I also posted this on the Republic of Heaven in the knowledge that I’d get a few interesting replies there.

I’m not so sure I agree.
Well actually that’s not true. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, but not the conclusions you’ve reached.

Out of interest, do you register to vote and then abstain, or do you not even go that far? There’s arguments for both, but I’m just wondering. The statistics never take such thought out and considered abstentions into account, and thus non-voters get portrayed en masse as uncaring, politically challenged fools, and I think this leads to the practice of spoiling votes, which is frankly pointless.

I think it was Camus that said that democracy only works if we assume we know nothing. The thing is, who does know anything? Yes, the higher echelons of a party might know some things, but Jack Straw, for example, has held almost every Great Office of state. He clearly isn’t an expert in all the things he’s been secretary of, so why even bother having an elected official taking the job? Parliament provides a (relatively) public face for politics, which would not exist if all such things occurred within the civil service. However, the desire for such a thing grew out of the development of democracy, which in itself came from a necessity to restrict the powers of the monarch.
So if you look at in that light, democracy is a positive thing. I’d much rather have Brown, or (though it is actually physically painful for me to say it,) Cameron than Elizabeth Windsor or her, i’m sure perfectly nice but unqualified offspring, deciding the fate of the country.

In one, two, three, or even two and a bit party, majoritarian systems, there is little chance for the changes you say, quite rightly, don’t occur, as the next election is always in the back of an elected official’s mind. They won’t necssarily stick to their guns on controversial areas, for fear of losing power in four years time, though this is not always the case. Blair’s plans for Devolution and the NIPP are a good example, though his landslide majority is an exception. There is also no space, on the whole, for minority parties to achieve anything, and so the main parties get bigger and there is even less chance of change.

Also, the idea of abstaining from voting is something that can only really exist in democracies. The turnouts in places like Nepal and Iraq show that once free and fair elections were provided, votes were snapped up, because in emerging democracies, voters do have power as the systems that emerge will be shaped by those in power. I suppose it could be easy to dismiss your argument as simply alienation at an imperfect but established and functional system, and I do think that there is a certain obligationt to use a vote because of the history behind it, but this is, for middle class, white males, somewhat less of a contentious point than working class men or women.

However, the reason I vote (not that i’ve voted on anything more important than a local council election due to an administrative error :( ), is partly to fool myself into thinking that I’m playing a part, but more importantly to show other people, whoever it may be that’s looking, that I’m not like them. I’m not conservative, I’m not euroskeptic, and I don’t believe in britishness (or any devolved nationality). I’m not any of those, or other things that seem to be overwhelmingly pervasive in the UK at the moment.
I care about PR, International Co-operation, the Environment, LGBT and Gender rights (I grew up in the only place in the country it’s still illegal to teach children in schools that homosexuality is wrong), and so I vote for either of the two parties that I feel place sufficient emphasis on these things. I know the Greens and the LibDems will never win a majority, but I’m showing the other people who refuse to believe in them that people do care, and in the hope that if other people did too, it would suggest to even the staunchest non-believer that we’re not loonie-lefties or whacked out hippies, but a substantial proportion of the population.
Yes, the same thing can be achieved through activism, but rightly or wrongly, elections can provide a degree of legitimacy to a platform. (And yes, I realise this is not always true, as thankfully the electoral victories of the BNP, UKIP and Veritas etc. show)

Hopefully that will have made sense. I changed my mind several times midway through writing this, and I’m sure it’s a bit convoluted…

I *always* vote, ever since I didn’t vote in the first general election I was old enough to vote in, in 1992, because I wasn’t on the electoral role because I was evading the Poll Tax. I felt absolutely terrible about the Tory victory, and I swore I’d never not tick a box again.

Also, there are many, many places in the world where people don’t get to vote in fair and free elections. In the UK, women have only been able to vote on the same terms as men for about 80 years. So I do it because I can.

Also, I think there is a point. I don’t think elections are a farce, I think they are the beginning of political participation, not a substitute for it. I think the voting age should be lowered to 16, and I think voting should be compulsory, like it is in Australia (though there should also be the option of a ‘None of the Above’). Winston Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, and I think he was bang on. Clive James was brilliant on this on radio 4 last week http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/views/a_point_of_view/ — I’d definitely vote for him.

Also, it’s fun. http://joella.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-love-to-vote.html

I didn’t see either of these comments before I posted my letter to Andrew Smith. Suffice to say that it wasn’t directed at either of you, anyway, since neither of you have tried to criticise me for not voting. Instead you’ve given my brain some healthy exercise. :)

Also, you should be aware that I’m not out to persuade anyone not to vote - my decision not to is purely statistical: I know it won’t have an impact so I’ll spend my time doing something I think is more worthwhile - so I have no reason to try to stop others from voting. So this, for me, is just an interesting discussion; although I suppose I’m putting my pride on the line, since there’s every possibility somebody could persuade me to change my stance whereas I’m not even trying to do the same for anybody else.

What strikes me about both your responses is that you seem to be voting for almost therapeutic reasons, rather than to make a difference. (Which, of course, is fine!)

Nick: you vote for show. I’m not sure whether you do it to show people that you support the Greens/LibDems, or to show them that people support the Greens/LibDems. Either way, what you’re doing is in itself essentially activism - you’re raising the profile of a cause you believe in, which is great.

(My abstinence isn’t by way of protest - it’s just that I feel I can better spend the time doing something else - so no, I don’t register.)

PS. I always like it when you debate with me, and I know you’re always apprehensive about causing conflict - so please don’t worry and do carry on!

Jo: I absolutely agree that “[elections] are the beginning of political participation, not a substitute for it”, and of course they are necessary to give MPs an incentive to honestly represent us. The point for me is that they’re such a small start that I feel I can skip them and move on to participating in what I see as much more significant action. One thing that does bother me is that a lot of people see it as the end - they treat their vote as if it’s their last great opportunity to have a say, which I think is a real shame.

