UKC

A popular theme bat the last election. Anyone still think this? Anyone not voting?

In reply to MG:
>"They are all the same, not voting"
I have heard this quite a lot from my clients. It is a difficult choice for me, but I will vote! I am not sure this election has done much for politicians reputations in general and that is likely to further reduce people's desire to be involved in the process. I have heard more complaint than political argument.

In reply to MG:

Met someone on the doorstep this morning who wished us well but won't be voting because "it's all rigged anyway"...

In reply to MG:


If you don't vote then you can not enter into any further political discussion or complain if the wrong team get into power.

You can turn up and destroy your ballot paper, because that is making a political statement, what ever that statement may be for you. But not turning up to a Polling Station is no excuse, its just apathy.

In reply to The Lemming:

I agree. Russell Brand has been quiet of late. Maybe he agrees too.

In reply to MG:
Whichever side of the political dovide one sits on, this is the first election in years (possibly a generation) in which there is an actual choice to be made between ideologies and proposed programees. For once they are not all the same, I will be voting and would encourage everyone to do so.

The fewer people that vote the greater the harm to our democracy, imho.

In reply to The Lemming:


Oh the irony!

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=665461

In reply to The Lemming:


You may think it's making a political statement but in reality "spoiled papers" just get classed as "numpties who can't stick a cross in a box". It serves no purpose because your message is ill defined. What does spoiling your paper actually mean?

IMHO, you look at the policies and pick pick party that has the policies your think are best in the subjects you feel are important. It may be a "best of a bad bunch" style arrangement but you either vote for one of the options available or get politically involved to change the options to ones you think are right/better.

In reply to Fraser:
lol

Would The Lemming destroy his phone to make a political statement

In reply to Fraser:


Lemming's is a dream of virtual polling station, where he has walked in and posted his vote.
(It's going to be the next big thing in VR for the youngsters. )

In reply to MG:


This time, we seem to have a genuine choice of left, right and centre-ish parties plus the obvious extras. You may not like the choices, but they are certainly not the same.

In reply to MG:

Not voting is actually the rational choice given that the margin of victory in a constituency is never a single vote. You can turn up & vote to get the illusion of power in a representative democracy, but your vote makes zero difference in your constituency or in the general election so why not find a more useful way to occupy your time. For example, you could work out how much you value your time as an hourly rate, calculate how much time you would spend voting and debating the election on social media then donate that value to a charity of your choice. Compare this to the difference your vote actually made at the weekend.

'If everybody does that' then the election would be null & void and politicians would have to find another way of engaging with the electorate. But in reality there would be no domino/butterfly effect if you choose not to vote and the only real real difference you can make is by not voting. In fact this has already happened, historic low voter turnout is the reason Corbyn thinks he can win (ie by engaging with non-voters and defying the opinion polls), so it's the reason behind the biggest shift in recent parliamentary politics.

In reply to GrantM:


...and this is why we should teach logic in schools.

In reply to GrantM:

That's nihilist bollocks. For anything else to work (including charities) we need an effective government and state, and the only way to get that is to vote. While an individual vote is unlikely to tip the balance one way or the other, collectively they do. And in any case votes that don't "win" still affect politics - see UKIP and brexit.

In reply to The Lemming:

My friend is a returning officer for elections and gets to deal with the spoilt ballot papers. She has to confirm that the voter did not spoil by accident and mean to actually vote for someone. But most of them are just scribbled on (swearing, usually). Just for info, I mean, it is still a statement.

In reply to Lemony:

What's the error in my logic?

In reply to MG:


The Brexit voters actually 'won'. And why is it nihilist to suggest that a charitable donation has more value than a vote in a general election?

In reply to GrantM:


Quite. And they only got the opportunity to do so as a result of many UKIP votes, in all but a single case votes that you regard as pointless. There is no way that if UKIP voters had each donated to a brexit charity instead there would ever have been a referendum

Because you are pretending government is meaningless and unimportant.

In reply to MG:


If you abrogate yourself from the electoral process and don't vote, then you have no right to complain about whatever government has been voted in by those who actually did vote.

In reply to GrantM:


Your error is to separate individual votes from their collective effect. No seat has been won by 1 vote therefore no 1 vote would have changed any outcome therefore every singular vote is pointless therefore for any individual shouldn't bother to vote as his vote means nothing. This is clearly a load of bollocks.

