Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkJay]

you should have voted for the monster raving loonies, that's what.

Which would only be a "symbolic gesture". Such things are pointless. To do so would be both absent of meaning and purpose, and therefore fundamentally degrading.

At the end of the day, the choices in my area and country wide were "Liberal Democrats", "Conservatives" and "Labour", and none of them were better than the other by enough to vote for them. I stand firmly by my decision not to vote at all, and instead to do something more personally constructive on that day: Anything else.

[Nilocy]

No no no, my logic is that your apathetic vote is a vote towards those parties that are completely bonkers. Such as the BNP, UKIP etc. etc.

And no I'm not saying its better. I'm saying that your views don't count. Whats the point in discussing things if nothing is ever going to come of it. If you were that dissatisfied with the parties running, why didn't you run for MP yourself?

[TheDarkJay]

Except it's not, it's a vote for nobody. That's explicitly what voting for nobody means. Hence the use of the word: nobody. If anything, it's actually more of a vote for everybody if you use your logic. The Lib Dems, Labour or Conservatives would get it, there is no way the BNP, UKIP etc. would where I live, and which one doesn't matter to me: The sum total of the Liberal Democrats flaws is equal to the sum total of labours flaws is equal to the sum total of the conservatives flaws.

You're promoting an "You're either with one party, or against them", and completely ignoring the giant scale of grey between the rest of the shades of grey.

Also I only turned 18 years old like 9 months ago. It's completely infeasible for me to run for MP and there is no way I'd get it. Believe it or not, trying knowing you can only fail with no pay-off to justify that failure isn't honourable, brave or clever: It's simply retarded.

Especially since I'm going to University at the end of the year on the opposite side of England, and after University my plans are to apply for jobs damn near worldwide, and be fully prepared to leave the country if I get a job out of here ^^

[fenrif]

Except it's not, it's a vote for nobody. That's explicitly what voting for nobody means. Hence the use of the word: nobody. If anything, it's actually more of a vote for everybody if you use your logic. The Lib Dems, Labour or Conservatives would get it, there is no way the BNP, UKIP etc. would where I live, and which one doesn't matter to me: The sum total of the Liberal Democrats flaws is equal to the sum total of labours is equal to the sum total of the conservatives.

You're promoting an "You're either with us, or against us", and completely ignoring the giant scale of grey between the rest of the shades of grey.

Also I only turned 18 years old like 9 months ago. It's completely infeasible for me to run for MP. Especially since I'm going to University at the end of the year on the opposite side of England, and after University my plans are to apply for jobs damn near worldwide, and be fully prepared to leave the country if I get a job out of here ^^

One one hand you're arguing that voting for the loonies would've been pointless because it's a symbolic gesture, which for some reason you think is devoid of meaning (Symbolic gestures actually tend to be ONLY meaning, with no actual effect... but whatever).

Then you argue that not voting is a vote for nobody. Which is, you guessed it, a symbolic gesture of defiance.

You're just a kid, so at the risk of being patronising let me clue you in: no poltical party is perfect. You could live to be a thousand years old, travel to every country in the world, and participate in every change of power and you will never find a poltical party that you compeltely agree with on every issue. It's inconceivable. The only way it would happen is if you ran for office yourself.

It's all about choosing the one that will do the most good. The lib dems for example want to reform the political system in the UK, which is a huge huge step to ensuring future generations aren't forced to choose between two slightly different arseholes.

If you don't care, that's one thing. But don't complain about voter apathy and then not vote because none of the candidates were supermen who fulfilled all your wildest dreams.

[TheDarkJay]

(No effect means there is no different between doing and not doing, so what's the point? Such a "symbolic gesture" achieves nothing, and that's what makes it meaningless.)

I'm not expecting supermen, but when I compare them, come to the conclusions:
1) It doesn't really matter which one of the three gets in, they are all overall equally as good and as bad as each other.
2) One of the three is guaranteed to get in.
You're confusing expecting perfection with accepting they are equally flawed. How can you reasonably make a choice of the best option between three ultimately equal factions? -.-

Therefore, I can in good conscience not vote since no matter who I'd be voting for, I'd not believe it was for the better or worse than the other options ^^ It's my opinion on the parties decisions and policies that leads to this conclusion, not apathy towards them. Voting would be purposeless and best -,,,-

The "apathy tends to win in Britain" statement earlier was a joke I stole off the bold guy in Mock The Week...'twas supposed to be a humorous but ultimately irrelevant statement (also I honestly thought more of you would get the reference...) XD And the "with or against" approach he was billing was referring to how he seemed to be saying: "If you don't vote for one of them, you're voting for the worst possible party!", which just strikes me as silly jumping to a ridiculously distant conclusion ^^

[Leafsnail]

Well, I hope the Liberal Democrats enjoy their Ministry of Paperclips, Secretary of Window Cleaning and Deputy Tea Maker.  I mean... the positions they've been given really do look like jokes.

