Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anyone else sitting out on this election?

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Violafy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Violafy


    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?

    Why would you not use the right to vote? You'll probably be one of the first to moan if the next Government turns out to be as disasterous as the last, but you'll have no right to complain if you didn't even attempt to use your power to change it. I agree that there's an extremely poor choice of canditates and even Parties, but you should still vote, even if only to assure that the party you like least doesn't get into power!
    I'll be voting for the first time and I'm excited. :P


  • #63
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Violafy wrote: »
    Why would you not use the right to vote? You'll probably be one of the first to moan if the next Government turns out to be as disasterous as the last, but you'll have no right to complain if you didn't even attempt to use your power to change it. I agree that there's an extremely poor choice of canditates and even Parties, but you should still vote, even if only to assure that the party you like least doesn't get into power!
    I'll be voting for the first time and I'm excited. :P

    please read thread.


  • #64
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    Violafy wrote: »
    Why would you not use the right to vote? You'll probably be one of the first to moan if the next Government turns out to be as disasterous as the last, but you'll have no right to complain if you didn't even attempt to use your power to change it. I agree that there's an extremely poor choice of canditates and even Parties, but you should still vote, even if only to assure that the party you like least doesn't get into power!
    I'll be voting for the first time and I'm excited. :P

    All these questions are addressed in the thread you didn't read.


  • #65
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    Snap!


  • #66
    Violafy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Violafy


    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    please read thread.
    FirstHundred wrote: »
    All these questions are addressed in the thread you didn't read.

    It's necessary to go through 5 pages of replies before replying to a thread which caught your attention? Apologies, I wasn't aware of this.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Violafy wrote: »
    It's necessary to go through 5 pages of replies before replying to a thread which caught your attention? Apologies, I wasn't aware of this.

    Only if you don't want to ask questions that have already been answered.


  • #68
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    FirstHundred wrote: »
    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.
    Not voting does lots of harm - more than many can realise.
    What if only FF supporters felt strongly enough about voting - everyone else decided not to vote..........etc etc


    The people who though monarchy was the best form of government were swayed by arguments from those that thought it wasn't - they had a viable alternative.

    Charles Darwin has some very compelling arguments as to why his theory of evolution is relevant.
    I wouldn't just agree with someone if they didnt have some rational argument to put forward.
    At the moment I dont see any better system of "having to vote" I see better systems of government, better ways of reducing cost and making governing more efficient, but the means of electing those government - voting.
    Yep, essentially you only vote for people, once those people get into the Dail negotiations decide if they are in government or not, then it is up to the party head to decide who gets a ministry.

    The "frustration" with the current parties/options out there is not a good excuse for not voting. There are other means and methods of showing this frustration which are far more functional.

    The amount of people I know, who were eligible but didnt vote in any of the past three is shocking. These people are generally the most pontificating of all as well about the current state of the country.


  • #69
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    The people who though monarchy was the best form of government were swayed by arguments from those that thought it wasn't - they had a viable alternative.

    Charles Darwin has some very compelling arguments as to why his theory of evolution is relevant.
    I wouldn't just agree with someone if they didnt have some rational argument to put forward.
    At the moment I dont see any better system of "having to vote" I see better systems of government, better ways of reducing cost and making governing more efficient, but the means of electing those government - voting.
    Yep, essentially you only vote for people, once those people get into the Dail negotiations decide if they are in government or not, then it is up to the party head to decide who gets a ministry.

    The "frustration" with the current parties/options out there is not a good excuse for not voting. There are other means and methods of showing this frustration which are far more functional.

    The amount of people I know, who were eligible but didnt vote in any of the past three is shocking. These people are generally the most pontificating of all as well about the current state of the country.

    So what? Do you think that the alternatives to monarchy and Creationism sprung fully formed into the world or do you think they arose out of a careful consideration of the deficiencies of the previous way of thinking.

    Of course Darwin has great arguments, but he worked his entire life to elaborate his ideas. You can be sure they were preceded by a sense, however vague, that the prevailing account of human origins was a load of nonsense. If he had refused to indulge these doubts on the grounds that he did not have a viable alternative where would we be? The consequences of your rigid account of intellectual development are stagnation and conservatism.

    You also equate rational arguments in favour of an alternative with rational arguments against the thing itself. You say you won't listen to the latter unless someone can provide the former too. But the validity of an argument against something is independent of the validity of an argument in favour of an alternative.

    Also, whether someone pontificates or not has absolutely no bearing on whether what they are saying is right or wrong. You might not like them doing it, but your dislike has no logical force.


  • #70
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    FirstHundred wrote: »
    So what? Do you think that the alternatives to monarchy and Creationism sprung fully formed into the world or do you think they arose out of a careful consideration of the deficiencies of the previous way of thinking.

    Of course Darwin has great arguments, but he worked his entire life to elaborate his ideas. You can be sure they were preceded by a sense, however vague, that the prevailing account of human origins was a load of nonsense. If he had refused to indulge these doubts on the grounds that he did not have a viable alternative where would we be? The consequences of your rigid account of intellectual development are stagnation and conservatism.

    You also equate rational arguments in favour of an alternative with rational arguments against the thing itself. You say you won't listen to the latter unless someone can provide the former too. But the validity of an argument against something is independent of the validity of an argument in favour of an alternative.

    Also, whether someone pontificates or not has absolutely no bearing on whether what they are saying is right or wrong. You might not like them doing it, but your dislike has no logical force.
    They came out of careful consideration and discussion as well as research in a number of areas.