It's like a swarm, no individual has any effect but the combined effect of many forms a singular force. In this case its competing political ones and as voters we're all doing our bit to create and maintain our chosen political force.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


No, it's clearly true. Your individual vote will have no effect on the result, I think everyone accepts that? Also, there is no connection between your intention to vote and the collective intention so the same result will occur whether or not you vote (ie everyone else would cast the same vote regardless of your action). Given the futility of voting, the only morally rational decision would be to use your time doing something else that's actually worthwhile.

But suppose everyone else did follow my lead and didn't vote either - in that case I still shouldn't vote because my vote would decide the government and that wouldn't be democratic. So there's no circumstance where the rational decision is to vote.

In reply to GrantM:

No they don't. As above, for a very obvious example, UKIP votes have had a very profound effect on the result. As do all others votes to a lesser degree on political policy and direction.


Wrong again. My vote today was affected by how I expected others to vote. Longer term candidate selection, policy development, even entire political parties are all affected by how people vote. If you don't vote you removing are yourself from deciding how society arranges itself. Fine, your choice, but drop the crap about morals and rationality and futility. And don't complain when you don't get the politics you want.

In reply to MG:

But that's not what I'm talking about - your actual vote will have no effect on the result. You could vote for who you want, for an opposing party or not vote at all and the same result would occur anyway. Do you disagree with that? If you accept that it's true, why not use your time doing something else that's more worthwhile. Why isn't that the rational and moral decision?

In reply to GrantM:


If you want an effect from a single vote, you might have noticed in the recent elections that at least 1, and I think more, councillors were chosen by lots - if a single non voter had chosen to vote for one of the top two they'd have picked who got it.

In reply to GrantM:

I don't for the reasons above. The result is not just who is elected, it's much wider and includes all the other things I mentioned and more.


It's not rational unless you want to have no effect on government and how the state works. Not voting isn't immoral as such but is certainly apathetic and lazy. I also don't believe for a second that you donate extra to charity at each election.

In reply to MG:


But the reasons above are my reasons, since you quoted me.


Well, that's a bit cynical.

In reply to GrantM:


No they aren't. I haven't quoted you at all. Read what I wrote again.


But also true, isn't it?

In reply to Fraser:




https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=665461

Where is the irony?

Did I ever say that I was not voting, or even hint that I was consciously and deliberately not going to vote?

In reply to MG:


There may be a fault with your browser? Here's how your post looks to me, I'm definitely quoted in it. You mention 'reasons above' but you quote me above.

----------------

In reply to gman2012:

I don't for the reasons above. The result is not just who is elected, it's much wider and includes all the other things I mentioned and more.


It's not rational unless you want to have no effect on government and how the state works. Not voting isn't immoral as such but is certainly apathetic and lazy. I also don't believe for a second that you donate extra to charity at each election.
Post edited at 13:22

In reply to MG:

Both main parties turn my stomach in equal measure. I cant bring myself to vote for either party and look myself in the mirror. Both parties counter any positives they may have with huge gaping negatives which worry me considerably.

In the end I voted so that I could at least say I used my vote but if there had been a Raving Looney Party I would gladly have ticked their box.

Some will say you pick the one which best fits your ideals and hopes. But to me, its like picking between Adolf Hitler and a child molester. I have never felt so revulsed over the elections in my lifetime.

Its not just the actual parties though. I have witnessed through facebook, on here and through friends the way decent human beings suddenly become horrible, my opinion is the only opinion, hateful people when it comes to even trying to discuss politics. I encourage everyone to have their own opinion, but the minute you start throwing abuse, calling names or belittling anyone who differs to your own, well in my eyes a little bit more of democracy dies.

In reply to GrantM:

In my posts above, obviously. Not your text I was replying to.

In reply to Lord_ash2000: > No seat has been won by 1 vote

That may not be entirely correct - I lived in Leicester South when the declared majority was in single figures. However that was after I think 4 recounts where none of the counts came up with the same result and at least one went the other way. So just 1 vote there might have made all the difference - certainly 2 or 3 the other way would have.

Good old Wikipedia shows that there was a tie in 1886 decided by the returning officer's casting vote, and that single digit margins have occurred in many elections.

In reply to MG:


Isn't there a danger that this become more betting than voting?

In reply to Thelittlesthobo: I have a similar problem, I like the sitting MP who is non-Corbynite Labour, but can't stand the thought of Corbyn being PM - although many of his policies are ok, I consider him to be a nasty, misguided piece of work that would implement many things I disagree with.

On the other hand, the apparently arrogant TM deserves to lose having unnecessarily called this election on what was obviously a bit of political opportunism (regardless of what she said). Also, I think that hard Conservative policies will be bad for all except the elite in this country, the NHS will be shafted, etc.

