Suppose they gave an election and nobody came?

[Andara Bledin]

And replace them with what? More of the same? Dog turd, cat turd, cow turd, they all stink.

And thus, rather than take a chance there might be someone out that isn't shit, it's viewed as too much work to actually cycle through the turds, and we go plodding along with the same old status quo.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

This is the problem that's been going on in Australia "doesn't matter who I vote for, they won't win it'll just be a Labour/Liberal candidate" Lo and behold, last election a seat that has been held by liberals for the last 50 years was won by a Greens candidate, several seats were won by the greens last election that had never been held by anyone other than the two major parties before, if people get up off their asses and get this stupid fucking notion of "I can't make a difference" out of their heads they'll find that actually yes, you can't make a damn difference.

[fireheart17]

This is the problem that's been going on in Australia "doesn't matter who I vote for, they won't win it'll just be a Labour/Liberal candidate" Lo and behold, last election a seat that has been held by liberals for the last 50 years was won by a Greens candidate, several seats were won by the greens last election that had never been held by anyone other than the two major parties before, if people get up off their asses and get this stupid fucking notion of "I can't make a difference" out of their heads they'll find that actually yes, you can't make a damn difference.

To clarify for people not in Australia, our political system works a little differently.

You've got the lower and upper house similar to the US, except that at state level, the state is run by a premier, who is the leader of whatever party holds the most seats, and the same rule applies at federal level except we have a Prime Minister rather than a Premier.

Third parties can hold a lot more sway than say in the US. The "major" minor parties at the moment are:

-Greens (sort of considered to be an offshoot of the Labor party, but very environmental and are pro-gay marriage-any other Aussies willing to help me here???)

and

-Family First (the complete OPPOSITE to the Greens, very much pro-life, very much anti gay-marriage), or as I refer to them, Religion in Politics in Disguise (the group was formed by a former Assemblies of God pastor and a good chunk of their members are church-goers)

A couple of minor-minor parties are:

-The Australian Sex Party (yes, that's as it sounds. Short version: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, wanting sex ed in ALL schools and wanting to end tax-exempt status on religion. Only thing I don't necessarily agree with is the decriminalisation of ALL illicit drugs)
-One Nation (were big in the late 90's, but sorta died out in the 2000's, their leader was frankly, a xenophobic cow who didn't know what the word xenophobic meant)
-Christian Demographic party, run by Fred Nile, who has been somewhat controversial. Short version: believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, wants to stop anything "pagan" going on.

And you have your independents. Only independent in my state (and now federal IIRC) I can recall off the top of my head is Nick Xenophon. originally he was a one-issue man (namely No Pokies), he's levelled out a bit more in recent years. Sort of well-known for pulling some damn good campaign stunts, the best one being walking a mule down Rundle Mall to point out his stubborn-ness

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Oh, I always vote third party.

Not because I think that particular turd smells sweeter. I would just like a choice of more than two types of turds, so that's my vote. My vote is "more choices, please."

Not that I think that new, fresh and minty turd will be any less a turd. I guess at some level, all I'm really doing is expressing dissatisfaction with the current system.

I dunno, I'm pushing fifty. After three decades of being an adult, eventually you quit believing that if you bite into enough turds, one of them will turn out to be a snickers bar.

[mikoyan29]

The current system is not set up for a viable third party. You have them in other countries because of how their governments are set up. But with the current voter turnouts, you have roughly a quarter of the population making the decisions.

[Shalom]

Low voter turnout really pisses me off.

I don't know why, because it means that my vote counts that much more, but just on general principles it pisses me off.

How many times have you heard someone grousing about the latest politician doing whatever. You ask them "Well, who did you vote for?" and they say "Oh, I didn't bother, they're all the same anyway." My response to that is that if you didn't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about the results of that election. If you voted for one candidate and the other guy got in, then you have every right to complain that the other folks in your electoral district didn't take your opinion into account when casting their ballots. If you did vote for the guy and he went back on his promises and didn't do what you'd been led to think he would, then you have even more right to complain that the guy is a lying sack of shit. But if you didn't vote at all, then you've abdicated your right to complain.

I think that what bugs me the most is, no matter what position it is, from President of the United States right down to county dog catcher, every politician's number one job is getting himself reelected. It certainly seems to be what they spend the majority of their time in office doing. Whatever the hell we elected them to do in the first place always seems to take second place.

[HYHYBT]

If most people are going to be ignorant anyway (which they are) and don't really have a preference among the available choices, do you *really* want them voting anyway? All that does is, at best, throw in randomization and at worst, give an even higher advantage to those best at misleading those who aren't paying close attention.

Far better that only people who WANT to vote do so.

[ParkingWitch]

But if you didn't vote at all, then you've abdicated your right to complain.

I've been saying this for years.

I think that what bugs me the most is, no matter what position it is, from President of the United States right down to county dog catcher, every politician's number one job is getting himself reelected. It certainly seems to be what they spend the majority of their time in office doing. Whatever the hell we elected them to do in the first place always seems to take second place.

This is all too true.

Another thing that bugs me, it seems that quite a lot of people will complain about "pork" projects and "earmarks", but it is most often for those going into other areas, but don't touch the "needed" projects in their own area.

[SkullKing]

Originally Posted by Shalom
But if you didn't vote at all, then you've abdicated your right to complain.

I don´t think that is quite right. Not voting can, in itself, be an action, not just inaction.

It may be one way of saying "neither of this candidates has my trust, and I do not find either an appropriate person for a position of power"

It can be a political statement as much as a vote.

Where I live, voting is mandatory, considered a duty, more than a right.

However you can vote "blank" which means any of the candidates is OK as far as I am concerned.

Or "null" which means neither of the candidates are OK.

You also have many ill-informed people voting just because they have to, resulting in some horrible but charismatic politicians getting elected by people who know nothing about politics, have no real opinion on it, or who can barely read(or read at all, since illiterates can vote)

[wolfie]

The polls were open since early in the morning. I was there at 3:45 PM, and the serial number on my voting tag was 5.

Yup. I was the fifth person from my ward to go cast my ballot, nine hours after the polls opened.

Now it's true that the election is totally meaningless if you're registered as a Democrat, because there is only one candidate for each position, so you basically either vote for the guy on the ballot, or you do a write-in. Surrogate, vote for one, one candidate listed. Assembly, vote for two, two candidates listed. Board of Frozen Cheeseholders Chosen Freeholders, vote for 2, two candidates listed. Etc. If it weren't for the statutory requirement for a write-in candidate, they could have skipped the whole damn thing altogether and saved themselves a bundle of money.

Basically, from what you say, if the Republicans had arranged for a dozen of their people to be cross-registered, they could have used write-ins to get the Republican candidates chosen as the Democrat candidates for the election. What would the ballot in the actual election have looked like, with the same people running as both the Republican and Democrat candidates?