commission and council of ministers for another run around.
The MEP do have an influence in as much as they work on the various committees and can shepherd legislation through the parliament. They can also speak and campaign in favour of issues as they see fit.

What they cannot do is present legislation or draft it. Big deficit in what is purporting to be a democracy when the ones we elect can do no more than act as watchdogs, barking at stuff but unable to open or close the gates.

Mousewar

tommy2bad wrote: »

And even when they vote nay the whole thing goes back to the commission and council of ministers for another run around.

Well that certainly sound familiar. So who puts forward the motions they vote on?

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yep. 96 MEPs sounds like a lot, but (a) not all the German MEPs agree with each other, since they're from different German national parties, and (b) they're still a minority within the Parliament.

agreed

it's the Groupings and the numbers they hold which are important so Irish MEPs can have influence

Amirani

Mousewar wrote: »

Well that certainly sound familiar. So who puts forward the motions they vote on?

European Commission.

Tiddlypeeps

Diego Simeone wrote: »

European Commission.

How is it decided who makes up the European Commission?

oscarBravo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Big deficit in what is purporting to be a democracy...

It's not purporting to be a democracy. It's an intergovernmental organisation that, unusually, has a directly-elected component.

The only people who describe the EU as a democracy are those who are using it to frame a strawman argument.

masti123

I firmly believe that if you vote you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around and say 'If you dont vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and f**k everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.

tayto lover

The A to Z of Election 2014 --
http://spunout.ie/action/article/a-z-of-elections-2014

Amirani

masti123 wrote: »

I firmly believe that if you vote you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around and say 'If you dont vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and f**k everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.

Erm, seeing as we're talking about logic and stuff, does that not sort of depend on who you vote for?

I voted Shane Ross last time out, how exactly have I "caused the problem" and as a result lost my right to complain?

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

The drawback with the whole system is for all policy the parliament had no input other than to say yae or nay. And even when they vote nay the whole thing goes back to the commission and council of ministers for another run around.
The MEP do have an influence in as much as they work on the various committees and can shepherd legislation through the parliament. They can also speak and campaign in favour of issues as they see fit.

What they cannot do is present legislation or draft it. Big deficit in what is purporting to be a democracy when the ones we elect can do no more than act as watchdogs, barking at stuff but unable to open or close the gates.

This is not that accurate. The Parliament can amend legislation, and vote it down, and those are important powers, as was shown in the vaping legislation (and ACTA). They are co-legislators with the Council - that is, legislation must be passed by both bodies - so if Parliament wants its amendments passed by the Council, it needs to come to an agreement with the Council, and vice-versa.

As oscar says, the Parliament doesn't elect a European government - there is no such thing - and therefore does not have legislative initiative, which at anything other than a theoretical level is the prerogative of governments. When you vote in the European elections, you're voting on a powerful and democratic control over the European process, but you are not voting simply for the European equivalent of a national parliament. There is no European state for such a parliament to control.

The way European legislation actually works is this:

1. the European Council sets the legislative agenda for the EU. The European Council is the governments of the Member States - the EU is their framework for cooperative action, so the fact that they set its agenda is hardly surprising.

2. the Commission then drafts and proposes legislation to meet that agenda.

3. the Parliament and Council of Ministers then amend the proposed legislation and vote yea/nay to the final form of it.

If that looks like the Member State governments get two bites of the cherry, that's correct - it's their show. The Parliament does not get to set the legislative agenda or initiate legislation, because the EU is not independent of the Member States, and the Parliament is an internal institution of the EU.

Basically, calling for the Parliament to have the right of legislative initiative is extremely federalist. It would give the EU the power and the mandate to set its own legislative agenda separately from the wishes of the Member States, and would reduce the Member States to the position the Parliament now occupies.

And at that, the Parliament would still need the Commission, because the EU is much more strongly constrained than any national government. It's not a sovereign entity - a sovereign entity has all the powers it is possible to have within its sphere of sovereignty. So the government of Ireland has all possible powers within the State of Ireland. It may delegate them, or accept abrogation of them, but any power that is not so delegated or abrogated is automatically possessed by the government of Ireland, and such delegation or abrogation can be reversed by any Irish government at any time.

That's not the case for the EU. The EU is a cooperation framework with a very limited sphere of competence granted to it by the Member States, and even within that limited sphere it is constrained by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. You cannot deny a power to the government of Ireland on the basis that it would be better exercised by a local council - but you can have EU legislation struck down on the basis that national level legislation would be more appropriate.

