The right NOT to vote

[winchable]

choose not to exercise the right for which many Canadians have died to retain. As well, millions the world over have died in the unsuccessful fight to attain that right.

I've always had mixed feelings when people say this,
I think largely voting is more symbolic of what these people died and are dying for, the actual meat and potatoes of what they seek and sought is freedom from tyranny and oppression, the ability to voice opinions without fear of reprisals and to live your life how you want with little or no government interference.
Voting occurs in plenty of countries where these freedoms do not exist, and shock of shock these countries also have startlingly high voter turnouts.

To say that people die simply to put paper in a box is the tip at the top of an iceberg, they died to do all of the things listed above (and more) which technically can be done without voting.
Now there's plenty of arguments that they shouldn't have those freedoms because they don't vote, but by virtue of the fact that they live in these countries they should have the liberty to not vote, which invariably leads to the argument that they don't deserve the freedoms which allow them to not vote.

 

[George Wallace]

Sorry to all the folks who say "You have to vote or you have no right to complain!" but when did we become a dictatorship where you WILL vote regardless of how you feel? If I don't like anything being served at dinner, I don't eat dinner. But using your logic I now have no right to complain about the meal choices!

A couple of questions for you. 

First one:  Have you ever tried this logic on your Mom or if you are married, your wife?  ;D

Second:  If you refused to eat dinner, you have made a choice not to eat it.  However, if you haven't eaten it, how can you complain about it?  You never ate it.  You can complain about the fact that you were too stupid not to eat it, but how can you complain about the meal itself?

Third:  If someone in your Unit was asked for input into a decision being made and didn't provide any, what would you think of him if he started bitching about the decision after it was made?  That is what the Vote is all about.  You have your chance to make a decision.  If you don't want to input, then don't be like that arse in the Unit.  I put people like that on IGNORE.

Like the old saying goes; "Are you part of the Solution, or part of the Problem?"

 

[2 Cdo]

George after being on this site for a couple of years now, I normally agree with you on most issues, on this one I do not. I understand in Australia you are forced to vote or be fined, but to me that reeks of an overly authoritative government! I was talking about choices, which I believe is what a democracy is about. To remove choices with a law is just a step closer to having the government control even more of my life!
I have already rescinded certain freedoms by joining the military, and I accept that, but I don't accept government ordering people to vote or be fined. That is not what a democracy is about, that is removing a freedom and replacing it with a criminal law.
As for a person in a unit not offering input into a decision and bitching about it I'll quote an old CO of mine back in the Airborne Regiment, "We are here to protect democracy, not to practice it!"
The food analogy you deliberately acted ignorant by stating "you were to stupid to not eat it" but you can complain about the choices, correct?
You have your thoughts on this, as I have mine, and I don't think either one of us is going to change the others mind anytime soon. But by voting ignorant (like most Canadians) you are also part of the problem, but hey at least you voted! ;D

 

[dutchie]

You apparently think we should remove it! Unlike yourself I don't begrudge anyone their CHOICE whether to vote or not!

Voting is a right and a responsibility, but I certainly do not think it should be legislated. That would defeat the purpose. As far as me having zero time for non-voters, I was mainly referring to those that don't vote and then complain about the result. If you don't want to vote, fine, but don't complain when your views are not shared by your rep in Ottawa, Prov legislature, city hall.

I have zero tolerance for people who vote without knowing anything about the candidates or the parties!

+1

You seem to want to put these types of voters on a pedestal, while expressing your lack of patience to anyone who CHOOSES not to vote! That would explain the last 13 years of corruption we have had to deal with!

Not at all. The first order of business is to get people to committ to voting. Then you have to educate them in the importance of evaluating their choice. Some vote for party (ie - I want less Government, less taxes, fewer constraints. I care less about my local constituency. Therefore, I vote Conservative). Some vote for their constituency (I am less concerned about party platforms, and more concerned about BLANK in my community. Therefore, I will investigate which candidate in my riding supports my ideas). And some poor souls vote against someone (I disapprove strongly with Paul Martin/Harper, so I will vote for BLANK).

