Can democracies go bankrupt.
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Are you referring to voter apathy?
Democracy doesn't require voter participation. If only 5% care enough to vote, it's actually probably going rather well. (Or the political process has reached a stagnation point; which does not necessarily mean things are going badly.)
It depends on the reasons people don't show up. If everyone's happy, then it's fine. If there is political oppression or voter intimidation, it's not.
In a lot of democracies people can choose whether or not to exercise their right to vote. If they don't thats fine, just don't complain about the result if you don't like it.
Seriously that is one of my bug bearers people who complain about what the government does/doesn't do but when asked say they didn't vote, because it doesn't make a difference.
Yes it does make a difference, if everyone who thought that way voted it could change the outcome.
Seriously that is one of my bug bearers people who complain about what the government does/doesn't do but when asked say they didn't vote, because it doesn't make a difference.
Yes it does make a difference, if everyone who thought that way voted it could change the outcome.
So, we can now make words mean whatever we want? Call it what it is: abysmal voter turnout. I think you could make a case that extremely poor turnout indicates a government that has lost its legitimacy, but that is not any kind of "bankruptcy."
Umm no, if you pay taxes, regardless if you vote, then yes you can complain ... and loudly.
Umm no, if you pay taxes, regardless if you vote, then yes you can complain ... and loudly.
I understand what you are saying, but when you elect a government different parties have differening ideas of how that money should be spent. So you had a choice to support a party that suited how you think it should spend those taxes etc.. If the party thay doesn't support the way you like gets elected because you didn't vote. You've only got yourself to blame.
In the UK voter turnout at a General Election is what 70%ish. That means 30% of people either can't be bothered to vote. I suspect a lot of them think along the lines of my vote doesn't matter, and yes in of it's self it might not make a difference but if that 30% thought yes my vote can make a difference and actually voted it could change the result. Remember some elections are won simple by cutting a deck of cards, because two or more people got the same result. That's when one vote would make a difference.
Luckily in my fine state we've got the option of voting "none of the above" if none of the candidates meets our approval; I've done it and it feels great for some reason.
I actually do vote regularly, but would strongly disagree with this.
Not voting is a valid way to express an opinion. The lower the voter turnout, the more dissatisfied an electorate is with all of the choices they are offered. That's an important thing for a democracy to be able to measure, and can sometimes be more revealing of the state of a country than the actual winner. To me, these apathetic non-voters are expressing their opinion very clearly (albeit by default), and so definitely retain the right to complain about whatever government is in place after the election.
Getting apathetic/non-voters to vote for your party is actually one of the unattainable holy grails of party politics (differential turnout wins close races), so it's not as this segment of the electorate are disenfranchised by not voting either. In fact, you could argue this tribe are more sought after by the parties than people like myself who regularly and predictably vote for the same party and are therefore easily "banked".
(incidentally, this logic is why I hate the concept of compulsory voting as used in (I think) Australia; it results in false expression of confidence in the electoral system itself).
I'm not sure that follows, to be honest. Low voter turnout can mean that people are unsatisfied, but I would submit people like that also tend to vote for minor parties - 'protest votes' - or spoil their ballots. They're often too politically engaged to just not show up. I think the most common cause of low turnout is apathy - they just don't feel strongly enough about changing or keeping the government, and that can be a bad or a good thing. There's nothing that makes people get bored of politics like prosperity and high morale. The drive for change is almost always negative in politics - something sucks, so we need someone to fix it. Check out the Tories 'Broken Britain' campaign. Convince people there's a problem, then convince them you're going to fix it. The 'Autoglass' approach to campaigning, if you like.
Generally, when there's a particularly hot button issue in the public eye at the time, election turnouts go up. This suggests to me that turnout has more to do with how much people care about keeping or changing the government, rather than simply disliking the available choices so choosing 'none of the above' by staying home.
I would argue that generally rights come with responsibilities. We have hard fought universal suffrage, which imparts a duty to use that power, and use it wisely. I couldn't look one of the women who threw themselves under horses or one of the men who charged up Omaha beach and say 'you know what? I couldn't be arsed, and Britain's Got Talent was on'.
Requiring people to show up doesn't force them to make a choice they don't want to, and doesn't silence the protesting voice you are keen to capture - there are plenty of ways to vote for no-one even standing in a polling booth. But at least you've registered a deliberate intent to vote for no-one, not just stayed home, which to me says 'meh' not 'I reject your illusion of choice!'
Perhaps ballots need a 'none of the above'. A General Election equivalent of 're-open nominations'.
But "meh" is also important to register! Bear with me on this, I'll come to why in a moment, but first I need to explain where I'm coming from a bit.
Essentially, I think one's perspective on voter apathy will be driven by what one wants an electoral system to achieve.
I am happiest with a system that a) allows a critical mass of the population to believe that in theory their desires would be listened to; b) gives politicians the ability to look like leaders, thus reassuring the population that someone is in charge; c) doesn't actually let politicians do much that interferes with the normal operation of life.
This is a really delicate balance to achieve as it requires a number of sleights of hands and intrinsic checks & balances. I think it's instructive in this regard to observe that the USA achieves much of this through legal force. The UK does it in a more subtle way, through inertia, tradition and convention. It really is a remarkably delicate balance.
I mean, theoretically, the FPTP electoral system in combination with the strong PMs it creates, and the powers the sovereign gives Parliament could lead to a revolving door dictatorship. What stops this happening in practice is the fact that the revolving door exists, preventing one party from making too many changes that can't be undone by the next lot in charge. And what keeps the whole circus afloat, in terms of plausibility, is the voter turnout.
Within this system, apathy becomes a crucial tool for moderating and neutering politics in general (and politicians/parties in specific), by diminishing the actual mandate any party has, and giving them something to worry about ("what would happen if that cohort of non-voters actually got out of their seats and voted?!").
That's why "meh" and/or generalised dissatisfaction matters. Apathy paradoxically acts as a vital check on the power of the state, by diminishing the electoral system itself.
I appreciate that my view of politics is somewhat jaundiced and unlikely to be shared widely on a conscious level, but the above should at least explain where I'm coming from.
Low voter turnout can be inteperrated in a number of ways.
1.>Apathy i.e. couldn't care less
2.>You're all as bad as each other, nothing ever changes
If people actually went to the polling station and spoilt there ballot, it might send a clearer message. After all spoilt ballots (in the UK at least) are recorded as part of the result. Imagine if instead of a handful of spoilt ballots it was thousands.
1.>Apathy i.e. couldn't care less
2.>You're all as bad as each other, nothing ever changes
If people actually went to the polling station and spoilt there ballot, it might send a clearer message. After all spoilt ballots (in the UK at least) are recorded as part of the result. Imagine if instead of a handful of spoilt ballots it was thousands.
Couldn't it also be interpreted as satisfaction with either candidate? Not that I think it is (more indifference to either candidate), but I haven't seen that interpretation suggested yet.
If three people turned out to vote, the guy who got two votes would declare a mandate. What we really need is the option to rank candidates, rather than just vote for one or nothing.
No, because it would allow people to vote for third-party or independent candidates without throwing their votes away. It would break the back of the two-party system and give a chance to candidates who are actually qualified and not just frontmen for a political organization.
Similar threads
