BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Voting - should you, shouldn't you?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:35 / 02.05.02
Your vote is the keystone of democracy - if you think we have one. If you don't of course, it's just a way of window-dressing a hegemony of corporations and lobbies.

If enough people didn't vote, the political system would lose legitimacy. We would be forced to rework our nations.

On the other hand, for a time, we would likely have an extremist government - but then, from that could arise a reaction to purge extremism. Perhaps.

Corporations might exploit and destroy without governments to check them - but on the other hand, that could lead to the creation of a conscious proletariat. And do governments ever really hold big business in check?

You vote is your voice - but it also endorses a system which often doesn't offer you options you want to select, and it forces you to pick someone else to speak for you - someone who often doesn't.

And voting lends itself to hijacking, to the tyranny of the majority, to gerrymandering and political sweetners. It relies on the goodwill and integrity, not to mention intelligence and savvy of the electorate.

So: voting - should you, shouldn't you?
 
 
SMS
22:36 / 02.05.02
You do have the option of running for office, or forming an activist group that works toward whatever you think is good.

On the other hand, for a time, we would likely have an extremist government - but then, from that could arise a reaction to purge extremism. Perhaps.
I don't see this. A reaction to "purge extremism" is very likely to be an extremist movement itself.

If enough people didn't vote, the political system would lose legitimacy. We would be forced to rework our nations.
I think we need to look to history on this one. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about history to say. What are the odds on nations that do this kind of thing?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:55 / 03.05.02
The precedents are not entirely favourable. On the other hand, though we have timelines from the past, we're in the present. It's a different show.
 
 
gozer the destructor
08:29 / 03.05.02
Your vote is the keystone of democracy - if you think we have one.

This is the key issue for me personally, I just don't feel that the representitive parliamentary democracy that is established in this country works for the betterment of society just the protection of a weak and unhealthy system. It just seems to perpetuate the corruption found within authority and panders to an economic system that is morally devoid and irrational.

If I vote then I say that I agree that this system should carry on and that the program can be reformed to be more acceptable. I do not hold faith in that theory.

I also realise that I am of an impetuous personality, but I still fail to see why our generation, possibly the first to view the entire planet as a village via the ease of communication, should have to tollerate a flawed economic system and the plastic excuse for democracy that we have been handed. Fuck 'em, we can do better...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:53 / 03.05.02
Generations are a myth of demographics. You have been sold this idea by the PR for Douglas Coupland.

However, more important is the question of how you will do better. How will you get to where you want to be? What will you risk to get your better world, and do you know how you will implement it?

Precedents for the 'make it up as you go along' school are bad.
 
 
gozer the destructor
09:07 / 03.05.02
By generation I refer to those who are taking part and are aware of the 'shrinking world', I didn't realise that the statement was so misleading (I promise not to use the word zietgiest)

As regards the 'making up as we go along' ethos, that's all anybody does-there's never a masterplan that is followed by the letter or is everybody aware of something i'm not?, we have principles and direction but if the system is a rigid constant that means the worst for people, they are the only variable and in the end get abused by something that was supposed to be for their benefit.

To sum up,

Id rather hold out for a long shot than settle for second best...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:21 / 03.05.02
Just for info, the German word is 'Zeitgeist'. A 'zietgiest' would probably be a mould or cast of something the Germans have not yet invented called a 'ziet'.

And no, there's no masterplan, but if you're talking about radical societal re-engineering - and you are - you better have a roadmap. Otherwise, frankly, you're going to end up neckdeep in totalitarian shit. That's pretty much the chief lesson of history from the 20th Century: if you're going to undertake to change the world, you have to carry it all the way through, and you have to know in advance what you won't do, and more importantly what you will do, to achieve the world you desire.

