"If you don't vote you've got no right to complain" - refuted

Posted by: Deane F on 20 November 2004

This refrain from the self-righteous voter has always got on my nerves. Here is how I see it:

Casting a vote in a democratic election implies that the person casting that vote agrees with the democratic system.

An agreement with the democratic system implies that the outcome is seen as fair by all voters even when some of those voters did not vote for the winner of said election.

If the participants have all agreed in this way that the outcome is fair then all voters have given a mandate to the elected government. This includes even those voters who, by their votes, did not intend to give a mandate to the elected government.

If all voters have given a mandate to the elected government then the statement is true that "if you do vote then you've got no right to complain."

In my view, everybody within the territory of a sovereign nation has the right to complain about it's government. The statement that non-voters have no right to complain seems to hide an assumption that voting is the only participation in government allowed to citizens of democratic states.

Deane
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Mick P
Deane

Let us be honest.......some people LOVE to complain.

The world is full of whingers.

Regards

Mick......basically happy with life.
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Deane, and here's how I see it.
A subject close to my heart; and even though it's also been discussed before at
length here, and I think it's important, as (Tony Blair & increasingly of late a
certain newly re-elected Chief Executive) would/do often say that Democracy and
the right to vote are not minimalised in any way. Firstly I refer to elections
based around modern wetstern Cities like London, Christchurch, Berlin, Telaviv,
etc, that apply more dierectly to our own experiences of choosing wether to
vote or not. My view is always that if one does have the privelage to vote, then
casting a spoilt ballot deliberately is quite as acceptable (Protest) as casting
a valid one, the point being you have cast an opinion, and subsequently have the
moral (legally-Peacefull) right to both publically demonstrate and complain. If
you have voted and your choice isn't the winner, then naturtally one can
complain, but about the opposition's policies, and not the system itself, which
in all Countries is/are ever changing (non partisan for the better?) to ensure
minimal cheating, fraud, & indimidation as is always the want of mnay Human
beings when mega power stakes are on the table, it being the nature of the
beast, and the system developed to counter that horrible truth from getting its
own way unopposed, an ever developing safety mechanism to optimistically
though realistically help us all get as near as we can to this thoing we call
Democracy,if you get my drift ? I don't think I'll go into the ins and outs of
other Countries trials and tribulations on this fairness subject, you can maybe
imagine, N.Ireland, future Palestine, Uganda, Switzerland, Zimbabwe, etc, etc,
as places far devoid of those freedoms.

That's it for now I reckon, have a good day now.

Graham Von West Ham (My favourite football team) & Millwall (My least favourite
football team) fans today will no doubt take two minutes silence to repect the
shock of those nasty racist Spaniards of late and hope such things never happen
in England (I think not )

P.S. I'll bet those guys from Pitcairn thought, "me getting tried for my crimes"
(knowingly doing wrong, and against their own modern religious codex let alone
the law) "never in a million years", Seemingly What goes around really does come
around Mr Christian !!!", dunnit ? Big Grin
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Steve O
If people utolised their right to vote in the first place it may make a difference and they wouldn't feel the urge to complain.
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by HTK
How do they know you voted in the first place?

Harry
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Edouard S.
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:

I'm afraid I believe everyone should vote but that there should be a box for "None of the above"

Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm


There is one : blank ballot.

Edouard S.
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:

Isn't compulsory in Australia?


no, it's compulsory to turn up and get your name crossed off the list.
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:

Don't they weigh the difference between votes and attendance?


I've only seen counts of donkeys but I'm sure the stats are somewhere if anyone wants to know.

quote:

If Labour get back in I'm off to New Zealand


if you're referring to the current government then it's the Liberals.
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by sideshowbob
I'm an unvoter (i.e., have taken the deliberate decision not to legitimise a process I have in-principle objections to by refusing to take part in it in any way at all, even by voting for "none of the above"). I don't see how this has any bearing on whether or not I have a "right" to complain about a government's actions.

-- Ian
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by NaimDropper
quote:
Casting a vote in a democratic election implies that the person casting that vote agrees with the democratic system.


What, then, do you propose is the best way to make your disagreement with the democratic system heard?
Anarchy demonstrations? Violence? A good program on Public Television?
Run a group of candidates that oppose democracy and vote them in. That's how it would work in the USA. Some may even say that's what happened in November...
How else can change happen within a country without violence and upheaval?
David
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by NaimDropper:
What, then, do you propose is the best way to make your disagreement with the democratic system heard?
Anarchy demonstrations? Violence? A good program on Public Television?
Run a group of candidates that oppose democracy and vote them in. That's how it would work in the USA. Some may even say that's what happened in November...
How else can change happen within a country without violence and upheaval?
David


In my country there are many more ways of being involved in the democratic system that just voting.

