Crosswords4 mins ago
Votes & Laziness
43 Answers
What's worse; not voting, or voting for someone whose views don't represent your own?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tell-me-more. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because if you waited for someone whose views exactly represented your own you'd never vote. The only way you could do that is to stand yourself.
In the meantime, because you don't vote for anyone, the person whose views represent you least of all gets in and you end up with Adolf Hitler in power because you didn't want to vote for the Liberals.
In the meantime, because you don't vote for anyone, the person whose views represent you least of all gets in and you end up with Adolf Hitler in power because you didn't want to vote for the Liberals.
You're misunderstanding what voting's all about. It's not about voting for the person you like the most - it's about making sure the person you like the least doesn't get in.
People vote Labour because they want to keep the Tories out and vice versa. So even if you hate all the candidates, there's still got to be one you hate the most, and if you've got any sense you'll get out and vote against that person.
saxy_jag makes the effort of going to spoil the paper and I've got some respect for that. Most non-voters just can't be bothered to turn out or don't care much about what's going on around them, but neither of those things are that great to admit to, so they pretend they're taking some kind of moralistic 'they're all the same' stance.
People vote Labour because they want to keep the Tories out and vice versa. So even if you hate all the candidates, there's still got to be one you hate the most, and if you've got any sense you'll get out and vote against that person.
saxy_jag makes the effort of going to spoil the paper and I've got some respect for that. Most non-voters just can't be bothered to turn out or don't care much about what's going on around them, but neither of those things are that great to admit to, so they pretend they're taking some kind of moralistic 'they're all the same' stance.
Not voting!
I have seen first hand the result of apathy in voting.
When I was in Germany with the Army at the end of WW2.many of the Germans that I met admitted not voting for any party that opposed the National Socialist(Nazi) Party,because the opponents wouldn't win.
Well,of course (maybe) because they didn't vote Hitler came to power(almost unopposed) and we know what happened then.
I would add further,but I think ludwig has said it better than I can.
I have seen first hand the result of apathy in voting.
When I was in Germany with the Army at the end of WW2.many of the Germans that I met admitted not voting for any party that opposed the National Socialist(Nazi) Party,because the opponents wouldn't win.
Well,of course (maybe) because they didn't vote Hitler came to power(almost unopposed) and we know what happened then.
I would add further,but I think ludwig has said it better than I can.
Mr Veritas, you were in Germany, you say, after WWII. It seems from this article that the German people, prior to the war, did in fact oppose Hitler's rise to power by voting. With no affect it seems....so much for voting, at that time anyway.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
To vote for Dumb to keep out Dumber is still supporting Dumb.
So when Dumb's in power, despite the fact that the vast majority of people didn't want Dumb in power, is it a good enough defence to say "I only voted for Dumb to keep out Dumber" or is voting in that way lazy?
Should we go along and vote because people fought so hard for that right or should we try to build on that and strive for something more than the ability to keep out the worst party (which I accept is pretty much all we can do, and even so is still not guaranteed, no matter how we vote).
So when Dumb's in power, despite the fact that the vast majority of people didn't want Dumb in power, is it a good enough defence to say "I only voted for Dumb to keep out Dumber" or is voting in that way lazy?
Should we go along and vote because people fought so hard for that right or should we try to build on that and strive for something more than the ability to keep out the worst party (which I accept is pretty much all we can do, and even so is still not guaranteed, no matter how we vote).
Voting in order to keep out Dumber doesn't always work though. If I vote for the reds to keep out the blues because I think the blues are Dumber and you vote for the blues to keep out the reds using the same logic, we can't both be successful. Meanwhile, we give the impression that both parties have more support than they do and more support than the yellows, greens, oranges and purples etc., which surely just perpetuates an undeserved dominance of red and blue.
Who is this great threat that is feared so much that we do this to ourselves?
Who is this great threat that is feared so much that we do this to ourselves?
Do what to ourselves - draw a cross on a piece of paper and stick it in a box? It's not that painful surely.
You do have a point though. The reason the Liberals never win is because everybody's busy doing what I said - voting blue to keep out red and vice versa.
But hey, what can you do. Well, you can go and vote Liberal* if that's what you want instead of not bothering because you think there's no point.
*or green, orange, pink etc
You do have a point though. The reason the Liberals never win is because everybody's busy doing what I said - voting blue to keep out red and vice versa.
But hey, what can you do. Well, you can go and vote Liberal* if that's what you want instead of not bothering because you think there's no point.
*or green, orange, pink etc
Why the hell would anyone vote for a party that didn't represent their views. You would have to be mentally unstable to do such a thing. That's like someone who doesn't want to pay more taxes voting for a party who will increase taxes if they came into power. Anyone who answers that not voting is worse might as well replace their brain with a turnip.
johnny7 - if you don't want to pay more taxes and you've got 2 choices - party A that will increase taxes by 10%, and party B that will increase taxes by 20%, who are you going to support?
Anyone who refuses to vote and ends up paying 20% more tax might as well replace their brain with a pea, which is smaller than a turnip.
If they get lucky and end up paying only 10% more, they've got the people who bothered to vote to thank.
Anyone who refuses to vote and ends up paying 20% more tax might as well replace their brain with a pea, which is smaller than a turnip.
If they get lucky and end up paying only 10% more, they've got the people who bothered to vote to thank.
