Not at all voters - why don't you vote?

[upinwath]

Easy.

Voters are totally fed up of corrupt politicians who get away with everything.

A few bent MPs getting banged up won't change anything while the worst cases such as Mandelson are allowed to roam the streets..

[Mr Prime]

cushy number for him, but I think it was actually some other dude from 18th century who famously said it first, I can't be arsed googling, but it's like asking why do Monkeys eat bananas, people who crave power are attracted to certain jobs, and they're most likely to be corrupted, the best people to have in power are those that crave it the least, ie monkeys..

 

Livingstone in his Cricklewood house with no car who started off in a bedsit is probably the least cushy politician I can think of and one of the reasons he's my favourite.

 

It's true about who should have power but sadly they never want it. Apparently Einstein was offered the post of Prime Minister of Israel but wasn't bothered.

[BettyBooHoo!]

I must admit to not voting for over 15 years, i just don't think that anyone represents my needs/wishes/thoughts, and a vote just for the sake of it is just as bad as not voting, imo.

 

Ditto. I have no interest in voting for any of them. They all tell you what you want to hear to get the votes then don't deliver.

[Cavegirl]

Here are the top 5 reasons why I don't vote (though there are plenty more):

 

1. Our 'democracy' is, always has been and was in fact designed to be undemocratic. The provision of the House of Lords, a top tier of government that is composed of hereditary peers, bishops and nepotistic appointments, which can prevent a law or policy change that was demanded by the majority of voters from being enacted makes our 'democracy' actually a form of oligarchy. All votes are therefore wasted votes whilst ever this tier exists.

 

2. Corporations, especially the financial sector, have become so embroiled in our politics, through lobbying, bribery and the 'revolving door' that they now have far greater say over our economic and social life than any group of voters could possibly achieve. Corporations/ governments not only run the government and occasionally hold it to ransom, they also have the ability to manipulate the mass social perception and psychology because they control the mass media. Corporations/ governments decide which news stories are given precedence based upon what suits them best at the time.

The reason our two main political parties have so few differences between them is because they are both pandering, not to the public, nor to any ideology, but to the corporations.

 

3. Governments are the only body that have the legal right to commit acts of violence against human beings whether that be through acts of war or through the police force. I believe that state violence and the way it is portrayed in the media is far more damaging to society than violent video games will ever be. I'm not a violent person and therefore I don't want my hands to be bloodied by giving my consent to this.

 

4. I believe that it is immoral for people to try to control the lives of others and I hope that one day there will be a mass awakening to this.

 

5. I believe that a lawful, co-operative, equal but stateless world society is the endgame of civilisation. When people accept full responsibility for their actions and truly care for and engage with those around them then we'll need to create a new word because 'civilised' will mean to that future generation what barbaric means to us. My not voting is therefore the best thing I can do for society.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Here are the top 5 reasons why I don't vote (though there are plenty more):

 

1. Our 'democracy' is, always has been and was in fact designed to be undemocratic. The provision of the House of Lords, a top tier of government that is composed of hereditary peers, bishops and nepotistic appointments, which can prevent a law or policy change that was demanded by the majority of voters from being enacted makes our 'democracy' actually a form of oligarchy. All votes are therefore wasted votes whilst ever this tier exists.

...

5. I believe that a lawful, co-operative, equal but stateless world society is the endgame of civilisation. When people accept full responsibility for their actions and truly care for and engage with those around them then we'll need to create a new word because 'civilised' will mean to that future generation what barbaric means to us. My not voting is therefore the best thing I can do for society.

 

1. No they can not. The House of Lords can propose amendments and can refer legislation back to the commons (and they often do when the legislation has been drafted poorly.) They cannot 'prevent a law or policy change.' See The Parliament Acts (1911) and (1949.) The elected lower house has the ultimate right to enact legislation in the face of opposition from the upper house.

 

5. If people were to accept full responsibility for their actions, would that not mean the demise of most of the present benefit system?

 

'If you don't bother going to school, or if while you are there you muck about and don't bother to learn, then you may find that you are unemployable. That's your fault and the state is not going to support you.'

 

That would go down well.

 

'If you breed 'em and you can't feed 'em, that's your fault.'

 

That'd go down well, too.

[Riⅽhy]

I you don't vote you can't complain about the way the country is being run.

 

If all them who've lost they jobs recently voted then they might still be in work now.

[Vague_Boy]

Also the title of Ken Livingstone's autobiography and obviously nothing more than a hoary old cliche or he wouldn't have devoted his life to it.

 

A politician's view of voting is somewhat different to ours, it's the one time they actually need us (albeit briefly).

 

Of course, once they're in power, they don't need us for a few years, so don't feel obligated to listen to us (Treaty of Lisbon vote, Iraq war demonstrations etc.).

 

Until the next election of course, when there ensues an exaggerated pantomimesque façade of "listening to the voter".

 

I've seen more elections than I care to admit to. Enough to recognize the same old routine when I see it.

 

Although a "maverick", Ken's done alright out of the system over the years.

 

A cliché BTW is something that has become so overused that it's impact has been lost. That's not the same as it no longer being true.

[Mecky]

I you don't vote you can't complain about the way the country is being run.

 

If all them who've lost they jobs recently voted then they might still be in work now.

 

I think that's just a saying you've heard someone say and you thought you'd use it yourself.

[andikay]

Not every vote is counted, voting will change nothing if you are unfortunate enough to live in an area where the seat is safe, but it will waste a few minutes of my life.

More people would vote when every vote counts and everyone in society is represented. Vote PR

Ups we can’t because the two ruling parties don’t want a fair system.

[Mr Prime]

1. No they can not. The House of Lords can propose amendments and can refer legislation back to the commons (and they often do when the legislation has been drafted poorly.) They cannot 'prevent a law or policy change.' See The Parliament Acts (1911) and (1949.) The elected lower house has the ultimate right to enact legislation in the face of opposition from the upper house.

 

5. If people were to accept full responsibility for their actions, would that not mean the demise of most of the present benefit system?

 

'If you don't bother going to school, or if while you are there you muck about and don't bother to learn, then you may find that you are unemployable. That's your fault and the state is not going to support you.'

 

That would go down well.

 

'If you breed 'em and you can't feed 'em, that's your fault.'

 

That'd go down well, too.

 

Brilliant answer and no doubt Cavegirl would be happy to see giant mobs of former benefit users hold the nation to ransom if her views were taken literally. Your info on the House of Lords is exactly what I was taught in my politics course nearly twenty years ago. This implies that she has not looked up the facts but merely regurgitates anarchist texts. Never mind the fact that if the BNP were poised to take her constituency or her council she'd sit back and let them as voting against them would be stupid. Or are we now going to hear some contradiction as to why voting is then OK?