The 'tear everything down and start again' method has been tried in several countries, and if you were to compile a list of top ten hellholes, they would mostly be on it. You can't erase the past, so you start from where you are. Now, tell me your dream...and let's see how we could get there from here.
 
 
gozer the destructor
09:39 / 03.05.02
How about a true democracy? is that really that far fetched?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:42 / 03.05.02
What is a 'true democracy'? Who governs and how? Is it a state of permanent referendum, are there houses of government? What do you do when the majority wants to do something self-destructive or evil?

It's not enough to say 'I want democracy' or 'I don't want my life run by bastards', Gozer. You have to know what that means at the practical level, and then you have to ask for it.
 
 
gozer the destructor
09:58 / 03.05.02
OK

True democracy, in my book, is one person one vote on any decision that effects the society that is voting. This rather than the representitive democracy that party politics makes impotent. And yes I know its really slow but it is an honest representation of what the society wants. I reject a state government because this creates division instantly, voiding the fundemental point of a democracy, that everyone is equal. This could be organised through non-hierarchical (sp?) workers councils.

Im not sure what you mean by the use of wooly phrases like evil/self-destructive? you'll have to be a bit more explicit.

and as regards asking for it, who the fuck would give up power?

anyway, what's your dream voter-boy, benevolent dictatorship?

perhaps we should start another thread called gozer and nick workshopping the revolution (or nick and gozer if you prefer?)

  
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:37 / 03.05.02
All right, suppose the majority decide they want to subsidise fuel prices so that it's cheaper to run a car, rather than taxing fuel. Suppose they vote to use factory trawlers to fish the depleted cod stocks. Suppose they decide to close the borders, outlaw homosexuality (again) and bring back capital punishment for serious crimes. Suppose they resume nuclear testing and chemical weapons programmes.

Is that right?

How an you stop them?
 
 
DaveBCooper
10:39 / 03.05.02
I’ve long been in favour of a ‘none of the above’ box on voting forms. Otherwise, it’s like being forced to eat something in a restaurant where you don’t like anything on the menu.

The idea that democracy as it exists allows you a voice seems to presuppose that all voices will find expression. Not so. As we saw the other day when Blair told people involved in the May Day protests they should be registering their protest through the ballot box. Are there candidates on the anti-globalisation ticket, then, Tony ? In all areas? If not, then how does he propose they register their protest? Maybe by not voting ? Oh no, that’s apparently a sign of the electorate being stupid or something. Slightly presumptuous there – ‘politics is okay, it’s the electorate not understanding that is the problem’. Hmm. To paraphrase The Usual Suspects, it may be that the greatest tricks politics ever pulled off was convincing the world it’s the only solution.

Because maybe, just maybe, after over a century of parties making promises people which none of them have delivered in their entirety, people are growing tired of the system?

Oh, and if it falls to me to come up with a solution or alternative, does that mean I can have my taxes back ?

DBC, feeling snarly
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:57 / 03.05.02
Are there candidates on the anti-globalisation ticket, then, Tony ? In all areas?

To which the Blair may respond "well, why don't you and all the other anti-Globalisation campaigners set up an anti-Globalization party, put up candidates in every constituency and see what happens? Or go for the local elections - if you have any popular support you should at least get a few seats then. Demonstrate a good record on the councils, be conscientious, use that goodwill in the next national elections...."

What are the arguments against participation in the democratic process?
 
 
gozer the destructor
11:14 / 03.05.02
The problem is not with democratic process per se, it is with the current system of representative democracy. The influence of reform ranges from none to less than none in effect and the influence that the voting public have is negligble. For every reform that is made, the civil service patch so many buerocratic (sp?) sub-clauses into it that it becomes either a)useless, b)gobbldygook or c)both.

As someone who voted labour in '97, works for the NHS and was naive enough to think that the NHS plan would work, thought that labour would fight privatisation and the selling off of schools and hospitals to the private sector to make money with, I feel betrayed. How can the government provide services for people that are effective when it courts the big business'.

As regards controling people, Nick, I really have no intention...if people are educated to the level that they can see the consequences of their self-destructive actions and continue, that's when I give up and become a nihilist.
 
