Why aren't you bothering?

[SongsOfDragons]

O.o

So...today, the 15th of November, we in the UK had a vote. We were to choose our local Police Commissioner, which is a new role made to reorganise our police force.

Fair enough. Whether it works or not, whether it's value for money or not, whether it's just another layer of bullshit or an amazing solution...regardless. Today was the day we vote for them.

However...almost everyone I've spoken to today aren't enamoured. And along that, aren't bothering. The polling station was emptier than usual. There's few discussions about it on FB, and the only one I found (a well-thought sensible one, I add) had a mate of a friend report that a 'tweet from politics editor Paul Waugh [said]: "Electoral Reform Society has put out statement calling Goverment's handling of PCC elections 'a comedy of errors'. Predicts final turnout of 18.5%" '.

Me --> Seriously?

Is it weird that I actually like the activity of voting? It does help that my local polling station is my local church just down the end of my road, within easy walking distance. So when so many reveal their apathy...well, as well as the nasty evil side of me (seriously, you never want to get me into power ) thinking you really don't have a right to complain about it if you don't bother voting... why? Is it simple apathy or is there something else?

Also, point of related discussion 2: Is there anything wrong with compulsory voting that I'm missing? It seems a good idea to me, as long as the powers that be make sure that everyone has a change to put their X in a box, or they make workplaces let staff go early to go vote... (which is probably what's wrong with it [/idealism])

[Andara Bledin]

First issue: I'm of the opinion that if you don't participate in the democratic process, you abdicate your right to bitch about what you end up getting. If you want to have a leg to stand on in your bitchfest about how awful the results are, then get off your duff and make a different.

If you can't be arsed to cast your ballot, then sit down, shut up, and take the government you let other people choose for you.

As for the second issue: The thing about freedom is that it should also include the freedom to be apathetic, lazy, or otherwise not participate in the process.

^-.-^

[SongsOfDragons]

First issue: You said it better than I did, me trying to pussyfoot around the issue. Nicely done!

Second issue: Ahh, now here I can't say I agree. I'd like to think that doing one's civic duty is indeed a duty...but, that's just my train of thought at the moment.

Though I did find an alternative to not wanting to vote - spoiling your ballot! I'd approve of this method as it allows you to show you're not happy with the candidates/situation, but at least you've gone and done something instead of just going 'meh'. Plus it's funny: http://pccspoil.tumblr.com/ (not entirely safe for work!)

[Andara Bledin]

The problem with "spoiling" a ballot is that there is a cost for dealing with things like that.

Every ballot that is non-standard has to be dealt with and takes significantly more time than one that is filled out properly.

There are less costly, more constructive, and more useful ways to work to enact the change one might want than doodling obscene art over the paper.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Heheh.

Cocks.

Edit: On a more serious note, Andycorn, I largely agree with you.

That said, what if I firmly believe that NONE of the candidates are qualified. Like if it was Billy MacKicksbabies and James Imanazi.

Point is, if I have two terrible choices, then what do I do, if I'm not writing in something non-standard that takes time and effort, and I find both candidates totally repugnant?

[Nekojin]

FWIW, I wrote in "Cassandra Peterson" on the Presidential election. I still went to vote, even though I dislike both candidates, for two reasons:

1.) There are other things than the Presidency on the ballot, and I do have an interest in how those turn out.
2.) By voting for a non-"approved" candidate, I'm sending a message, however weak it may be, that I'm not happy with the choices being presented.

[EricKei]

Agreed with AB on both counts.

Nekojin - I, for one, welcome our new overlord Mistress of the Dark...

[HYHYBT]

I do think that, if you don't think you have enough information to make a decision on an issue, there's nothing wrong with not voting on it. For example, if you know nothing about any of the police commissioner candidates, what would be the purpose in casting a ballot for one of them? That just throws extra randomness into the selection, or alternately an arbitrary bias, depending on whether there's some reason one name would attract more such votes than another.

In elections here, I know enough about the big stuff (president, senator, governor) to vote for the person. Sometimes other races as well, depending. Congress, I was surprised to find myself in a different district than I'd thought, and so voted for the party I usually prefer. Further down races which are unpartied, I can at least vote either for or against an incumbent, but how am I really going to know whether, say, the insurance commissioner is doing a good job? And when there's not even that clue, just two names I've never seen before unless I looked up the ballot in advance and even then will know nothing about either of them?

[SongsOfDragons]

Spoiled ballots cost more to deal with? That's something that didn't cross my mind. Tell me how?

We had very little...in fact, none at all... campaigning for the police commissioners. I had to go on the internet and actually find the information myself, and it was buried somewhere in the BBC website. Not everyone would have wanted to, been bothered to or in some cases have the skills to do that. Lots weren't happy because, as the picture site shows...they don't want to 'politicise the police'.

Thing is, that's an example. What if this had been a General Election? Most people would know what colour/logo to look for. But I remember people being apathetic back then...