A duty or a right?

[Tietäjä]

Now that we all (I believe, all the Gd´ers here with maybe a few exceptions) live in democratic countries, we can prolly have a decent out-of-experience talk here.

Voting.

Politics.

Are they considered as a duty or a right of a citizen? Of course, it's considered as a right. As far as the UN is concerned. But it should be considered as a duty. Interest in politics should be considered as a duty. Voting should be considered as a duty. As they are the building blocks of democracy.

Once there was a time when people wanted to influence things. Now there's time when people just couldn't give a rats arse about politics, voting, nor influencing in the society. Has the system destroyed itself (is politics, a vital part of modern-day democracy (Ancient Greek-like democracy excluded from this), destroyed itself by being boring to the masses)?

People don't seem to believe they can influence in the government business by voting and participating in politics. As they don't believe their personal recycling will lead to anything proper.

The problem seems to be, from the bottom, that people don't seem to understand that small rivers flow down to form great rivers.

[Zapman]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

People don't seem to believe they can influence in the government business by voting and participating in politics. As they don't believe their personal recycling will lead to anything proper.

Got any idea how to solve this then?

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Zapman
Got any idea how to solve this then?

Riddance democracy, as it obviously doesn't work for the modern society. Alternatives needed. The system is far too people-dependant.

[sigrid]

imo voting is a political right and a moral duty.

[Marilyn Manson]

I think an awful lot of apathy in modern countries is based around many of the innovations in the last 30-20 years in western society - The cult of individualism that came with the new right, a growth in materialism and a decline in communitarianism amongst ordinary people. It's all been adding to the withdrawl of people from considering others and the wider society, not to mention the wholesale rejection of higher mental action in favour of baser pleasure.

I always find it fascinating that when this topic comes up, everybody and every organisation under the sun is generally blamed apart from people themselves.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I think an awful lot of apathy in modern countries is based around many of the innovations in the last 30-20 years in western society - The cult of individualism that came with the new right, a growth in materialism and a decline in communitarianism amongst ordinary people. It's all been adding to the withdrawl of people from considering others and the wider society, not to mention the wholesale rejection of higher mental action in favour of baser pleasure.

Of course, most of western democracy has always been fairly oligarchic, or had such an element, but now these factors are making it/allowing it to be more so. I fear for the future.

[ELeeming]

instead of voting, have everyone draw lots instead --> problem solved

[Woof]

I voted in the first UK general election i was entitled to, but have not voted in the two other general elections since.
That first time, i think i voted more out curiosity than anything, not because of an interest or obligation to politics.
I haven't voted in any local elections of any kind.

Politics seems a farce to me, by voting i am just briefly interacting with a scripted event.
Look at the current situation in the UK, with massive public opinion against a war, the goverment seems hell bent on going ahead anyway.
So why bother in the first place, as an individual you don't really have a voice.
With the turn out for elections at an all time low, i guess most other people can't be arsed either.

We need regime change in the UK.
I may take an interest in UK politics when UK politicians take an interest in the UK, rather than sorting out the rest of the world's problems.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Voting.
Are they considered as a duty or a right of a citizen?

People use the word 'right' far too often, throwing it around whenever they do not get what they want.

The reality is, Voting is not a right, it is a privilidge, a provilidge which has become common in the last 50 years. We should remember that it is a privilidge, and protect it as such, for we are fortunate to have it.

Internally to each nation you may call it a 'right', it may be enshrined in the Constitutions or whatever of various tates, really all that means is that it is the law in that place. But on a global level it is still a privilidge.

As it is a privilidge, you have a duty to use the system to its fullest. In most states (Australia and a few others being the exceptions) you do not have to vote if you do not want to. I have no problem with people who do not vote out of political choice. I do take issue with those who do not vote out of apathy or ignorance.

[W]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I think an awful lot of apathy in modern countries is based around many of the innovations in the last 30-20 years in western society - The cult of individualism that came with the new right, a growth in materialism and a decline in communitarianism amongst ordinary people. It's all been adding to the withdrawl of people from considering others and the wider society, not to mention the wholesale rejection of higher mental action in favour of baser pleasure.

I always find it fascinating that when this topic comes up, everybody and every organisation under the sun is generally blamed apart from people themselves.

I always blame people.

[roadrunner_0]

they are trying to get around the apaty here by making everything postal in the next local elections, they have failed to take accound of the 'but the post box is 5 minutes away' factor.
Although, i do think we will have a better turn out than normal, and its really irritated all of the teachers/pupils as they no longer get a day off

[Texan]

I have been eligible to vote in nine elections since I turned 18. I have only voted in four of them. The first two elections I was eligible to vote in I did not know anything or care really. After that I became more interested; however, it is more difficult to vote when you live on a different continent from the one you are eligible to vote in.