 
Rev. Orr
11:16 / 03.05.02
Haus - on an individual basis, financial if nothing else. Yes, independants do get elected, but unless you have a large disposable income (cf the Goldsmith Referendum party - the vanity publishing of politics) there are a hell of a lot of disincentives to standing and offering that alternative platform.

Not the only reason by a long chalk, but practical sticking point that must have a simple solution.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:20 / 03.05.02
Arg.

Gozer, I'm sorry, but 'if people are educated' etc. is a huge caveat. How will you get them 'educated' - read 'indoctrinated' - to that level? You're talking about a perfect populous, and how on Earth are we supposed to get one?

And once you start the process of change, you don't have the right to quit. You can't just have a hissy fit and throw your hands in the air because the revolution's rolling in a direction you don't like. As I said, you better have a goddam roadmap, otherwise you're just talking angry hot air - and anyone can do that. Most people do, in fact - it's one of the things which makes the system we have not work. In fact, your perfectly informed populace could probably function quite happily within the constraints of today's setup - because, after all, they'd never work against their own best interests, even when they weren't voting.

It's not the real world, Gozer. I'd love to live in the place you're talking about, but I need to get there first. And that means starting here.
 
 
sleazenation
11:24 / 03.05.02
Just asking, but doesn't standing in the council require putting up the money for the deposit? (which you may or may not get back depending on how many votes you get) and of courrse there is always they cost of running an effective campaign- yes a man-monkey was elected in Hartlipool, but he was very much a ridiculous protest vote candidate recieving more press attention (bringing his existance to the attention of more of the electorate) more for being a mascot for his local football club than any platform of policies.
 
 
gozer the destructor
11:32 / 03.05.02
You really have missed the point haven't you. That's what i'm talking about. That was the whole purpose of the demo that was set up on wed, blank placards for people to make their own point, to think for themselves, to realise that there are options and you don't have to stick to the system, (this is where you start flapping your hands in the air and shout 'he want's everyone to think, disaster, disaster!') because unless people are told that there isn't an easy solution or any right answers and that there are better ways to do things then nothing will change. You seem to be obsessed with an idea of the masses as needing a guiding 'iron' hand, how patronising and immoral can a political philosophy be? we really need to vote someone in to tell us what to do? who really lives in a cloud 9 lie?
 
 
gozer the destructor
11:33 / 03.05.02
Above is to Nick, not Sleaze...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:22 / 03.05.02
I think that Haus makes a point that needs to be answered. If you don't like the current parties then why not form another party that will meet your needs. If there are problems with the system, then campaign to get it changed and do so from the inside as well as in the form of protests. The only situation that I can imagine this wouldn't be viable is if the system were so compromised that it would be impossible to get a popular movement, supported by the majority or a significant minority, to effect or influence decisions to its own ends.

I simply don't see that this is the case. I do see that it is difficult to get off the ground and would require a great investment both in time and money. I also see that there is a lot of dissatisfaction but not much positive cohesion. I don't see these as sufficient reason to abandon the idea of participating in the democracy we have.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:27 / 03.05.02
Gozer:

You haven't answered any of my points, you know. I don't have a problem with people thinking for themselves, I have a problem with people chosing not to think.

Your answer to my concern that a perfectly democratic state might make disastrous or hateful decisions is to say that they'd only do that if they were 'insufficiently educated' - well, that's fine with environmental issues which are relatively concrete (though even that is open to debate), but hardly enough with moral and ethical issues like capital punishment, where 'educated' just seems to mean 'agrees with me'.

I'm not 'obsessed with an idea of the masses as needing a guiding 'iron' hand', I'm just not prepared to take it on trust that everyone would vote in their own and my best interests. It seems to be an assumption which is far from supported by history.

You want to convince me, don't take rhetorical potshots at my position, show me that yours works. It sounds great. How do we get there from here?
 
