b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » YESTOAV vs NOTOAV » Message 10390174

[challenge entry] Change is bad, stick with...well, what you get stuck with.


From the YESTOAV vs NOTOAV challenge. See all 114 entries (closed)

(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 10:54, archived)
# Simply make voting compulsory like in Australia.
That, and introducing some form of testing system whereby people who can genuinely be swayed by whether or not they think the candidate's got nice hair can be rounded up and shot, and you've got an ideal democracy.

Another case closed by A Vagabond - Private Dick.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 10:58, archived)
# Use it or lose it. The only way to go.
/hard-line blog
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:00, archived)
# Does that also apply to big hair, floppy moustaches and penises?
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:01, archived)
# Certainly!
And bumper-size tins of Tetra Fin fish food, too.
Although that's a very specific, and 'moving house related' example.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:06, archived)
# All examples are valid, my friend
All examples are valid
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:10, archived)
# Compulsory voting + a Re-Open Nominations box
I agree.

However, since I also never got round to telling whoever I'm meant to tell that I'm living outside of Britain, I don't get a vote in this referendum and hence should probably just shut my stupid gob.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:00, archived)
# But you always flash your dick in public?
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:00, archived)
# You know, sometimes I think about the women in the world who have never had the opportunity to gaze upon my lovlieness
And I weep - I WEEP - for those women.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:03, archived)
# You can get cream for those sores you know
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:05, archived)
# I've got cream for sores alright.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:06, archived)
# Not as much as they do.
Admittedly, they are crying with the joy of not having done so.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:09, archived)
# They didn't nickname it the wart-hog for nothing.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:11, archived)
# No!
I can see no reason at all for making voting compulsory - that something is a right doesn't imply that it's also a duty. Besides, isn't not turning up at all just as much of a political statement as placing a cross in a box? couldn't not turning up at all be just as much of a political statement as placing a cross in a box?

Edited to remove obvious error, 11:19.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:04, archived)
# ^This
disenfranchisement is a real problem with the current voting system
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:07, archived)
# Then vote for someone you think is closest to being able to make a real change.
Sitting at the sidelines and complaining is simply childish.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:09, archived)
# Sorry but that just wrong on every level
what you are saying is that if you can't vote for what you want vote for anything else as that's better than voting for nothing - just wrong!
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:11, archived)
# Sorry - I forgot to add that there should be a "None of the above" option as well
For people who are too stupid to be able to turn up and spoil their ballot paper (which means it is counted).

If there's nothing to vote for, start your own party or don't express opinions on pololotics - it's pretty simple. If you're not doing something to change what you're complaining about, clearly it's not so bad.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:18, archived)
# ^ this
with tiny, delicate bells, carved from emeralds plundered from the very jewel-vaults of Xerxes himself, on.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:21, archived)
# I'm a socialist and I will always vote for that option if it's available
often it isn't and standing in elections isn't as easy as you think (yes I have been on that side of things) you have to pay £5,000 and if you don't get 5% of the vote you lose your deposit which is a major deterent for many people and parties from standing. So what do I see on my ballot sheet? Tory, Lib Dems, Labour, BNP, UKIP and if I'm lucky some near left alternative like Greens or some Socialist Alliance which are my first preferrences but if they don't stand then they can kiss my arse I'm not voting for any of the rest!
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:23, archived)
# this is why voting forms should have "re-open nominations" or "none of the above" on them
whether voting is made compulsory (which i actually sincerely doubt will happen) or not, there should be the option of showing your antipathy towards the choices you've got. something better than not showing up or just spoiling the paper. if enough people vote for "none of the above" it might be a sign to smaller parties that this is a constituency that can be targetted properly.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:26, archived)
# But voting is spectacularly unlikely to make any real change, irrespective of the system
because candidates have an incentive to be as vanilla as possible, and any radical suggestion will almost certainly be watered down to make it palatable to the majority.

Voting gives the impression of political activity; I'm not sure that it counts as much more, though.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:21, archived)
# Hitler 1932, Attlee 1945, Thatcher 1979?
They all made some pretty big changes
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:54, archived)
# ...
Exceptional cases make for bad rules...

Hitler was hardly what we'd term a free and fair job, though. Atlee I'll grant you, although there the circumstances were exceptional. Thatcher, I think, was nowhere near as radical as her fanboys make out. All she did was paint in more stark terms the basic drift towards economic libertarianism that had marked the previous decades (and, arguably, most decades since the early 19th C).
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 13:46, archived)
# No it's not. It's simply a rather poor attempt to justify laziness.
Voting should be compulsory if only to stop people whining about how it's all so unfair, despite the fact that they didn't even bloody vote.

"Don't express opinions unless prepared to do something about them" - that sort of thing.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:08, archived)
# you will make people vote against their conscious simply becasue you assume they are lazy and whiney
maybe they have a point that there is nothing for them to vote for?
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:13, archived)
# But... but...
I don't vote, because I'm not sold on the idea that we ought to follow the majority just because it's the majority. I prefer good government to popular government. That isn't the same as laziness or indifference.

What I do do is write to MPs, give evidence to Parliament, and that sort of thing.