For example, Select Committees ask for public submissions on bills that are before the House. Usually it only the highly motivated or closely affected groups (or organised lobbyists) who make submissions but the point is that it is public.

Continual protest marches on controversial matters have been known to change a government's mind.

But if you don't agree with democracy itself then I guess you have to overthrow it by force. That's something you would probably need help with from other people - so you'd need their agreement on certain principles....

I have voted only in the last two general elections. Before that I didn't vote. What changed for me to vote was the end of first-past-the-post and the beginning of proportional representation.

Tom, your idea is interesting. An opportunity to count the votes of no-confidence would add a lot to the picture taken of public opinion at an election.

Deane
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Nime
The problem with democracy is that only the winner gets a seat. If every single candidate from the winning party had only 51% of the votes that half the population are completely unrepresented!

My next complaint against the democratic system is the unrepresentative leadership. Which totally ignores even its own party members once elected to the leadership position.

The only retraint on such leadership is a completely free press. But who owns the press? Roll Eyes

Nime
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by NaimDropper
I believe I understand your point, Deane and I respect it.
My point (not well stated) was that change happens mostly either through voting or violence. I prefer voting.
Yes, governments do pay attention to protesting and other voicing of the people. It's been said that GWB is the most protested man in history but I doubt it makes any difference to him.
quote:
In my country there are many more ways of being involved in the democratic system that just voting.

For example, Select Committees ask for public submissions on bills that are before the House. Usually it only the highly motivated or closely affected groups (or organised lobbyists) who make submissions but the point is that it is public.

Continual protest marches on controversial matters have been known to change a government's mind.

It is the same in the US, the lobbiests as we call them have considerable influence. Money talks.
quote:
But if you don't agree with democracy itself then I guess you have to overthrow it by force. That's something you would probably need help with from other people - so you'd need their agreement on certain principles....


What would you replace demoracy with? That is what troubles me about your answer. What "certain principles" would you think would be in common with people wanting to overthrow a democracy? Repression?
On second thought maybe I don't fully understand your point. I'll still respect it, I'm assuming you have come to this thoughtfully.
David
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by NaimDropper:
What, then, do you propose is the best way to make your disagreement with the democratic system heard?

David


David

Hi. I got my wires crossed. I don't disagree with the democratic system. I had read the part of your thread that I've quoted above to mean that you didn't agree, or that you were setting a hypothetical situation for a person that didn't agree, with the democratic system.

Sorry about that.

I'm not against the democratic system. I think Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst possible way to run a country - apart from all the other ways there are to run a country. But I have not suffered the misery of living under an oppressive regime and I sometimes reflect on just how good things are for me when I watch the news. I remember a lecturer once saying that the opportunity that we have in democracies to bloodlessly throw out a ruler we don't like - and on a regular basis - is unique in all of history and should never be taken for granted.

It's just the idea that voting buys a right to complain and that a non-vote somehow disqualifies the non-voter from complaining that gets on my nerves. My vote is not a privilege. Nor is my citizenship of my country. I have my citizenship of my country because I was born here and that gives me the right to complain about the government. If I was granted citizenship the same thing would apply.

I hope I've made my position more clear.

Deane
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Steve Toy
Deane,

I didn't vote in the last General Election because I live in a very safe Labour Constituency and I didn't want to vote Labour.

In the previous General Election I voted Labour in a safe Conservative Constituency. Whilst Labour won the election, the seat was still won by the Conservatives.

NB: My electoral address didn't change between the two elections but the Constituency boundaries did.

Historically both the two main parties have been guilty of altering Constituency boundaries in order to secure a victory in subsequent General Elections - yet another reason why Proportional Representation would be the truest form of democracy.

Democracy is best exercised by a minority of floating voters, and unfortunately, the rest vote in support of a given political party that they follow blindly as they would their favourite football team.

The Labour Government has succeeded in making themselves the fashionable party - the political issues themselves no longer count.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Sun 21 November 2004 at 4:12.]
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by NaimDropper
I'm with you now, Deane. Agree completely with the Churchill quote!
You do have to see the point of the folks that make the statement in the title of this thread. What they are probably saying is if you are not working to produce positive results and positive change (where necessary) then you have no right to complain. That doesn't necessarily include voting, but that would seem to be a minimum of "involvement" in my book.
Voting is considered by most as more than a right, certainly a privilege and an honor in the US, people fought and died in order to obtain and maintain the ability to vote and choose our own government.
Yes, we have low voter turnout sometimes, especially in recent history. Not everyone feels compelled to vote. It is so easy here; there is no other excuse than “I don’t really care”.
I have to claim ignorance of the intricacies of evolution and development of government in NZ, maybe you've always had voting and nobody had to suffer or produce change over a dominant monarchy or even a repressive government to get it.
But I doubt that very much.
David
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Deane F
David

I'm given to understand by media reports that voting is not so easy in the US. For instance the election was on a weekday (why was that??) and don't voters have to cast the vote in their home precinct? Elections here are held on Saturdays and you can cast your vote from wherever you are, in or out of the country, by way of a special vote.