    You've taken this thread way to high brow by the way. Discussion of Monarchies and Darwin have nothing to do with the OP and his reasoning.

    You still havent given me a reason why people not voting is a good thing. (Making arguements about the monarchy and darwin have noting to do with why not voting in this general election is the "smart" thing to do)
    I've given you a few as to why it is a bad thing.

    My dislike has oceans of logical force.

    How can you pontificate about the state of the country when you yourself have had not bothered your arse to either vote in favour of the people who have the country in the state it is in or voted for the opposite side.
    You have every right to have an opinion - however I have little time for it if you've not taken your right to vote and indeed make a point of not voting.

    You point in bold........
    whats the argument, I've lost track of it.


  • #71
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    Kippy - My dislike has logical force.
    Entire Western Philosophical Tradition - No, it doesn't.

    My examples were intended to illustrate fallacies in previous arguments. I'm sorry if it is too "high-brow" for you. I am in the habit of treating people I'm talking to like human beings.
    You still havent given me a reason why people not voting is a good thing.

    Please read the thread. There are a bunch of reasons. One of my reasons is that I am emigrating and so don't feel as if I should have any say in how the country is run if I'm not going to be living here. I don't stand to gain or lose by it.
    How can you pontificate about the state of the country when you yourself have had not bothered your arse to either vote in favour of the people who have the country in the state it is in or voted for the opposite side.

    This is addressed further up the thread too.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    FirstHundred wrote: »
    Kippy - My dislike has logical force.
    Entire Western Philosophical Tradition - No, it doesn't.

    My examples were intended to illustrate fallacies in previous arguments. I'm sorry if it is too "high-brow" for you. I am in the habit of treating people I'm talking to like human beings.



    Please read the thread. There are a bunch of reasons. One of my reasons is that I am emigrating and so don't feel as if I should have any say in how the country is run if I'm not going to be living here. I don't stand to gain or lose by it.


    Its fairly logical why I have a dislike of this by the way.



    This is addressed further up the thread too.
    Are you suggesting I am not treating you like a "human being"?
    The arguments you have used have done nothing but to muddy the topic being discussed.

    Imigration - sorry to hear that (if you are forced into it).
    If you never intend to live in this country again then voting next week is probably a pointless exercise.
    I hope the country you are going to is better aligned with your political beliefs.


    Logical path:
    Joe says to me, those FF'ers ar a bunch of conmen and I've always known it.
    Me: So you didnt vote for the last time?
    Joe: Have never voted, whats the point, FF always get in.


  • #73
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    I am saying that I assumed that anybody reading my comments would make the effort to understand the reasoning behind them. I assumed that anybody reading the thread was interested in reasons rather than cheap point-scoring.

    I am sorry if you think my contributions have muddied the waters, but I can't help but feel that maybe you have failed to digest them properly.

    I have expressed no political beliefs in this thread apart from the strictest regard for the freedom of myself and others to exercise or not exercise our democratic rights as we see fit.


  • #74
    MyKeyG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭MyKeyG


    Dave! wrote: »
    Awesome. Clearly put alot of thought into this. Good work.
    A bit like your reply then.


  • #75
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    FirstHundred wrote: »
    I am saying that I assumed that anybody reading my comments would make the effort to understand the reasoning behind them. I assumed that anybody reading the thread was interested in reasons rather than cheap point-scoring.

    I am sorry if you think my contributions have muddied the waters, but I can't help but feel that maybe you have failed to digest them properly.

    I have expressed no political beliefs in this thread apart from the strictest regard for the freedom of myself and others to exercise or not exercise our democratic rights as we see fit.

    I am trying (with great difficultly) to understand why a person eligible to vote in this country would make a conscious decision NOT to vote and why at almost every election over half the population make that decision.
    I have seen your reasons and that of others for not voting but bearing in mind the amount of blood that has been spilled in this and other countries and indeed countries that are still struggling for democracy I still find it hard to digest.
    That coupled with the fact that a lot of serial non voters I know (some of whom in fairness will be voting in this election) tend to have plenty to say about the state of the country makes me question strongly those that chose not to vote.

    There is no one taking scores on this thread so points scoring, cheap or otherwise, is pointless - see what I did there.....


    As I said in my first post on this thread to the OP, if you wish not to vote and make a point of it (as is being done in this thread - telling the world etc) then dont expect not to get questioned in your motives and indeed get some negative comments back about your stance.


  • #76
    FirstHundred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭FirstHundred


    Summary of Arguments Against Voting So Far

    This is so people can contribute without having to trawl through 5 pages of posts.
    I don't want any of the people I could vote for actually elected.
    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.
    Abstention ... 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.
    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.
    I 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.
    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.
    "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.
    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.
    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.

    I then argued that not having an alternative for something (in this case, representative democracy) is a terrible reason for refusing to accept any of the problems with it.

    I gave the examples of monarchy and Creationism. The alternatives of evolution and liberal democracy grew out of a recognition of the problems with these systems. I attempted to illustrate that it is not necessary to have an alternative worked out to criticize something, and that to insist on a policy of no criticism without a viable alternative shows an insensitivity to how progress happens.

    These are the reasons that have been given by me, the OP and other contributors. You can pick any one of these arguments, or a selection of them, and explain why they are wrong, or you can introduce a reason for voting that has not already been mentioned. Then you have to explain why it trumps all the reasons for not voting.


Advertisement