[Closed] Who's not voting in the EU election?

So if apathy is not the appropriate response, and democracy does nothing to make change - what is the answer?

[url= http://libcom.org/library/direct-democracy-anarchist-alternative-voting ]Here's one idea. [/url]

(I'm not claiming this is THE answer, it's just an idea, one that very few people talk about or are even aware of)

I voted Labour for the first time since 1997, tactical vote against UKIP, would have gone Green but they don't stand a chance in the West Mids according to my mate Bat:

http://rs21.org.uk/2014/05/20/rs21-guide-to-the-european-elections-our-predictions-and-recommended-votes/

So if apathy is not the appropriate response, and democracy does nothing to make change - what is the answer?

Fairly obviously that depends on the nature of the "change" you're after. I strongly suspect that this "nothing makes any difference" posture that we're hearing so much of is basically down to things being rather complicated and boring, and changing too slowly and undramatically for people's attention spans. My political memory only really goes back to the mid-1990s. The UK of 2014 looks pretty similar to the UK of 1994, but a lot of the detail has changed quite a bit. Obviously not all of the power that brings these changes about resides in elected authorities, but a few obvious ones:

- devolved assemblies for Wales and Scotland
- a national minimum wage
- major extension in police anti-terrorism powers
- incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK domestic law
- same sex couples allowed to marry
- eldest child of the monarch to succeed to throne regardless of sex
- paid paternity leave introduced
- massive changes in the way healthcare provision is organised
- substantial reductions in the size of UK armed forces and increased active-service use of the reserve
- substantial changes in the way most benefits are administered
- directly-elected mayors given substantial executive authority in several cities

If all that is too boring to bother with, fine. But it's not negligible, and quite a lot of it has been politically contested between people with a mandate derived from elections based on universal suffrage.

I voted Labour for the first time since 1997, tactical vote against UKIP, would have gone Green but they don't stand a chance in the West Mids according to my mate Bat:

That was based on some out of date polling…the more recent yougov polls put the Green Party on a closer footing in the midlands - although their data isn't directly related to the actual constituencies.

I personally think that the Greens have as much chance of winning a seat as Labour do of winning another - running the latest polling data through a D'hont calculator put the final seat going to UKIP or the Greens depending on the precise swing.

Just off now - oops wrong forum - just wish it wasn't this silly AVS rubbish. It's bad enough finding one to pick let alone a few.

It's just one X in one box.

Had a bit of a hesitation with the Roman Party (is that compulsory Latin classes?) and my wife wondered why anyone would vote for a French bank. Other than than, all pretty uneventful

If all that is too boring to bother with, fine. But it's not negligible, and quite a lot of it has been politically contested between people with a mandate derived from elections based on universal suffrage.

The list you produced. How many of those things were due to MEPs?
I appreciate that that several of those things came indirectly from Europe, but as I understand the policies would have been developed by the EU commission, and then ratified by the MEPs (who don't have the option not to ratify)
So, in essence what do you think you are voting for when you vote for an MEP?

Worth it for the punchline

My mistake earlier, this is the D'Hondt voting method. How refreshing!!!,

Do the Euro election results actually change anything?
Even if UKIP won every Euro seat in the UK they couldn't change our status in Europe as only the sovereign parliament can do that.

You have to be an idiot not to vote...

No vote no voice
You cannot complain if you do not vote
There are people dying in other countries to get the vote!

I voted green 🙂

Vote you ****s... People died for this right!

No I won't, kn0bhead

People died to give people who wanted to vote, but couldn't, the right to vote.

Nobody died to [b]force [/b]anyone who doesn't want to, to vote against their will.

No vote no voice
You cannot complain if you do not vote
There are people dying in other countries to get the vote!

Where to start....

1. Voting between parties and candidates who have no real differences is not exercising any voice or opinion other than you're too lazy to do something different.

2. There are many ways to be actively involved in politics than spending 5 minutes putting a cross in a box.

3. If democracy has become so devalued that the choice presented to voters is no real choice at all then yes, you can complain.

4. If the people/parties elected routinely break their promises and fail in those they do try to uphold, then again you have grounds for complaint.

5. There are people dying in other countries for an ideal that we have long since abandoned and forgotten. If they knew the reality they probably wouldn't bother.

I could go on but that'll do for now....

The list you produced. How many of those things were due to MEPs?

That's a fair point - I was responding to a general assertion (as I understood it) that voting was always pointless because lizards, or something.

The UKIP claim that the vast majority of our laws are "made in Brussels". The parliament has an influence on that law (nowhere near as direct as the Westminster parliament does, obviously). I do not even remotely understand why it makes sense to respond to the weaker mandate of the European Parliament in the EU legislative process by refusing to engage in voting in elections to it, or to send disengaged shirkers who just sign in for their allowances. The way to deal with the democratic deficit is by taking the parliament seriously enough that increasing its power at the expense of the Commission makes sense.

I admire you faith* in the parliament and it's potential to initiate change, but I have a sneaky feeling that the sole purpose of the parliament is that if it didn't exist, people would complain that there was no-one to vote for.

*Reading that back it sounds like I'm being sarky, but I do genuinely admire the ability to maintain a positive outlook.

F##K the EU - EU facilitates the NWO .. It's designed to bankrupt national prosperity and seems to be working ...

I just voted but it was a bit like a racist Grand National Sweepstakes. Just pick one and hope for the best.

I hopefully chose the least xenophobic, autocratic, gaggle of charlatans from the "who's the nicest liar" list.