There's more than one way to be politically engaged.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:15, archived)
# Well said
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:17, archived)
# So you stand behind them and say "You're doing it wrong", but won't help someone you think better suited to get into a position of being able to do something.
I see.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:20, archived)
# If I have something useful to say,
it makes much more sense for me to do it by means of directly contacting the government, than by being just one small voice in a crowd.

In reality, the idea that one candidate is better suited than another is probably bunk. Most people are pretty much OK at most stuff, with a few flaws. It's a matter of indifference to me what their party is. What matters is their ability to seek, listen to, and respond appropriately to expert voices in a given field.

Like I said: I'm interested in good (or wise) government rather than popular government.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:24, archived)
# This isn't a loaded question, btw...
Could you cite an example of where such 'wise' government exists?
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:28, archived)
# Possibly...
Libel reform, the Human Fertilisation and Ebryology Act (as ammended 2008), and a few other things strike me as being wise. Ditto environmental protection legislation (though we could do with more of it).

I'm careful to distinguish between wise government and wise governments, of course. And I can point to any number of examples of unwise-yet-popular government.

Right: I'm off!
:)
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:37, archived)
# No, it's not
Not turning up could be due to any number of things, from laziness to illness. If you want to make a political statement you can surely do something better than that. Conversely I've often felt that people claiming that not voting is a "political statement" are more or less making excuses. A better political statement would be spoiling the ballot paper -- it's totally useless, of course, but they do count the number of spoiled ballots. If everyone making a political statement by not voting actually turned up and did something that *would* be a statement by spoiling the paper, that might even get noticed.

Though if I'm right, no, it wouldn't, because most of the people making "political statements" wouldn't bother showing up regardless...

I'd like to see compulsory voting, but only if a "none of the above" or "re-open nominations" was there, and counted properly, and adhered to. So if RON got a clear majority, the election would have to be run again, ideally with none of the same candidates allowed to stand. Rinse and repeat until everyone gets fed up and goes home. (Yeah I can see how this might not work...)
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:09, archived)
# again with the laziness bullshit - you are insulting the majority of people in this country
maybe it's not laziness but cause and effect of a system that doesn't respresent people fairly?
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:15, archived)
# hey, i said "one of a number of things from laziness to illness"
if you're pretending that about 60% of people in britain don't show up to vote because they're "disenfranchaised" rather than fucking lazy then i think you know different, more galvanised people to me. most people i know don't vote not because they're disenfranchaised but because they can't be arsed. are the two things related? yeah, probably, but not everyone cares as much about politics as you (rightly or wrongly) and the laziness is high on the list a lot of people.

there's never one cause for anything. saying "people don't vote because they're lazy" is just as inaccurate as saying "people don't vote because they feel they don't have the option of voting for a candidate who closest represents their point of view", and vice-versa.

for the record i've gone to vote when i had no right to be out walking on the street from my flat to the voting booth because i'd just had an operation and could barely even shuffle along the road. at the same time, many of my friends couldn't be bothered making time in their day to vote, whether before work or after work. "i don't have time", they said. yes, yes you do, you just can't be arsed to make time. that to me is laziness.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:20, archived)
# I have voted and will continue to vote
as long as I have something I can vote for but I won't ever call someone lazy for not voting or even be so fascist as to say if you don't vote you don't have the right to hold an opinion as if the current voting system is a right to hold an opinion! Some people are lazy and have very clear views but don't vote but disenfranchisment is still a real problem whether they want to admit it or not!
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:29, archived)
# disenfranchaisement is a problem, i'd totally agree!
i just think that straight and simple apathy is also an enormous problem. the former could be at least partly addressed by giving us an option to reject all candidates (and if that wins, those candidates are barred from restanding in that constituency, which would be beautiful if it were ever to happen). the latter could be addressed by then making voting in parliamentary elections obligatory. that should never happen unless the "none of the above" box is there, but if it was i'd actually back it.

\note to self: political arguments online can often be a bad idea...
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:35, archived)
# I think we are of agreement in a sense
but I alway have to ask why is that so many people just can't be arsed? Is it purely apathy and indifference, I think not. I think it might be an education issue, that many people are left utterly confused by who represents what I remember not so long ago when someone was called a Trotskyist 99% of people hadn't a clue what that was or who the hell Leon Trotsky was even those educated in such matters hold differing opinions about what a Trotskyist is and whether that's a good or a bad thing - history is written by the victors and therefore it's never as straight and truthful as it should be.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:44, archived)
# Indeed.
Basically people are fat, warm and comfortable, and as long as you don't rock the boat too much, they don't really care what happens outside the television.

In a way this is a good thing - docile, bovine people distracted with shiny flashing electronic gadgets are easy to control.

On the other hand, of course, it's a complete fucking affront to humanity, and they should be harvested for their organs.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:48, archived)
# But their organs are useless as they will all be fucked
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:51, archived)
# For clarification...
I think that it could be a statement; but it's obviously wrong to say that it is. I phrased things badly up there.
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:17, archived)
# fair enough :)
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:21, archived)
# Not so much a duty, more an imperative.
/Starship Troopers blog
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:15, archived)
# I'd like to know more...
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:32, archived)
# Shocking!
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 10:59, archived)
# I thought this was the system that we already have in place
(, Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:00, archived)