 
DaveBCooper
14:45 / 03.05.02
Lurid, as you say, an enormous amount of time and money. As I seem to recall, the latter particularly after the law was changed in the 1980s to increase the amount of votes needed to get your deposit back. Not making it harder for people to field candidates without the money or anything, oh no.

And I’d have to ask : if there isn’t a party you like, what are you supposed to do ? Vote anyway ? I always feel that being forced to vote (as is the case in certain countries, such as … Australia ? Correct me by all means) is but one step from forcing people to vote a certain way. Hence my like for a ‘none of the above’….

DBC
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:56 / 03.05.02
I take the point, DBC, but at the same time, I think we have a respnsibility to make sure parties we loathe don't get in. If I hadn't voted, and a BNP candidate had got in - or even a beloved Tory - I think I'd have to accept partial responsibility.

I still think that most of the arguments against voting are arguments which demand a better world as a right - as if the universe will somehow award us these things if we can demonstrate that they are fair - like Gozer. I see it differently; I see a relatively new form of government - (liberal) democracy - struggling to cope with emergent situations, at the same time as fending off the onslaught of other forms - coporate hegemony, old fashioned dictatorship, and so on - and yet unable, by its own nature, to destroy these assailants completely, because they exist in the freedoms it protects and asserts as part of its self-definition.

I don't see a natural thrust towards democracy thwarted by impersonal forces, I see a vast global population (almost 'proletariat') unformed and unaware of its own needs and responsibilities, liable to cripple itself in the search for comfort.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:14 / 03.05.02
Hang on though, as far as I'm concerned the biggest problem in modern politics is one of trust. Personally, I didn't vote because I simply cannot motivate myself to wade through the lakes of bullshit generated by the top three parties in order to find the few nuggets of genuine intent that would give me some solid basis on which to decide between them. Then again, perhaps I am simply lazy.

Nevertheless, a lot of 'good' systems can be subverted if their actions cannot be closely examined. Likewise, a lot of 'bad' systems can be made workable if the populace can keep an eye on what is happening. Benevolent dictatorship is fine as long as you can be certain the dictator is truly benevolent. On the other hand, democracy is worthless if the votes are rigged.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:16 / 03.05.02
"On the other hand, democracy is worthless if the votes are rigged."

Or if you're fairly certain that none of the representatives plan on keeping whatever promises made during the campaign. And I can't see how voting "none of the above" will help when no one who is running for the office seems fit to hold it.

The problem for me is, as Nick was saying earlier, that while I don't like the current system, I don't have a better idea. Well, I do, but it's completely useless unless everyone knows why and how it works, and why it's better than what we have going.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
20:11 / 03.05.02
i havent read this thread yet, cos i got work coming out of my ears, but i'll post my last post in the other voteing thread, since its kinda died and been reincarnated here.

3 extra BNP's and a dude in a monkey suit got elected.

they each have budgets of millions and a salary of £50,000,
of your money
...wonder what their doing with it right now?

(please dont shout at me, but) by not voting, you are supporting these people, paying their salary giving them their money to spend on their agenda. So what, its not perfect, but nothing is.
sttab

moderate post
At 21:55 03.05.2002:


"lada - why kick them up the arse? for many people, the options they have are no options at all."


god, their are so many people here with their own idea of how things should be done, it would be infesable to create a party to represent them. To win any votes it would have to become just like whats already in place.

with a little research you would see where parties stand on some issues that are important to you. beleive in relaxed drug laws, vote liberal, decreased taxes and public spending, vote conservative, mabye your a bit of a socialist, so you might as well support blairs feasable demi socailism
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
20:14 / 03.05.02
you can always form your own party, or stand as an independent, and if the people want you, you can change things from the inside (problem being that people as a grup are retarded *as opposed to idividuals*)
 
 
Steve Block
21:42 / 03.05.02
On the issue of standing yourself, I am seriously considering it. Probably opening myself right up to ridicule here, but yesterday I voted for 2 labour and one conservative purely on the basis that they lived in Norbury, the ward that I was voting in. They were the only three of the seven candidates who did. My choice was between Labour, Conservative and an independent standing for pensioners concerns who I wish I'd researched before the poll to familiarise myself with, but on the whole felt I couldn't back him on the day as I only knew his name and wasn't sure if he was someone I'd disagree with policy wise.

