Why I hate apathetic non-voters in elections.

[Evergreen]

It's election night in Canada atm and there are so many people I talk too who are like, I'm not voting, while accepting goverment handouts......

Which I feel really begs the question, why should the government help people who don't want to care about the government?

In Canada there is no excuse not to vote as parties will drive you to polling stations if you can't get to one yourself, hell they even run busses for the homeless to polling stations.

I do really have to ask one thing though, What do the people who don't want to vote really think they are proving? Why are they entitled to as much as someone who votes for the Government?
If you choose to live here you gotta choose what views represent you, and if non represent you it's VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON IN YOUR EYES THAT IS LESS EVIL IS IN CHARGE.

Voter turnout is going down worldwide with each passing election, I really do think it's time that if you haven't voted and you haven't got a very good damn reason not to vote you shouldn't be allowed to claim anything beneficial from the government.

You choose to live in a country that is governed democratically and if you can't be responsible for such a small task then you are definately not a benefit to the country.

Voter apathy disgusts me, you shouldn't have to care about who wins but you should have to show that you are comfortable being Governed and everything that comes with it.

If not leave.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Which I feel really begs the question, why should the government help people who don't want to care about the government?

Because it's their duty; eg. the people at social security have the job of helping people. Or more physically, because if The Government started excluding benefits from non-voters they would be unpopular and voted out (yes!). And it'd be effort. And it'd discriminate against various minorities etc etc. In fact non-voters do get discriminated against, I believe, in terms of demographics.

I do really have to ask one thing though, What do the people who don't want to vote really think they are proving? Why are they entitled to as much as someone who votes for the Government?
If you choose to live here you gotta choose what views represent you, and if non represent you it's VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON IN YOUR EYES THAT IS LESS EVIL IS IN CHARGE.

Why? Think of it quantitively: my vote changes very little, in an area where I know very little. Even going with a "if we all work together we can change things!" attitude, I don't have particularly strong opinions about the issues. They are all evil in different, non-commeasurable ways.

[JonnyBGood]

Hate is indicative of a fascist mind.


PS Why should people who vote be entitled to anything? Or people who don't vote? Why not baby alligators? I'm sure the randomly selected parties by the alligators would perform much the same job in much the same fashion as the canadian government. Why should baby alligators not get the vote you universal suffrage hating neo-nazi?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Which I feel really begs the question, why should the government help people who don't want to care about the government?

Because non voters still have to pay taxes?

If non-voters were excluded from paying taxation then I'd agree. It's supposed to be a form of social contract though, so I really don't see what voting has to do with anything. If your (private) insurance company held a vote (on for instance, who their board was) do you think that anyone who didn't vote should be disqualified from making a claim under their policies?

As for voting in general, I've expressed my opinions here : http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...7&page=1&pp=50.

[Chaos]

You can't force ppl to have an opinion.

If someone just doesn't know who to vote for, or just doesn't care.
then that's their right. there will always be ppl voting.
those that realy care, consider their vote carefully.
Why even bother dragging ppl that doesn't care to vote. they'r not going to bother to carefully consider their vote.

If you want real democracy, let those that want to vote, vote. That's when you realy get ppls opinion about things.

Real Democracy means letting ppl vote on who they want running their country, and to let those that just don't care be.

[Evergreen]

In a real democracy if there's no choices you would vote for someone would create a choice be it yourself or someone else that you would vote for.

I mean with my idea you could have a "I got made to vote by the stupid government" Party if people REALLY object to voting. (or just have a none of the above box)

It'd certainly help more than it would harm imo.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hate is indicative of a fascist mind.

More a tyrannical mind.

At least my Tyranny would be a good tyranny.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

In a real democracy if there's no choices you would vote for someone would create a choice be it yourself or someone else that you would vote for.

Some countries already have compulsory voting (Australia for instance, I believe) and they're not particularly better off. Their parties are equally unrepresentative, democracies equally disrespected, etc.

[Rumad]

I don't vote as a rule. But I don't accept assistance off anyone. I pay my bills and as I have a apathetic nature towards all parties (who I believe veryoe wanting to put right the wheels of government are only after it for power and wealth).

So I have a real dilemma. Do I vote for parties I couldn't give a stuff about and will inevitably lead to me paying more tax than the previous year or do I support a party who may promise the earth, but will deliver little in the reality and leave me probably worse off due to again inflating the taxes I pay?

I think I will stay in the apathetic masses if I am honest,

[Radical Edward]

great, so lets promote voting purely in order to get state handouts. I don't vote primarily because I think that the whole democratic power system is a farce anyway. The policies I vote for right now could easily simply just be ignored by those in control (and often are) or changed at the next party meeting (and also often are) over which I have no control. my immediate representative does not represent me, but represents some internal power structure within the political party, and is often more likely to adhere to that power structure than the opinions of the people that he was directly elected by. The only real benefit I can see from our democratic systems, is that it creates a temporally weak government that at least has to shift a bit depending on what the populous as a whole wants, and is less likely to do crazy things like drive tanks over demonstrators or randomly declare war on puny third world nations.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

At least my Tyranny would be a good tyranny.

That's what all tyrants say.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

In a real democracy if there's no choices you would vote for someone would create a choice be it yourself or someone else that you would vote for.

Why would I want that? It's just that I don't have strong opinions. I mean, it'd be great if there was a Giant Robot Party but that's not realistic. What happened to Iraq is bad, but I don't think anyone predicted that. And I don't know that much about it, or who was responsible, or what's going to be done in the future. When people talk about their votes it's usually hugely symbolic protest votes with little connection to how things work and I doubt any of the energy that people put in to talking about politics pays off at all. The entire political sphere seems to basically be men trying to raise their self-esteem by being opinionated.
Dunno about Canada.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

The entire political sphere seems to basically be men trying to raise their self-esteem by being opinionated.

This is mainly true of only representative democracy - which is the political equivalent of a spectator sport.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is mainly true of only representative democracy - which is the political equivalent of a spectator sport.

Nah, I don't mean the MPs (who, apart from the occasional celebrity, just talk crap / allude to some higher knowledge). I just don't see why everyone has to have an opinion about everything. Talking politics can be ok, but when voter #2386015 decides to tell me about how the NHS should really be run it seems pointless.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Nah, I don't mean the MPs.

Neither do I. I was talking about the attitude of voters. Someone commenting on how the NHS should really be run is on the same level as a drunk at a bar commenting on how the English football team should really be managed.

[Sandsnake]

Only one thing worse than a poor voter turnout: people voting for people they know nothing about.

[LHC]

I like how we should vote for a system in which an arbitrary government that ceized power of Country X several centuries ago and thinks that we should derive our freedoms from them, and that we are at their whim, and its our fault if the country sucks because we don't vote at all/for the right party in a system that we have no control over the setting up of.