I just like playing devils advocate with people who wish to remove a right (vote or not) and replace it with a law.

I don't wish to remove a right, but it is also my right to disregard the opnions of those who chose not to have a say.

I guess some people like the idea of more government and more laws!

Oddly  enough, I voted for a party today that states it is committed to less 'government'.

I think largely voting is more symbolic of what these people died and are dying for, the actual meat and potatoes of what they seek and sought is freedom from tyranny and oppression, the ability to voice opinions without fear of reprisals and to live your life how you want with little or no government interference.

If you want to get right down to it, I imagine a lot of those boys, especially the Great War, fought for far less idealistic reasons, but I get your point. Actually, I feel stronger about my second example. There are a lot of people who have died in the unsuccessful fight for democracy. It reminds me that voting is a luxury and should be taken seriously.

 

[George Wallace]

I haven't reached the stage yet, where I think that it should be a 'Criminal Offence' or an occasion to 'Fine' people if they don't vote.  I do see some merits in the "Starship Trooper" ideas put forward by Robert Hienlien, but know it'll be centuries before that would be acceptable.  I really won't get all bent around the axle if someone doesn't vote, even though I think they should contribute to the vote.  My beliefs are mine, and you can have yours.  If I believe that voting for the Green Party is a vote for the Lieberals, then that is my view.  Someone else will be happy to Vote Green in protest, knowing fairly well that that candidate hasn't a snowballs chance in Hell of getting elected and making a difference, but what the heck.  As 2 CDO says, this is not a Dictatorship.  However, if you want to enjoy all the benefits of a Democracy, at least make a meaningful contribution. 

I have my freedoms to think of many of the Canadian population as being Sheeple.  I didn't tell them to be.  I just think many of them are.

 

[Danjanou]

Interesting debate developing here.

To points, first despite the differences of opinion offered I’ve noticed we managed (once again)  we’ve managed to keep it respectful civil and professional, even though it’s obvious for the most part this is something we seem to feels passionately about.

The reason I mention that I’ve been surfing a few other sites/forums today to get their take on the election and have been amazed at how fast some deteriorate to the “I’m right and you’re full of it” childish insult stage and this often form the so called self styled intelligentsia.

Second with the arguments being offered here that at least amongst us there is no such thing as “uninformed or ignorant ” voter.

 

[winchable]

Second with the arguments being offered here that at least amongst us there is no such thing as “uninformed or ignorant ” voter.

Except for me, I voted for the Monster Raving Looney Party,
Which is doubly shocking because they didn't have a candidate in my riding, I just wrote their name in at the bottom of the ballot and drew a picture of a duck

Kidding, voting is one thing I do take seriously, despite any of my philosophical musings.

I just got back from the polling stations and for the first time since I reached the voting age I was 100% satisfied with my vote and am looking forward to getting more involved with politics during this government.

 

[a_majoor]

Like George, I have little time for the person who refuses to become engeged, but still believes he/she can complain about the results. As an interesting side bar, the word "Idiot" is derived from an ancient Greek word reffering to a person who refused to participate in the assembly; the ancient Greeks, like George, myself and some others, felt they were contemptable individuals for refusing to contribute or allowing others to decide for them.

HOWEVER, I am struck by the fact that many people who do not vote are not totally out of tune with the political process, rather they are disenchanted and feel they have no real voice or power when exercising their vote. Others feel the choices being offered to them are unpalatable, the party platforms do not represent or reflect their desires, kind of like going to the buffet and seeing the choice today is between brussle sprouts and lima beans (mmmmn). I do like the "none of the above" box on the ballot for those people. What might work better is to twist the current election laws which reward parties with a certain amount of money per ballot (courtesy of the tax payer); FINE each party a similar amount of money for each ballot marked NONE OF THE ABOVE. Since the "undecideds" and "none of the aboves" are seemingly the majorety of the electorate, this would be a bucket of cold water on parties which believe they can carry on in the same old way. Fines can be proportional to the amount of recieved votes, or simply assessed equally to all parties.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think I'd rather have someone who doesn't have a clue not vote then vote.