[fenrif]

(No effect means there is no different between doing and not doing, so what's the point? Such a "symbolic gesture" achieves nothing, and that's what makes it meaningless.)

I'm not expecting supermen, but when I compare them, come to the conclusions:
1) It doesn't really matter which one of the three gets in, they are all overall equally as good and as bad as each other.
2) One of the three is guaranteed to get in.

Therefore, I can in good conscience not vote since no matter who I'd be voting for, I'd not believe it was for the better or worse than the other options ^^ It's my opinion on the parties decisions and policies that leads to this conclusion, not apathy towards them. Voting would be purposeless and best -,,,-

If you really think labour/tories/lib dems are all exactly the same in all areas then you really haven't been paying attention. It's not about finding the best party, its about finding the party that best represents your interests, opinions, and beliefs. They might be all equally good/bad, but they're good and bad in different areas. It's not about tallying up their pros and cons and seeing who has the most good points. Its about picking the party that will make progress on issues you care about.

You obviously think the political system should be reformed, because you partake in meaningless gestures like not voting beacuse none of the parties are good enough for you, so maybe you should've looked to see which party would do the most toward that goal.
Or you could've looked at university top-up fees, and looked towards the party that would do the most good in that area. I'm sure they don't all say the same thing about so many issues that you concluded they were all exactly the same.

[TheDarkJay]

Issues I care about are no more or less important than issues the next person cares about, I won't treat them as more or less important on the grand scheme of things, only on the micro level of my life. Political running of the country is too grand a scheme for me to focus on my own micro level (unless the implications on my own micro-level would be too catastrophic, but that's the point where self-preservation takes over).

[Thief^]

Issues I care about are no more or less important than issues the next person cares about

Who will probably be voting. You should therefore vote to balance it out.

[TheDarkJay]

The sum achievement of society, even if in one way harms me, can benefit in another way. Voting for what benefits the group ultimately would come back to help me, whilst voting solely for myself runs the risk of ultimately harming the group and therefore me. It's basic Game Theory =P (Okay not really, I doubt if you could quantify it, you'd be find a stable equilibrium...but the philosophy works ^^)

To quote A Beautiful Mind: Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself, right? Adam Smith was wrong. The message: Sometimes it is better to cooperate.

[Thief^]

Well if you want what's good for everyone, voting for voting reform (i.e. Lib Dem) would have been a good idea. Voting reform would allow people to vote for the party they actually wanted, instead of their vote being wasted if they didn't vote for one of the two big parties that it's guaranteed one of will win (varies by constituency).

[ChairmanPoo]

Not british, but I sympathize with TheDarkJay. We are given a choice between carbon copy candidates. I simply have better things to do than participating in that charade

[fenrif]

Not british, but I sympathize with TheDarkJay. We are given a choice between carbon copy candidates. I simply have better things to do than participating in that charade

Normally I'd agree, but this year the LibDems had a chance of winning based on political reform, which would mean in the future we'd have more of a choice.

Issues I care about are no more or less important than issues the next person cares about, I won't treat them as more or less important on the grand scheme of things, only on the micro level of my life.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all week. You fundamentally misunderstand the entire concept of politics. Good job.

[TheDarkJay]

What? That I'd vote for the best overall party, not the best party for my needs alone? I recognise that in the long term, voting beyond only my needs benefits myself more, and voting solely for my needs ultimately screws me over so my own needs should be pushed out and ignored in this situation. I take them off the table, and simply can't bring them back on.

That's essentially how society as a whole functions: We act selflessly in the most selfish manner.

I simply didn't find a best overall party. I'm not saying they're the same in all areas, I'm saying that they're equally as good because they are all better in different areas.

[smigenboger]

That's a different, to vote not specifically for someone, but against others.

Say, I'd vote 'not an example', giving all the non-examples a chance, instead of risking a split between which 'non-example' to choose, and ultimately having the example win