I was gutted not to have more choice. And then realised I could solve it. I'm not sure what the deposit is at a local council, at a parliamentary election it is £1000 so I would assume it is smaller at a council. I read an article somewhere about a councillor who got himself elected on a budget of £500. I am seriously going to look into this and try to raise money.

I almost stood for the Monster Raving Loony Party at the last election, although I couldn't quite raise the £1000 deposit. I think if people reall do want to change the system, they have to start standing for election. It's the only way. It's the way the rules are set up, so it's the way it's got to be done. For those people who say that it doesn't change anything, how many people here have voted independent or Monster Raving? Or stood themselves?

The fact of the matter is, we live in a representative democracy. That means we vote for people to make decisions for us, and the person with the most votes wins. That means anyone that wins is going to be from such a broad canvas just to appeal to the popular vote. On the other hand, it also means single issue campaigns can work. Finding a single issue campaign people would vote for may just be the answer.

I think I will stand next time round, and keep going. I just need to start raising the cash.

Bit of digging led me here, How to Stand for Council.

Relevant quote:- if you want to stand purely in your own right, you only need ten registered electors from the Ward you propose to represent to sign your nomination paper. There is no financial deposit required to stand in local elections, unlike a General Election.


There's four years until the next council elections. If people got organised, something could happen. I'm not going to be faced with the choice of red or blue again.
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
09:48 / 04.05.02
good on yeh ... what voting system do you use in loacl elections in england?

you voted 3 times, so it aint FPTP (first past the post, whats used in general elections)or party list, is it "alternative vote" or "single transferable vote"?

one thing that would make general elections better, would be a form of PR, like what we use in scotlan (alternative vote), as seats are shared out depending on the percentage of votes...i.e, the greens get 7% of the vote they get 7% of the seats, which in a general election with 357 (is that right) seats up for grabs, the'd get 25 seats

so mabye if you did have a minority party, you could still do well...if only 2% of the population beleive in your political theories, thats still 7 seats...pure PR is no good though, because you do lose an element of local representation, and it does open the doors to extremist parties from both ends of the spectrum (in germany, a party has to get over a certain percentage before it can have any representatives)

in scotland, AMS is used, and we have a green and a SSP (scottish socialist party), who im quite impressed with, despite not agreeing with much of their polotics, tommy sheriden appears to be one of the few MSP's with morals. He gives half his paycheck to his party, and was outraged when the majority of MSP's voted themselves a big pay increase...i might be meeting him again soon, cos mine and manga's modern studies class won an essay and mock newspaper compotition (i contributed some essays, named the newspaper and did the political cartoon)...we ge an all expenses trip (first class train and a night at the hollyrood hotel) to see the scottish parliment (again) and lunch with some MSP's
 
 
solid~liquid onwards
09:50 / 04.05.02
good luck in the elections... by the by, what are political leanings?
 
 
Steve Block
18:41 / 04.05.02
In the local elections, you elect three councillors per ward, so the three candidates with the highest votes go through. So FPP basically, on a first three past the post basis. Not sure who the question about political leanings is directed at.
 
 
Rev. Orr
19:16 / 04.05.02
Okay, so it's possible (and relatively common) for an unafiliated individual to get elected into local government. Great. But in the UK over the last twenty years, the power and authority of local councils has been eroded consistantly and continuously, mainly in favour of greater centralisation but also due to the rise of quangos, centrally launched authorities and devolved assemblies.