So even were the Parliament given the power of legislative initiative (which I can't see the Member States giving it), it would still be very constrained, and would still need a body like the Commission to ensure that its legislative proposals were actually legal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

How is it decided who makes up the European Commission?

The Member State governments propose candidates, and the Parliament vets them, and the Commission is only formed when the Parliament gives its consent. The Parliament can't formally reject individual candidates, but it can refuse to accept the entire Commission until an objectionable candidate is replaced - last time, they rejected the Romanian Commissioner candidate. They also have the power to dismiss the Commission.

This time, it's quite likely that the Parliament will reject the Commission unless one of the Parliament's candidates for President of the Commission is accepted by the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Santa Cruz

I have no time for people who don't vote or indeed for anyone who abuses candidates at the doorstep (no problem with letting them know your feelings but abuse is ignorance) The alternative to young people getting involved is the first step to dictatorship

whishty

BTW if you do decide to vote I find the votewatch site is a great way to do a bit of research on sitting MEPs. It gives you their voting and attendance records as well as plenty of other information.

I can't post the full URL because I'm a new user but it's not hard to find.

bmc58

Vote for someone you trust.People fought and died for the right to vote a you should always use it.It's your chance to have your say.
As the saying goes "every little helps".

bmc58

Vote for someone you trust.People fought and died for the right to vote and you should always use it.It's your chance to have your say.You might think "what difference will my vote make" but,
As the saying goes "every little helps".

the_syco

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I've voted in every referendum and election since I've been eligible. This time around I'm really just not bothered going to the polling station. I have no idea who to vote for as I've been totally disheartened by the entire system. I'm convinced it makes very little difference who gets elected, they all do the same thing once they get into power. Their are no repercussions for lying during elections and they do it so regularly that I have actually just started turning canvassers away at the door because I can't be bothered to listen to more lies and fake smiles. Even when you do get a candidate elected who is genuine they are surrounded by corrupt self serving people so they have no power to change anything.

You don't vote, you can't winge about whoever gets in.

Scofflaw

whishty wrote: »

BTW if you do decide to vote I find the votewatch site is a great way to do a bit of research on sitting MEPs. It gives you their voting and attendance records as well as plenty of other information.

I can't post the full URL because I'm a new user but it's not hard to find.

http://www.votewatch.eu/

There's also the various vote matching tools like http://www.euvox.eu/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tiddlypeeps

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.votewatch.eu/

There's also the various vote matching tools like http://www.euvox.eu/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heh, I went through that euvox.eu quiz just to see what it came up with and it gave me a weak match (20% to 30%) for ever single party.

That site puts me in the middle between economic left and right, and it puts me as very social liberal.

Zubeneschamali

euvox says I am a weak match to Labour and the Greens (fair enough), but then puts SF, the Socialist Party and FF ahead of FG.

a) It's obviously working off a strict left/right economics axis, and discounting the corrupt/honest, sane/barking mad axes.

b) I need to take a shower.

tommy2bad

@Scofflaw, yeah but you are trying to be positive while I was trying to be negative about the whole EU set up.
By the way I didn't claim it was a democratic process, that's claimed by the EU it's self when it suits them to pretend it is.
I'm not even sure if it should be a democratic process if it is about regularising trade and legislative action across 26 self governing states. However if it's to win back popular opinion it needs to offer some measure of accountability and when it comes to governance, democracy it the way to do this.
Oddly as useless as one vote is it dose give people a sense of possession of the process.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

@Scofflaw, yeah but you are trying to be positive while I was trying to be negative about the whole EU set up.
By the way I didn't claim it was a democratic process, that's claimed by the EU it's self when it suits them to pretend it is.
I'm not even sure if it should be a democratic process if it is about regularising trade and legislative action across 26 self governing states. However if it's to win back popular opinion it needs to offer some measure of accountability and when it comes to governance, democracy it the way to do this.
Oddly as useless as one vote is it dose give people a sense of possession of the process.

It's correct for it to claim to be democratic, because it is. It's just not a European version of a national parliament, is all.

And that's just the Parliament - the governments of the Member States, and thus the European Council and the Council of Ministers, are also elected.

No other legislation has to pass the governments of 28 countries and an elected body representing 500m people in order to be made into law. I'm not sure how much more democratic it could be.

cordially,
Scofflaw