None of the other candidates in my constituency has a chance.

I do wonder how many people will vote against Conservative in the hope of seeing TM trip up.

In reply to The Lemming:

I'd argue that explicitly NOT voting is possibly the *most* effective thing you can do. Before you flame away, however, let me argue my point.

Firstly, spoiled ballots are totally ambiguous. They are not classified in any way and so the scrawls of a genuine idiot who is incapable of voting, the mistakes of those who either by ignorance or simply by accident add their signature or any other mark whatsoever to the ballot paper, the "spoiled in protest" ballots and all the others get lumped into one number: voter's intention not clear. This number is meaningless and do not believe that any politician will not play upon that fact, should the need arise.

Next, a high voter turnout supports the broken democratic system. How can one argue that the incumbent Party has no mandate for what they do when they won an election with a 78% turnout? How can one argue that first-past-the-post is a deterrent to voters if the turnout is really hight? Quite simply, one cannot.

There is no official "None of the Above" option. Spoiling a ballot is not none-of-the-above.

Not voting, however, has advantages. If the culture of democracy was such that the highly opinionated voted for the candidates they supported and those for whom no candidate presented an acceptable option simply abstained - by definition, did not express their choice - two possible outcomes realistically COULD come about.

The first would be best in my opinion: that first-past-the-post fails. If, election after election, the turnout gradually sunk, the press, the politicians and everybody would have to ask why and it is conceivable that the answer might be that people no longer support first-past-the-post. Change could then be possible.

The second would be very interesting: at the present time, the number of people disillusioned with the status quo is obscured and obfuscated. If it was blatantly clear, perhaps a new party or a new idea might come into play to try to capture these abstainees. Perhaps, just possibly, someone would say, "Hey, 60% of the people don't like the options on the ballot. What can I do that might disrupt the scenario?"

The argument that boycotting precludes one from complaining and that boycotting is somehow anti-democratic is holding democracy back. It is artificially inflating voter turnout numbers and, horrifyingly, it is also driving a tonne of people to vote out of misguided guilt or shame and not out of true preference - this is exacerbating the problem: that people vote for silly reasons, according to peer pressure, according to some "tactical" bullshit or at the very best randomly.

In the field of game theory, an auction is called "truth revealing" if the dominant strategy is to bid according to the true value one places on the item under the hammer. (Dutch flower auctions are "truth revealing", for instance). This sensationalised and emotional form of voting is NOT truth revealing because it does not reveal the true appeal, among the electorate, of the goods at hand: the consequences of electing any given party.

In reply to fred99:


No, our right to complain about our rulers is based on the fact that they rule us, not the manner by which they have about that position.

In reply to winhill:


More people didn't vote in the last GE, than the Tories received in the total. Those too lazy to spare 5 mins of their life could have a massive influence, or forever hold their peace.

In reply to MG:

"If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it. "

Mark Twain (possibly)

In reply to MG:

Been to the polls, after careful consideration of the quality of the candidates offered to me and their respective parties policies I voted NOTA
( spoiled my paper)

In reply to Jim C: To what end?

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


Godwin's law. Thread is over.

In reply to MG:


None according to xcharlie .

It just felt better to go out in the pouring rain and spoil the paper than to sit at home.
( It's a SNP win here anyway no matter what I had voted)

In reply to Lusk:


He also said people only regret what didn't do, not what they did. Although in trumps case I think many usa voters will prove that wrong.

In reply to The Lemming:


That's not correct. You still have every right to discuss and, if you wish, complain, whether you voted or not.

The reason you always have that right is that whoever gets in, you still have to pay their wages.

In reply to AdrianC:

Then again there are those that have only ever taken from the system, and contributed nothing, and yet we afford them a vote ( whether they use it or not)
(Edit accepting that there are those who are genuinely unable to work)

In reply to Jim C:

Well I guess taxpayers are entitled to moan bout them, too then!

In reply to MG:

I never vote. All political parties are just offering variations on how to adminster capitalism and the state, and I am opposed to both.

If I remember rightly Bobby Lynn put the case for anarchist abstentionism in this pamphlet:

https://libcom.org/library/vote-what-robert-lynn

In reply to MG:


Someone a "young 'un" 24 years old, I talked him into voting, explaining how important it was, and if nothing else spoil his paper, at least that's a statement of disapproval. Ended up talking over lunch and explaining what the parties stood for ( as unbiased as I could be), he's a clever lad but just wasn't interested.