I agree with Vermillion. Voting is a privilege.

Here in Belgium, people authorized to vote also have a duty to do so. They can be fined if they don't. I, of course, am not authorized to vote here. Not that I want to.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Vermillion
People use the word 'right' far too often, throwing it around whenever they do not get what they want.

The reality is, Voting is not a right, it is a privilidge, a provilidge which has become common in the last 50 years. We should remember that it is a privilidge, and protect it as such, for we are fortunate to have it.

As it is a privilidge, you have a duty to use the system to its fullest. In most states (Australia and a few others being the exceptions) you do not have to vote if you do not want to. I have no problem with people who do not vote out of political choice. I do take issue with those who do not vote out of apathy or ignorance.

Okay, thank you for correcting my poor English. I didn't recall the word privilidge upon typing, so I used right (close nuff, almost ). The fact is many don't vote because of apathy and/or ignorance, but very few don't vote because of political choice. But I believe we're all agreed on the fact that the system is very futile nowadays, and may crash in the near decades. I totally agree with you on reacting to decision, whether concious or not, to not vote. People have fought for the privilidge to vote, paid it with their blood - metaforically at least - and the society of today isn't interested in handling their own nations.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I fear for the future.

Yes, I would sit on the same bench with you. Outright, the future is of the system as it is is quite bland, as voting is nowadays done very ignorantly. The Finnish elections are, more and more, resembling a graveyard of dimnished celebs, with the flood of barely popular artists and athletes try their luck earning 'easy bucks' in the parliament (well, I dunno how to call our system's 'eduskunta' better in English), because they have some fame but no qualifications or grades.

Eventually, the system will have to take a dive, to surface improved, or to drown. After that, it's interesting to see how things develop. For Europe, somekind of a collective governement uniting the nations of the EU might catch people's attention, but it wouldn't prolly get people voting. And zombified votes don't count - I dare say 50% of the votes cast in any elections (excluding Presidential elections) are cast blindly according to few public appearances and past record - as a poltician or not.

I should prolly run for a seat when I turn 18. After all, the only way to change things is to try influence them, and that won't happen unless you actively try to. People seem to defend their ignorance with the claim "it won't help if I vote, it's just one vote" or "I don't know any of the people that can be voted in my area" wich are both wrong, first totally mislead, and second just a matter of attending to the discussions of the parties, watching the panels on telly, and following up.

The Belgian system is in a way, good, it forces people to vote - but prolly most of the forced votes are blind votes. In Finland, you can vote via mail if you are located on a different continent at the time of voting; you'll be sent a form if requested. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but roughly that way.

[queball]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Okay, thank you for correcting my poor English. I didn't recall the word privilidge upon typing, so I used right (close nuff, almost ).

Heh, he wasn't: it's spelt privilege. Notice he spelt the spelt the word differently every time he used it.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
The Belgian system is in a way, good, it forces people to vote - but prolly most of the forced votes are blind votes. In Finland, you can vote via mail if you are located on a different continent at the time of voting; you'll be sent a form if requested. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but roughly that way.

It's basically the same for Texas. I request a ballot. I get a voter registration card. Then I wait forever for the ballot. If I'm lucky the ballot arrives in time to vote. Mostly they don't even bother to count the overseas ballots because the winner is usually clear. Of course, in Florida a couple of years ago, the winner was not clear so they actually counted the overseas ballots there.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Texan
It's basically the same for Texas. I request a ballot. I get a voter registration card. Then I wait forever for the ballot. If I'm lucky the ballot arrives in time to vote. Mostly they don't even bother to count the overseas ballots because the winner is usually clear. Of course, in Florida a couple of years ago, the winner was not clear so they actually counted the overseas ballots there.

They were quite keen; they counted ones made after the election!

[Nodrog]

Its neither a duty nor a right within the current system.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by queball
Notice he spelt the spelt the word differently every time he used it.

yeah, yeah... I typed that message in about 90 seconds between security briefings, didnt really have the time to proofread.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Vermillion
People use the word 'right' far too often, throwing it around whenever they do not get what they want.

The reality is, Voting is not a right, it is a privilidge, a provilidge which has become common in the last 50 years. We should remember that it is a privilidge, and protect it as such, for we are fortunate to have it.

Internally to each nation you may call it a 'right', it may be enshrined in the Constitutions or whatever of various tates, really all that means is that it is the law in that place. But on a global level it is still a privilidge.

What are 'rights' anyway?