Didn't vote - am stuck indoors recovering from a Migraine and quote frankly couldn't be arsed.
It'll make **** all difference around here anyway, as the only conceivable upset would be UKIP stealing seats from the Tories.

Note - I'd drag my arse across hot coals to vote in a general election though.

And as for all you people who think trekking down to the polling station just to spoil your paper is clever - you're a bunch of ****s - if you are so grateful for the opportunity to vote - at least vote for someone.

Nah didn't bother tbh. Only really one vote I'm interested in this year. Plus tbh I don't particularly feel all that engaged with parties in the euro elections nor really know the much about what MEPs do(that's partly my fault, but its a criticism of the European system also), so I'd just be picking at random which completely goes against the spirit of voting.

Me

Basically, what you're saying is that you can't be arsed to vote, which is a disgusting attitude in itself. I'd be embarrassed to admit that I wasn't going to vote in an election, be it local, general, or EU.

I turned up and just wrote "SPOILED" across the whole ballot paper. You could easily have done the same. It is an INSANE privilege to be able to do that and you clearly don't realise how lucky you are to have the opportunity.

I can't work out which was more of a waste of time, doing what you did at the polling station, or regurgitating that you did it on here?.

Seosamh +1

Couldn't believe the number of shitehawk parties on the paper for us, most of them'll get bugger all votes but it still makes you feel in a weird non-shitehawk minority.

I can't work out which was more of a waste of time, doing what you did at the polling station, or regurgitating that you did it on here?

Because spoiled votes are still counted, albeit separately. If you don't appreciate that I'd argue that you've got a pretty thin and basic understanding of democracy in general.

Flaperon - Member

[b]Because spoiled votes are still counted[/b], albeit separately. If you don't appreciate that I'd argue that you've got a pretty thin and basic understanding of democracy in general.

There's no fundamental difference between the 2. Tell me when spoiling a paper initiates change and I'll spoil my vote. Until then I'll conti UE to vote or not vote as I see fit.

Because spoiled votes are still counted, albeit separately.

And so is the percentage who didn't bother to turn out at all.

So why go through all the bother of "spoiling" your ballot paper, along with the others who always turn up every election and are unable to carry out the simple task of placing the correct number of crosses in boxes (whether it be one or multiple) when all you need to do to register your "protest" is stay at home and watch telly ?

A spoilt ballot paper is a spoilt ballot paper, those with cock and balls drawn on them aren't counted separately to those where a halfwit has struggled to vote correctly without spoiling the ballot paper. And yes, unbelievably many people screw up because they made a mistake and they cross out an X, or put an X too many, etc.

There was a long list on our sheets, both I and my wife muttered wtf whilst scanning the list.

I'd not heard of the "Harmony" party. Another set of ctuns.

seosamh77 - Member
So are people not voting. What is wrong there is that neither are taken for what the are, a vote of no confidence, and both are ignored.
There's no fundamental difference between the 2. Tell me when spoiling a paper initiates change and I'll spoil my vote. Until then I'll continue to vote or not vote as I see fit.

It strikes me that apathy is the least likely to engender change or say anything beyond the fact you could not be arsed. I would imagine very few non voters have chosen to "vote" this way and IMHO most simply are not arsed/dont care. there is of course no way to know this because their voice does not count

. there is of course no way to know this because their voice does not count

Then I'd think it correct to implement things like compulsory voting. Which at the moment I'm completely against.

If the majority vote to abstain what exactly do we do then? what is this change that must ensue?

why do you think pensioners get a triple lock ? it is because they vote and their voice counts
I really do not get why anyone thinks this will work or achieve anything tbh

I guess that knowing a large number of folk were abstaining intentionally (as opposed to just being lazy) would at least show the potential for someone to come up with other policies. As an example, if you had three relatively right-wing parties and they could only get votes from 40% of the electorate between them then perhaps someone might form a more left-wing party and sweep up some of the 60%?

Junkyard
If the majority vote to abstain what exactly do we do then? what is this change that must ensue?

Plus if people then want to get voted in the have to have policies that people want to vote for rather than picking between 2 shades of shite.

The prospect of no government has potential to generate a more dynamic political landscape.

I didnt because I forgot to register and also was at work all day and couldn't be arsed to be honest. I'll probably make the effort to vote in the general election but I honestly have no idea about politics or who to vote for. Just isn't something I ever think about.

Btw it would be a more complex voting system but for the democracy to develop, well its going to have to.

change could be anything. How you determine what is necessary I dunno. But that are some fairly obvious ones to expand democracy in the UK.

I would have thought that the obvious one would be to scale back on elections. Why on earth would you want to "expand democracy" if people aren't interested in it ?

ernie_lynch - Member
change could be anything. How you determine what is necessary I dunno. But that are some fairly obvious ones to expand democracy in the UK.
I would have thought that the obvious one would be to scale back on elections. Why on earth would you want to "expand democracy" if people aren't interested in it ?

If democracy doesn't represent the people it's not democracy. There needs to be more substance than putting an x on a bit of paper.

Civil war?

Civil war?

seosamh77

eh?

You asked for substance. If we don't vote via a piece of paper what do you suggest?

richpips - Member
seosamh77
eh?

You asked for substance. If we don't vote via a piece of paper what do you suggest?

I don't think you are grasping what I'm on about at all.

Feel free to explain. Eh?

I think you're being obtuse or thick.

S/he is saying there has to be more to the process of governance than the periodic appointment of delegates.

Who's not voting in the EU election?

Me! 😡

I'm American. 😉

This is why: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-27509405