He's just texted me to tell me he voted Labour.

My work here is done

In reply to GrantM:

Let me put it this way, if everyone in the UK was going give you a penny, but they all took your attitude, would you be going to work tomorrow.

You only have to look at South Africa, when Nelson Mandela was voted as president, to see the queues at 5 o'clock in the morning, 1000's of people queueing just to put a cross on a piece of paper to see how important it is.

This explains this a bit better and from a different angle - youtube.com/watch?v=shIOZdEzkiU&

In reply to nastyned:

I refer you to the link above.

How do people know whether your an anarchist abstentionist, and not just some lazy bastard who can't be arse to get out of bed?

In reply to krikoman:

Because I engage in other politcal activity I find more productive than putting an x on a piece of paper every few years.

In reply to summo:


I've done a few things that I actually regret, I don't quite agree with him.

In reply to nastyned:


Just out of interest, what do you think the difference would be if 50% of the UK population spoilt their papers, (none of the above) compared to 50% of the UK population not bothering to do anything?

In reply to krikoman:

Oooh boy. You mentioned South Africa. I know a bit about that!

The problem with democracy in Africa - including South Africa - is that the electorate do not understand cause and effect.

As evidence, consider a recent local election... probably in the past decade... in a place called Atlantis, near Cape Town, I think. The local people had voted in the DA (official opposition) in order to get their sewerage fixed, their roads fixed, schools that worked and basic services. The DA provided a lot of this - and toilets. (I think those were mentioned.) What did the people do, in the subsequent election? Why, they voted for the "struggle leaders", the ANC, of course! They had what they wanted and so they could go back to being good anti-apartheid freedom fighters! Back to the ANC. Thabo Mbeki was president, then, but Zuma survives on the same "patriotism."

The people are told that they are free because they have a vote. The vote is completely meaningless because they are also told that they must use it to vote for the ANC - the freedom fighters and struggle heros - and they obligingly tow the line. But they are none the less proud to consider themselves free.

They are told that "democracy" works and they believe this too and go on to blame other people and other systems for their problems: it's the white man, the statues of Rhodes, the university administrators, the racists, blah blah.

That said, when Nelson Mandela gave the black constituency their rightful right to vote, there was a huge reason to do so. That was NOT a meaningless choice between liars - it was a choice against Apartheid (although Apartheid was finished, by then) and FOR one of the greatest (but still not perfect) men ever to call themselves president. This is incomparable to the choice between labour and tory, today: a choice between the red team and the blue team, both of which will say whatever they think will sway said choice and neither of which will keep to what was said!

In reply to krikoman:

If all but one person spoiled their ballot and the remaining individual voted Party Wotever, the subsequent PM from Party Wotever would crow to the world about his "landslide" victory with a "100% turnout" - he'd be politically indomnitable. The near-100% of spoiled ballots would be written off as incompetents and mischievious scallywags, feature in some moving tweets and facebook posts and then be forgotten entirely.

In reply to GrantM:


Your confusion and others confusion is because you haven't defined 'rational'.

Technically speaking (if we were speaking in the domain of game theory) - you would be correct by definition. Rationality is a specific concept in game theory about being self-serving and 'greedy'. But the general definition of rationality actually refers to the game theory concept of superrationality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
99% of the time when people say rational - they mean superrationality.

In reply to galpinos:

I did not vote for the party with which I am most aligned politically. I voted tactically, even though this was painful, to try to minimize (what I consider to be) the worst outcome.

In reply to John Stainforth:

the first past the post system kinda makes this the logical thing to do. but as a representative system, its shite. far better to have some sort of proper PR

In reply to winhill:

Well you (we) choose them.
Therefore it's your (our) fault whoever we get, and whatever they stand for.

The electorate has to stand up and take the blame for whoever they elect.

In reply to fred99:


If that's the case then surely the only people who can complain are precisely those who didn't legitimise the process by voting?

In reply to winhill:

But if the people who didn't vote had voted (and they all claim to know far better than those who actually did vote) then we would have the right people as MP's rather than the wrong people - or at least that is the theory.

However in practice there are far too many twonks out there who moan about everything, do nothing about anything, and blame everyone else but themselves because the world isn't perfect.
Ask them what should be done and they suddenly go quiet.

In reply to krikoman:

"He's just texted me to tell me he voted Labour."

I suspect that he sent that in the hope you will leave him alone now

In reply to fred99:

"However in practice there are far too many twonks out there who moan about everything, do nothing about anything, and blame everyone else but themselves because the world isn't perfect."

Who do they vote for?