 

[George Wallace]

I find it hard that anyone today could not have been informed of what some of the major issues were, after being constantly bombarded by the Media for the last eight weeks.  The issues have been on TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Posters, Flyers, Pins, Billboards,....every medium conceivable.  We have seen or heard the Leaders debate several times; live and on CPAC.  Editorials have been written.  Comics like Air Farce and Rick Mercer have made fun of it.  It is on the internet.  It is being discused on this site.  How can anyone in this country honestly say that they are not informed on some of the key issues.  I know someone is going to come back and say that they don't know the whole platform for each and every Party, but how many of us do?  There has been so much info put out that there must be some info that could aid one in making an informed choice.  What does your gut say?  Like everything else in life, follow it.

None of the Parties is perfect.  None of them have that perfect Platform.  If they did, and it was a Perfect World, then we wouldn't need elections, nor governments, nor Banks, etc.  I guess we are stuck with Elections and voting as our guts tell us to.

 

[rifleman]

I wouldn't fine them for "none of the above" but I would fine them for negative ads. If any ad strays outside of 'Our policy is....' FINE!!

I would also like to see public financial support for independants and first time politicians and get rid of it for established parties who have war chest specifically for election campaigns.

 

[midgetcop]

I wouldn't fine them for "none of the above" but I would fine them for negative ads. If any ad strays outside of 'Our policy is....' FINE!!

That's the best idea I've heard so far.

 

[dutchie]

Sensoring a political party's ads is a bad idea, IMHO. If you don't like negative ads, tell the candidates using them you won't vote for them BECAUSE of the ads. If enough people agree with you, they'll stop.

 

[rifleman]

Sensoring a political party's ads is a bad idea, IMHO. If you don't like negative ads, tell the candidates using them you won't vote for them BECAUSE of the ads. If enough people agree with you, they'll stop.

Its not sensoring its setting guidelines of conduct

 

[winchable]

One would almost hope that you wouldn't have to set guidelines when it comes to political parties; That they might, Oh I don't know, behave less like 12 year old girls fighting over a boy they'll get tired of in a week and more like leaders of a country of 30+Million people.

Negative ads are embarassing for everyone, it's like the akward moment in the TV show,
You know it's coming, the music changes, the tone changes then you start to cringe, maybe close your eyes so you can't quite see what's going on, you think about something else (happy thoughts even) and change the channel because it becomes too painful.

 

[dutchie]

Its not sensoring its setting guidelines of conduct

What's the difference?

Are you saying that fining a Party for negative ads is completely different than sensoring them for other 'undesireable' ads? What about ads that offend minority groups? Offend a certain gender? Offend the reigning Party? Once you allow the sensorship of political advertising, you are on a short trip to an undemocratic campaign.

 

[rifleman]

well for one I fell into the trap of misspelling censorship and it's amazing how many did too. Kinda like voting for the same political parties and expecting different results.

You can bet that if a political party slammed a minority group or gender you would hear about it. Setting guidelines is nothing more than whats acceptable and what is not. Political ads should be about what they are standing for. What they plan to do etc.

 

[bubba]

Well GW if your callin me a sheepple i wanna be THE BLACK SHEEPPLE OF THE FLOCK. :-* :-*And don't go gettin no fantisies about wearin rubber boots and velcro gloves. (just a little humor GW not baaad eh bye..) ;D

 

[dutchie]

You can bet that if a political party slammed a minority group or gender you would hear about it. Setting guidelines is nothing more than whats acceptable and what is not. Political ads should be about what they are standing for. What they plan to do etc.

Good point re:spelling. Missed that.

So what's the difference between setting guidlines (read:fines) and censorship?  

 

[rifleman]

you know I will give you there is no real difference however everything is censored somehow. There are guidelines about being part of this forum...darn censors.