Get out and Vote on May 2nd II

Quote:

Sorry, but the stakes are a bit high for pretending that you are above the issue. You want to not vote? Fine. but at least be decent enough to keep it to yourself like the other 40 percent of Canadians and 65 percent of youth who can't be bothered to vote. There is too much at stake to have any more gullible people thinking that you are offering a positive and productive choice. You are accomplishing nothing by your decision, and if you think are avoiding responsibility you are sorely mistaken. Not engaging in political decision-making is absolute failure and nothing else.

And if you claim to be politically aware it is even worse than for those who are truly apathetic because you should know better.

First, it is simply a mistake to assume that you are engaging in anything like political decision-making when you vote, considering history and pretty much all the empirical research done on this level of governance shows that your ballot, and the party it helps get seats in Parliament, are meaningless. Parties may court our vote and devise platforms according to opinion polls, but governance - the strictures to which parties are bound - could care less about you and me. Governance responds to the preferences of the wealthy (whether the wealthy vote or not). You can choose to legitimate a system that responds to the rich at your great cost, or not. That's the choice you have with voting. Casting a ballot does not demonstrate that one has risen above mere habit and disinformation.

Second, a view of political agency that equates action with voting and non-voting with inaction is just historically, practically, and theoretically off base. It's a rather antiquated (and very American liberal) conception of freedom that few take seriously. Youth don't take it seriously, which is why they don't have a problem abstaining from the vote. Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy. Which is why poor blacks in South Africa abstain, and why Egyptians abstained. If you don't see change - indeed, if things are getting worse - it's time to reevaluate your habits, especially the habit of voting.

 Please start with the empirical research showing voting has no effect and we'll go from there.

You are going to get a rough ride arguing that an election is irrelevant and voting makes no difference.

Indeed it is the very wealthiest who would like to discourage those who would vote against their interests. Our democracy is very, very flawed but you can start with showing research as you suggest that makes a case that abandoning what few democratic levers we have helps anyone but those who have the other levers of power.

Tobold -- please start backing up with facts instead of rhetoric.

Tobold.

I am sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

I wrote a fairly good-sized list in the first part of this little discussion about some very clear differences - even between the big bad main parties. You might want to go back and read it, because I happen to think there are some clear and specific issues on the line, depending on the choice that we make in a few weeks.

I'll just mention the long gun registry as one thing among many which clearly could go one way or the other, depending on the decision that is made.

The notion that nothing has been changed by voting is sheer nonsense.  I know that those who want a monopoly on power just love having you think that you are above the messy business of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that you have as much responsibility for what goes on there as we do.

[/quote]

What is a passive voter?

So you think that the political expression of staying at home is less passive than going out and voting.

Absurd.

[/quote]

A passive voter in this case is someone who votes for progressive change when for decades voting has only resulted in the retraction of gains made by active citizens. Non-voting is revoking one's endorsement of the legitimacy of retraction. Again, what makes voting or non-voting passive or active is not driving to the polling station, but what it accomplsihes. Voting in the present context isn't active because it encourages, allows, permits, and concedes to regressive governance.

Quote:

Sorry for getting distracted fromwhat's really important - the vague generalizations - by quibbling over specific policies like firearms registration.

I'm sure all the citizens who were injured or killed in the various uprising of the early 20th century - those who extracted democratic protections for the poor, women, laboureres, minorities, and the environment - would be less concerned with the systemic retaction of those gains to direct more money into the coffers of the super rich and more concerned with whether farmer Joe has to fill out some form in triplicate. I'm sure they'd also be very encouraged by the record of resistance tallied up by those checking boxes at the polling station.

I do find it a strange vision of democracy according to which abstention is somehow not political and also not something that should be mentioned in public.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

What is a passive voter?

So you think that the political expression of staying at home is less passive than going out and voting.

Absurd.

[/quote]...voting has only resulted in the retraction of gains made by active citizens..

[/quote]

You have no support for this comment. In fact voting or not has made huge differences in people's lives on everything from social policy to economic and tax policy.

You have no evidence for this

Freedom 55 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You want to not vote? Fine. but at least be decent enough to keep it to yourself

 

babble wrote:

babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up.

Yeah, a bit over the top perhaps, What I meant was.... if it keeps being brought up (as I have no doubt it will) don't expect anything but scorn from me, because I see it as dangerous, and nothing but lies.

Some people here seem to think there is going to be change when a huge groundswell of people challenge the voting system by doing nothing. I am saying we already have that groundswell of layabouts, and it is nothing to aspire to IMO. For all the noble chatter and condescension, your colleagues have nothing more to offer than that. 

And yes, I think it would be much better if you did not try to convince others that inaction is a good thing, because there are some who will believe it. Of course the notion that you might see the sense in that is just wishful thinking.

Thanks Sean