Public Service Announcement...

[ajntornj]

Shamelessly cadged from aussiedave because he:-
a)said everything that I wanted to, and
b)writes better than wot I do.

DOING YOUR DUTY...and I seriously fucking mean it. This is your duty. Yes, you, reading this now. I'm not going to mince words or be diplomatic

Comments

[aussiedave]

Wow, you got loads more debate on yours than I did on mine. And yes, I meant "officially" is a joky way. I'm a frivolous kind of dude

[aussiedave]

I didn't finish that last bit!

...usually from people who didn't participate, and fuck those guys. Fuck them right in the ass.

[gigolohitman]

Does this extend to people saying that people "should" vote, without having campaigned extensively for electoral reform? :-D

[aussiedave]

Sure, why not

[gigolohitman]

First - Good. I see little merit in haranguing others to vote without trying to make the system a little more useful

[aussiedave]

"I would, if I were so inclined..." but you haven't. :)

Nor have you voted for one of the parties that support electoral reform.

"It's entirely safe for me to assume that voting habits by and large will not change." Proven, of course, by the fact that we have been led by the same government for eight hundred years.

Wait, no.

"'There is a virtue in people voting' I reject your unfounded assertion!" By all means, but I'm not sure what you need, beyond "the government is elected, so people voting determine the government." I fully accept there is no palpable benefit in a person voting, but people decide who runs the country

[gigolohitman]

To the first point, are you sure? and I don't need to - I'm not shouting about everyone having a duty to vote

[aussiedave]

I'm arguing against compelling everyone to vote, not against voting. I'm doing it because having thought about it, and discussed it with several people, noone has produced an argument for everyone voting that I find at all convincing.

I vote for various reasons, (and I don't always vote.) My most compelling reason recently was that even a 1/1,000,000 chance of being the vote that kicked Labour out of office after it emerged that their war was illegal, and intelligence was distorted, was worth 30 minutes. If we had done that, no party would ever dare do such evil again. Sadly, we didn't.

On a slightly different tack, there is only one reason I wouldn't happily support a system where an understanding of economics, the demographics of the UK, politics, and other things would qualify you to be one of a relatively small number of electors. That reason is that it would be entirely unacceptable, as people who don't vote, or who vote on party prejudice, or out of habit, would see themselves as disenfranchised.

[aussiedave]

oh noes! deleted post! That doesn't help anyone reading this follow the discussion now, does it?

[aussiedave]

Sorry. I deleted my post because it included an error. I have reposted below.

[aussiedave]

In principle, my argument for everyone voting is that the government should be truly representative. In particular, it dismays me that the disaffected the voters - the marginal voters, the ones most likely to produce swings, one way or another - are the ones most likely to stay home. Like, well done, dudes. You're the ones with a chance to create change.

In practice, the people I'm targeting are the people who read my LJ; mostly educated, mostly intelligent people with a fair grasp of national issues.

I'm also not just pushing people to the polling station. Point #2, above, is all about informing yourself before voting. I want people to think about what the issues are, inform themselves as to who backs which issues, and to vote accordingly.

[gigolohitman]

I think it's a very very laudable thing to start conversations about politics and voting.

I just strongly disagree with the everyone should vote thing :-)

[aussiedave]

Also, and to be honest, those non-voters and habitual voters wouldn't just see themselves as disenfranchised; they would be disenfranchised. I'm not saying government by the informed isn't a good idea, but it would not be a democracy.

[gigolohitman]

I don't necessarily have a problem with people BEING disenfranchised. The problem is that they would be unhappy FEELING disenfranchised. I'd be entirely happy to take on a role as dictator for life assuming everyone would have me. (I'd also be happy for some people I know to take that role). The trouble is, you'd be crazy to agree, as you hardly know me.

(aside: some people would argue that many people are disenfranchised now. Not every vote has equal value in our system)

[aussiedave]

- Forgive me if I misread the intention of "if I were so inclined." Was I wrong