The problem with the concept of 'if you don't like the status quo get in there and change it yourself' is that our entire parliamentary system is based on the weight of numbers. In order to effect any change, individuals have to collectivise creating a critical mass for change. Grouping such individuals under a banner works for single issues (which is why non-parliamentary lobby groups can still mobilise resistance) but in order to create a 'party', compromise is inevitable. The same reasons that make it impossible for one individual to aggree with every policy element of an existing party mean that any new body or collective arising from popular discontent with the system will be equally compromised from its inception.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the system is weighted in favour of the path of least resistance, watered-down policies will always have a greater chance of being enacted and anyone wanting anything other than incremental shifts in established patterns of national behaviour or thought is going to be crushed. The only solution (partial and unsatisfying as it is) as I see it, is to continue to lobby from outside the narrow field of politics and to campaign vigourously for some form of change to the current setup. What form this would take I throw open to debate, but my first steps would include the abolition of political parties and a return to accountable individuals representing their constituencies and no-one else, or possibly some form of PR to widen the spectrum of debate.
 
 
Steve Block
20:31 / 04.05.02
I'm not sure how you could abolish political parties. What would prevent politicians from recreating them, underground if need be? And exactly what do you mean when you say representatives should just represent their constituencies and no-one else? Would each constituency then have equal value? How would decisions get made? Who would be the leader of the country? How would the houses work?

I agree entirely that some form of pr is needed, in fact I believe the second house should be elected on a pr basis, based on the election returns of the election for the first house.

As for your point about compromise and weight of numbers, that isn't a flaw in the system, that is the system. Surely that is how any form of democracy works?

For my own part, I would much rather the people who didn't vote actually voted Monster Raving Loony. Okay, they may never get elected, but you could still help them keep their deposit, and what you hope to acheive by not voting you can achieve just as well by voting Monster Raving Loony. Does no-one else think Screaming Lord Sutch is a spiritual mentor of this place?

For those not familiar with the Monster Raving Loonies, see here.

I appreciate that change may never happen and may be slow, I appreciate people might whine and so on, but I can't appreciate there's no alternative to the status quo.
If people really want to vote for a change, they can. The fact of the matter is, people don't. Hmm, I feel like I'm banging a drum here.

As for the erosion of local authority power, recent bills have reversed that trend, and if utilised properly local authorities will become more power as devolution works it's way through the system.
 
 
gozer the destructor
10:38 / 05.05.02
Going back to an earlier issue raised by Nick about Education/Indoctrination-I was taliking to a friend of mine who is a teacher and raised this point with her and our discussion leaned towards the idea that education is to teach about a subject whereas indoctrination demands 'How' to think about something, granted there is a blured line between the concepts, but it's a definition that creates a foundation for debate. This is what I meant by educating people regarding educating about options, rather than demanding people think a certain way.

Creating your own party is what the Socialist parties in this country have done with the Socialist Alliance, however the SWP seem to be causing a bit of a nuisance one way or an other (usually because they want to run everything).

My own personal leanings towards politics go against state and being well aware that my views are seriously in the minority it puts me in the position of being a miniscule voice saying exactly what I believe and refusing the system or to make sacrifices in my principles and try to use the system to change the system. An internal argument that I don't see being answered any time soon.

If your going to run yourself, good luck, my personal opinion is that becoming part of the process I would have become that that I try to criticise and remove, authority.

In answer to Nick's comment of my supposed belief that the universe awards what i want if the system is proved fairer, the universe has never given me anything that I didn't work for first, and somethings i'm still working for. Proving a system fair is like rolling your sleeves up to the job, it's one process in an unending occupation-existance-but anything worth fighting for takes more than any man's lifetime. Please don't patronise me, we are here to argue matters of politics, not, as you said, to plant rhetorical potshots.
 
 
Ganesh
10:59 / 05.05.02
I think the Monster Raving Loonies may be roughly analogous to Barbelith's occasional trolls in that they're 'wacky' in a sort of tedious, 1970s Radio 1 DJ kind of way, present themselves as 'insane' and wildly subversive - but are both deeply reactionary, cliched and dull.

Leopard-skin! Top hats! Badges! Oops, there go my sides again...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply