The Queen's Jubilee

[JohnSkelton]

What I am trying (but obviously failing miserably) to say is that those who decide not to vote, and then moan about the government that is elected, are hardly deserving of any sympathy whatsoever from those who have at least taken the trouble to cast a vote, whatever the result?

We certainly might have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for those who do take the trouble to vote yet end up on the losing side ... but then that's happened to all of us, and we just accept it and 'get on with it', don't we?

Don't know about we, scottycelt, but I don't think there's much to recommend the idea that democracy consists of putting a mark on a ballot paper. And then everyone goes to sleep until the next time. As for not being deserving of sympathy - that seems a very odd concept to me. If a government enacts policies which adversely affect people's lives, and a proportion of those people didn't vote for whatever reason (you don't seem interested in the reasons) all that matters is the equity or otherwise of the policy, surely? Not some notion about merit.

The problem may be you have a moral http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...-Navigator.jpg and I don't .

[MrGongGong]

At General Elections we are asked to choose someone to represent us in Parliament..

You surely don't still believe that ?
They represent .........

1:their party
2:their business interests
3:their mates

and "we" come a poor 4th at best (unless of course "we" are in the first 3)

[Lateralthinking1]

I can't remember an election when I marched enthusiastically to the polling booth to vote for a particular individual. It has always been very much what I considered to be the least 'evil' at the time, and I suspect I am far from being alone in that regard ...

I respect your position. But isn't that like choosing between four GPs who have a history of making those with your particular medical condition worse? In those circumstances, I would forego the visit to the surgery and find an alternative therapist.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

At General Elections we are asked to choose someone to represent us in Parliament and to ask Mr or Mrs Nobody to represent us (which is in effect what abstaining does) is plainly absurd, don't you think?

Yes; but faced with the greater absurdity of expecting someone to "represent" me/us, it seems the only recourse open to some of us (me).

I can't remember an election when I marched enthusiastically to the polling booth to vote for a particular individual. It has always been very much what I considered to be the least 'evil' at the time, and I suspect I am far from being alone in that regard ...

Reminds me of a half-remembered joke that this is the reason we put a cross, rather than a tick, in the relevant box!

[scottycelt]

I respect your position. But isn't that like choosing between four GPs who have a history of making those with your particular medical condition worse? In those circumstances, I would forego the visit to the surgery and find an alternative therapist.

That's the whole point ... in the case of a General Election you don't have the option of 'an alternative therapist'. You are asked to pick out one of the 'four bad doctors' and, sadly, nobody else is on offer, so it maybe makes some sense in such circumstances to plump for whom you consider to be the least "quackish" of the four?

[Lateralthinking1]

That's the whole point ... in the case of a General Election you don't have the option of 'an alternative therapist'. You are asked to pick out one of the 'four bad doctors' and, sadly, nobody else is on offer, so it maybe makes some sense in such circumstances to plump for whom you consider to be the least "quackish" of the four?

Well it won't be the one who bought a duck house with his Parliamentary allowance.

[scottycelt]

Don't know about we, scottycelt, but I don't think there's much to recommend the idea that democracy consists of putting a mark on a ballot paper. And then everyone goes to sleep until the next time. As for not being deserving of sympathy - that seems a very odd concept to me. If a government enacts policies which adversely affect people's lives, and a proportion of those people didn't vote for whatever reason (you don't seem interested in the reasons) all that matters is the equity or otherwise of the policy, surely? Not some notion about merit.

The problem may be you have a moral http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...-Navigator.jpg and I don't .

How flattering ...

[scottycelt]

Well it won't be the one who bought a duck house with his Parliamentary allowance.

[ahinton]

And so this is an argument for ... leaving the country? ... starting a revolution? ... creating a new political party? .... ignoring politics under the current system altogether? ....

It could be an argument for any one or any combination or indeed all of those things, but it would inevitably be a different argument for each such individual.

You and your 'obviously' ah

Indeed; what I stated was obvious IS obvious, even if individual reactions thereto might be less so and far more diverse.

What are you like?

In terms of the four possible arguments that you put forward (and I certainly cannot begin to answer your question in or on any other terms!), I do intend to leave the country (though not particularly on account of any sense of party political disenfranchisement), I do not intend to start or participate in a revolution, I have no plans to create or participate in a new political party and I ignore politics under the current system more or less to the extent that they ignore me; I cannot say more than that in answer to your question, so I hope that this will suffice for you!

[ahinton]

Whether voting for things is always a good idea is another thing altogether. Don't assume that just because someone is opposed to heredity monarchy that it automatically follows that they want an elected political president

I don't, as it happens, but those who don't must surely either want something else or not care less although, by your sensible reasoning above, they would each have to be asked what they want instead and we'd have to be able to trust all answers given if we're to try to ascertain what those desired alternatives might actually be...

[ahinton]

Don't know about we, scottycelt, but I don't think there's much to recommend the idea that democracy consists of putting a mark on a ballot paper. And then everyone goes to sleep until the next time.

Of course it doesn't and indeed cannot consist of that alone, but of what do you think instead that it does or should consist and what part do you believe that an electorate's voting entitlement should play in it?

As for not being deserving of sympathy - that seems a very odd concept to me. If a government enacts policies which adversely affect people's lives, and a proportion of those people didn't vote for whatever reason (you don't seem interested in the reasons) all that matters is the equity or otherwise of the policy, surely? Not some notion about merit.

Perhaps, but don't all governments from time to time enact policies that risk adversely affecting some people's lives because the interests of some people are not the interests of others? (OK, of course there are some interests common to almost all, but those tend mostly to be the ones for the sustainable achievement of which no government can guarantee being able to enact policies). Furthermore, the very fact that some people who feel that governments have acted against their interests didn't vote for those governments (or didn't vote at all) yet some others who feel the same did vote for them surely goes at least some way to showing that, beyond certain limits, no government - be it coalition, minority or even overall majority - can have much of a realistic hope of enacting policies in the short-term - let alone lpong-term - interests of the majority of the electorate; the fact that most people's trust in governments, whether or not democratically elected, is significantly less than once it was serves only to make the very business of government ever more problematic.

[ahinton]

Well it won't be the one who bought a duck house with his Parliamentary allowance.

So what would you do if you happened to support the political party that this particular candidate represents and you happened to live in his constituency at the time of a General Election? Might you opt instead for a "lame duck" vote (i.e. for a minority party whose candidate would lose his deposit)? - or would you duck out of it altogether and abstain? - or would you vote for him anyway but grouse about it afterwards?

[Lateralthinking1]

So what would you do if you happened to support the political party that this particular candidate represents and you happened to live in his constituency at the time of a General Election? Might you opt instead for a "lame duck" vote (i.e. for a minority party whose candidate would lose his deposit)? - or would you duck out of it altogether and abstain? - or would you vote for him anyway but grouse about it afterwards?

I'd probably vote for a raving loon.

[ahinton]

I'd probably vote for a raving loon.

But which one of all of them on offer?

[BBMmk2]

People beware. Presidencis invariably cost more to the taxpayer than this Mornachy does!!