Is it another word for 'freedoms,' or is it something that people are naturally entitled to (i would take the second one, and i would consider any country that doesn't both allow the people to choose their government and allow their citizens to leave at will no better than a slave state)?

Anyway, I've changed my mind over the past couple years, and I am no longer worried by the masses of ignorant and apathetic types that don't bother to vote.

I have become worried about the ignorant types that vote out of their ignorance, who were fed outright lies through propaganda, believed them, and voted in accordance.

my solutions to the present system would be
1. direct democracy
2. free education upon signing up to vote, including where to get actual facts and unbiased information

[Tietäjä]

By free democracy, what do you mean?

Politics should be taught in schools, starting from high school grades.

I offer an opion from what I feel may be part of the reason for low voter turnout in the USA.

I dont think apathy would apply to most whom choose not to vote. It occures to me that most whom do not vote are for the most part content with the current gov an their society in which they live. They have not voted an things are still for the most part still working out quite well. Prehaps its a feeling of confidance that auto pilot seems to be working so well. I am sure if the USA society began to break down voter turnout would skyrocket.

[sigrid]

Originally posted by acropolis
What are 'rights' anyway?

Is it another word for 'freedoms,' or is it something that people are naturally entitled to (i would take the second one, and i would consider any country that doesn't both allow the people to choose their government and allow their citizens to leave at will no better than a slave state)?

Anyway, I've changed my mind over the past couple years, and I am no longer worried by the masses of ignorant and apathetic types that don't bother to vote.

I have become worried about the ignorant types that vote out of their ignorance, who were fed outright lies through propaganda, believed them, and voted in accordance.

my solutions to the present system would be
1. direct democracy
2. free education upon signing up to vote, including where to get actual facts and unbiased information

why not start by having the one with the most votes become president?

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by sigrid
why not start by having the one with the most votes become president?

Because it won't work in a country as large and diverse as the USA, and I am tired of explaining why. Suffice it to say it is a stupid suggestion, and one that hs been explained to death.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Treyjun
I offer an opion from what I feel may be part of the reason for low voter turnout in the USA.

I dont think apathy would apply to most whom choose not to vote. It occures to me that most whom do not vote are for the most part content with the current gov an their society in which they live. They have not voted an things are still for the most part still working out quite well. Prehaps its a feeling of confidance that auto pilot seems to be working so well. I am sure if the USA society began to break down voter turnout would skyrocket.

It could also be a combination of apathy and not having a good choice. I once had a choice between a guy I did not like who was not responsive to my correspondence, and a guy I did not like who had not yet had the chance to be irresponsive to my correspondence. The first was a republican, the second a libertarian (similar to the FDP in Germany). I voted for the libertarian. He lost by something like 8 to 1. BTW, this was for my representative in Congress, the closest I can get to having my views heard in Washington.

Define Democratic

I can't vote yet...

Like when I go to school we speak about it, but I'm only 17 so it dont make a difference for me... I don't think it will be different because they are all talk no action

[Mirai]

this thread is racist to m.ar.d

[Judge]

I would suggest that people who do not vote chose not to, because all the choices are crap.

Maybe there should be a NONE of the above option on the ballot?

Politicians need to learn to respond to the Voters, not get the voters to respond to them.

[Texan]

Depending on where I go when I return to the United States, I plan to run for office. I won't get elected because I am neither a democrat nor a republican, but I plan to run anyway. I may just try to be a spoiler for whoever I dislike the most.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Dreadnought!
Define Democratic

Edit: Definition of democracy, not democratic.
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

That is from an online dictionary. I would define it as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Of the people: This means everyone has the right to be an elected member of the government.

By the people: Everyone gets the right to vote.

For the people: The government is interested in the general welfare of the people.

(Caveat: Some people could still be denied these rights... like children or prisoners. Children can't vote. Prisoners cannot run for political office, etc.)

[Zitos]

if a person dont vote (to a selection..)

then he (or her) better keep their mouth shout if they are not happy with some thing..


imho

[Texan]

Originally posted by Zitos
if a person dont vote (to a selection..)

then he (or her) better keep their mouth shut if they are not happy with some thing..

I mostly agree with you. Children don't get to vote, but they still have freedom of speech to a certain degree. I believe that children should not be involved in protests, but if they want to write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper or a letter to their parents' representative in Congress (for U.S. citizens), then that is fine.

The reason I believe that children should not be involved in protests is because protests occasionally become violent. Violent protests are not a proper place for children to be. Not only does it put them at risk of injury, but it sends the wrong signal about how protests should be.

My best example is Palestine. My advice for children is do not throw stones at soldiers. You cannot win. They have rifles, tanks and other stuff. When you are 18-years old, throw all the stones you want.