I think I am lucky to have a vote but I do not see it as a privilege. Honour and privilege are obligations that fall upon those that are elected to govern. The Sword of Damocles dangles over a feast table, after all.


Steve

Perhaps you are too hard on your fellow countrymen?

No seat is truly safe. Many a government has lost an election by overestimating loyalty. My father was the safest National Party (Tory equivalent here) voter there ever was - until the last election. He was so disillusioned with them he voted for the Green Party Eek in the last election which really shocked me. The National Party has lost a huge amount of support here and it's people like my father that they are losing. People who've never thought of the issues at election time and just voted like they have for their whole lives.

Deane
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
I didn't vote in the last General Election because I live in a very safe Labour Constituency and I didn't want to vote Labour.

funny, the other 51% of people too lazy to vote said exactly the same thing...
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Should those people in last years widely publicised poatal vote fiasco that didn'zt get to vote, though wanted to very much have the the right to complain. The FIASCO was condemned from all sides, but fell upon deaf ears, and will soon be repeated once again, here I refer to BRITAIN, YES BRITAIN´; pleaqse get your prioroities right and stick with the original question, all off on the uual tangents on such an impotent issue, I really think it's ok that non of us in truth give a fuck, but we must never assume such ideas for others.


Graham Von I'vefinoishedonthisthreadwarbleonplease Winker
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by NaimDropper
Deane-
quote:
I'm given to understand by media reports that voting is not so easy in the US. For instance the election was on a weekday (why was that??) and don't voters have to cast the vote in their home precinct? Elections here are held on Saturdays and you can cast your vote from wherever you are, in or out of the country, by way of a special vote.


The media reports would like you to believe that all people in the US had to endure long lines and many voters (who, due to race, would probably vote Democrat) were turned away by the jack-booted Republican thugs.
Think about this for a moment. 59,459,765 votes for Bush, 55,949,407 votes for Kerry. All lazy Americans. How hard must it have been for all 115,409,172 (not counting people who didn't vote for K or B -- including Nader, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and a host of other 3rd parties -- or no presidential choice at all).
We all know it's coming (it's been held on the first Tuesday in November for many, many years), there are plenty of resources to register and find out where to vote, in most places you can show up and vote provisionally if you have moved, etc., you can vote absentee if you think you'll be out of the area on the given date, no workplace would ever dare fault you for being late in the morning or taking a moderate break for voting.
As for my wife and me, we left a few minutes early that AM, drove 5 miles to the school where we vote, walked right in, signed our names, voted (punch cards -- and we were able to punch the correct spots), dropped the cards in the slot and were off to work. No lines, no hassle, no jack-booted thugs demanding our "papers", we met a couple of the local candidates that were greeting us as we walked in, a model of the process.
In short, it is simple, easy and convenient to vote in the US for the vast majority.
There were long lines in a voting place near me; it was due to incompetence on the part of the person in charge.
Honor and Privilege:
I consider it an honor and a privilege to be able to enjoy the freedoms earned by those that have gone before us.
David
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
pleaqse get your prioroities right and stick with the original question, all off on the uual tangents on such an impotent issue, I really think it's ok that non of us in truth give a fuck, but we must never assume such ideas for others.


Digression is an important part of discussion. I value that on this forum threads often diverge from their original topic.

Deane
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Deane-

_Honor and Privilege:_
I consider it an honor and a privilege to be able to enjoy the freedoms earned by those that have gone before us.
David


David

Your points about the ease of voting in the US are well made. Thank you for the information. It is good to have some information about the US like that - from somebody other than a journalist.

Deane
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by NaimDropper
Deane-
I'm sure the media makes us look like total boobs most of the time. And our view of the rest of the world is tilted as well.
It's great to be able to share perspectives like that.
David
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Deane F
David

Might I enquire as to how many of your friends or acquaintances didn't vote in the recent election? If there were any that didn't vote do you know their reasons?

Apathy is the explanation most commonly touted for the low turnout. What is your impression?

Deane
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by NaimDropper
I don't know anyone that didn't vote. Everyone I talked to was polarized in one direction or the other, and they were all very dedicated "voters" -- and would have stood in line for hours if necessary.
Really, I don't have any first hand knowledge of people who could but didn't.
David
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
pleaqse get your prioroities right and stick with the original question, all off on the uual tangents on such an impotent issue, I really think it's ok that non of us in truth give a fuck, but we must never assume such ideas for others.


Digression is an important part of discussion. I value that on this forum threads often diverge from their original topic.

Deane


That's a very very Robinsonesque statement Deane.

Cheers, Fritz Winker