What are people so afraid of that they vote for parties they don't believe in, and thereby perpetuate these same parties' dominance?
Is there a massive difference between the parties that dominate the UK political landscape, other than the colour of rosettes they wear?
What can you do? Well, you could stop voting for parties you don't believe in. This would deny them the extra credibility that each vote gives them, even if the voter did not actively want to be governed by the party he voted for. You could also think about alternative systems where your ability to express your views on who should represent/govern you is greater.
For example, everyone votes for who they would most like to govern them. The candidate with the least votes drops out and those who voted for him get to vote again for who they'd like from the remaining candidates. Repeat the process until there's only one candidate left.
As far as I can see, this system in all cases gives the electorate more power than the current system in the UK for General Elections. You could still vote in the last round to ensure that your least favourite party doesn't come to power, but you have several opportunities to vote for who you really want without fear that Dumbest will prevail.
Are those who don't vote really the lazy ones, or are the lazy ones those who vote just to keep out Dumbest, without remotely challenging an electoral system that doesn't allow them to do any more than that?
Is there a massive difference between the parties that dominate the UK political landscape, other than the colour of rosettes they wear?
What can you do? Well, you could stop voting for parties you don't believe in. This would deny them the extra credibility that each vote gives them, even if the voter did not actively want to be governed by the party he voted for. You could also think about alternative systems where your ability to express your views on who should represent/govern you is greater.
For example, everyone votes for who they would most like to govern them. The candidate with the least votes drops out and those who voted for him get to vote again for who they'd like from the remaining candidates. Repeat the process until there's only one candidate left.
As far as I can see, this system in all cases gives the electorate more power than the current system in the UK for General Elections. You could still vote in the last round to ensure that your least favourite party doesn't come to power, but you have several opportunities to vote for who you really want without fear that Dumbest will prevail.
Are those who don't vote really the lazy ones, or are the lazy ones those who vote just to keep out Dumbest, without remotely challenging an electoral system that doesn't allow them to do any more than that?
I hear what you're saying, but the reality is that things can only change by voting, not by inaction.
Imagine that they gave an election and nobody turned out to vote, which is presumably what you want, as it would force a change. First of all, that isn't going to happen.
Secondly even if it did, it would only lead to a dictatorship by the people already in power.
Your proposal sounds like a good system. The irony is that it's only ever going to be implemented if someone puts it on their manifesto and then persuades enough people to vote for them.
Imagine that they gave an election and nobody turned out to vote, which is presumably what you want, as it would force a change. First of all, that isn't going to happen.
Secondly even if it did, it would only lead to a dictatorship by the people already in power.
Your proposal sounds like a good system. The irony is that it's only ever going to be implemented if someone puts it on their manifesto and then persuades enough people to vote for them.
Things don't change by voting though, certainly not only by voting. Voting is a pretty weak action.
The Ghurkas weren't allowed to stay because of voting, women didn't get the vote because of voting, the delay in increasing petrol duty was not caused by voting - it was all down to actions other than voting.
It is truer to say that things will _never_ change rather than only change if we keep voting for the dominant political forces.
I'm not campaigning for everyone not to vote in the expectation that that could happen, I'm questioning why people vote for parties they don't actively want, and whether those who don't vote are the lazy ones or whether it's more lazy to merely vote to keep out Dumbest and be otherwise inactive.
I find it irritating that so many people vote in this way and then the dominant parties can claim to have higher levels of support, albeit even then it's pretty low. 21% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election I think (about a third of the two thirds that voted roughly) but what proportion actually actively wanted a Labour government and weren't just voting out of fear of a Conservative government? 10%? 5%? It must be pretty low, and yet that was seen as quite a big victory wasn't it?
I doubt my system would ever be implemented by a party putting it on their manifesto, because the dominant parties would never do it as they've too much to lose, and the others wouldn't get enough votes because too many people would vote for one or other of the dominant two to keep out the other one.
I think there is more chance of it being implemented if voter turnout continues to decline, but the thing that would make it most likely is if there was a public appetite for it, which I don't think there is yet.
The Ghurkas weren't allowed to stay because of voting, women didn't get the vote because of voting, the delay in increasing petrol duty was not caused by voting - it was all down to actions other than voting.
It is truer to say that things will _never_ change rather than only change if we keep voting for the dominant political forces.
I'm not campaigning for everyone not to vote in the expectation that that could happen, I'm questioning why people vote for parties they don't actively want, and whether those who don't vote are the lazy ones or whether it's more lazy to merely vote to keep out Dumbest and be otherwise inactive.
I find it irritating that so many people vote in this way and then the dominant parties can claim to have higher levels of support, albeit even then it's pretty low. 21% of the electorate voted Labour at the last election I think (about a third of the two thirds that voted roughly) but what proportion actually actively wanted a Labour government and weren't just voting out of fear of a Conservative government? 10%? 5%? It must be pretty low, and yet that was seen as quite a big victory wasn't it?
I doubt my system would ever be implemented by a party putting it on their manifesto, because the dominant parties would never do it as they've too much to lose, and the others wouldn't get enough votes because too many people would vote for one or other of the dominant two to keep out the other one.
I think there is more chance of it being implemented if voter turnout continues to decline, but the thing that would make it most likely is if there was a public appetite for it, which I don't think there is yet.
Latest Posts
Crosswords25 mins ago
1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News40 mins ago
ChatterBank44 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.