But don’t feel bad about the Tories - they won by more than one vote!

A couple of other things that occured to me. The SNP devolved government have a mandate of 49 votes. That’s right. Fourty Nine.
They have a majority of one, not counting their coalition and one independent-snp candidate, and in one of the constituencies, due to a large number of spoilt ballot papers, their lead over Labour was a tiny amount. Considering the SNP’s policy of independence, this one candidate probably will, in some way or another, be used to bring about a consitutional referendum on the future of the UK within the next 3 years, which would have been unlikely if it were reversed. Also the Minnesota Senate election is another one I can think of off hand.
I know this isn’t par for the course, and with the SNP thing, the nature of the lead isn’t normal, but there are some case in which low numbers of voters can make a difference. You may not be prosletysing, but if there were less than a hundred others who thought like you in one constituency, or 220 across a whole state in the latter case, results can change.

Also, the reason I cared about the European elections was that I believe in the EU. I think a federal supra-national body is a good thing, and with a bit of reform, Europe would benefit more from co-operation than the individual countries would apart. Too few people do, especially in the UK, and even more people simply don’t care. I can’t really explain it well, but for that reason, I will participate in the elections because I think I have a moral duty to support the institutions of a body I believe in when few others do.

As for whose benefit it is I’m voting, I think it’s probably the latter, though the former does hold some weight. It’s not just online that I shy away from conflict, and none of the politically active people I know remotely share my views. And since most of them belong to one of the pre-eminent university debating society in the world, I’m not so good at holding my own, so I don’t tend to shout my views from the rooftops. But every vote for a minor party, however disgusting it may be, will show that there are people who aren’t happy with the status quo being provided by the major parties.

nick said, “But every vote for a minor party, however disgusting it may be, will show that there are people who aren’t happy with the status quo being provided by the major parties.”

is there ever talk of electoral reform in the UK?

Certainly, now more than any recent time, following the expenses scandal. There was even a story on BttS about it. I’m sceptical that anything will change, however, since the people who have the power to change it know that it’s not in their interests to do so (and the other people who have the power to change it - the public - as with everything else don’t realise they have the power to change it).

Came to this blog via Joella.

I really believe you’re completely wrong.

As an internet-savvy blogger, you must be familiar (and presumably a champion) of concepts such as the Long-Tail, or Collaborative Power, etc. All of those things are celebrated on the Internet - the ways in which one tiny voice/web page/comment amongst millions is important. Your vote is the equivalent of this very blog. Why do you blog? Do you really think the “world” is listening to your blog? Of course it’s not, but that doesn’t make your blog worthless; it’s important to a tiny weeny number of people, and that little influence on society is positive. Your vote is the equivalent. To be a blogger and a non-voter is contradictory.

“Elections are a farce”. Please, that’s just ridiculous. I’ve not voted for my Labour MP (Andrew Smith) for the last two elections. However, he’s a brilliant constituent MP and we have corresponded many times. We disagree on many things, but I respect his opinions and he is a great representative of East Oxford. He’ll probably get my vote next time. Why’s this important? Because I have _engaged_ with the process.

Please - don’t blog about the problems, do something active. It’s easy to sit at your keyboard and pontificate, but the time you spent writing this post would be have been just as vocal as going down the road and voting.

Welcome!

The difference between writing a blog that a few friends and family read and casting a vote is that whether 1 person or 1,000 people read my blog, each of the people that does will both create and feel the outcome of doing so - whereas whether a candidate wins by 1 vote or 1,000 votes, the outcome is identical. The effect of blogging is personal while the effect of voting is cumulative.

Part of what frustrates me, as I’ve said to Jo, is that so much emphasis is put on the vote, and the rest of the political process is left to the people we elect. I have also engaged, and will continue to engage, with the process, in a myriad of different ways. Someone like me who hasn’t voted but is still politically involved is chastised for apathy despite probably being more active than most voters. Voting is, as Jo pointed out above, just the beginning.

Have a look at my next post - the time that I would have spent being vocal by going down the road and voting was in fact spent being vocal and politically active in a different manner that I think also addresses your points and hopefully proves that abstention doesn’t necessarily equal inactivity or apathy.

Hi Kinders
Firstly - you correctly realised I hadn’t read the letter to Andrew Smith (or even all the comments already posted on this entry). So, apologies for suggesting you’re not engaged.

I don’t think blogging is too different from voting. However, I’d never thought of that concept before commenting on this blog yesterday, so it’s not quite formed in my own head yet, let alone in a way I could coherently explain in a comment!

You say you’re a Champagne Anarchist (ugh, I *hate* that term…!). What does that mean? It doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page! I’ve always felt is is a wishy-washy term to justify shouting about “injustice” but then doing very little about it. Ok, I accept you engage, but until you vote I think your authority is weakened.

PS -
I wrote to Andrew Smith at the start of the expenses scandal. I write to him moderately often, via letters and emails. He has always responded. We’ve had some wild disagreements (Iraq) and many agreements (Heathrow Expansion).

His response to my expenses letter was a 2-page hand-written letter. He’s always struck me as a man of integrity who is dedicated to the constituency.

The end result? I ****want**** to vote for him. I go to the polling both because he has shown me that he is a good representative. I want to do whatever little bit I can to get him voted in, because he deserves that from me.

When I call myself a champagne anarchist I mean that anarchy for me is a “perfect world” ideology, but not one that I’ve thought carefully enough about the ramifications to really work for it. No doubt you know the phrase champagne socialist - it’s just a variation on that. Perhaps it’s the political equivalant of agnosticism?