Wirey
Fartist
Moving the goalposts?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hypothetical: What if no one voted in a democratic election?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Alien826
No religious beliefs
A tool shed is where you keep tools.
A bicycle shed is where you keep your bike.
A water shed is where you keep water.
A vote for "I don't care" is still a vote of sorts.
Someone who chooses not to vote is tacitly saying that any option would be legitimate.
Altfish
Veteran Member
In the UK, there has just been a bi-election in Rochdale, turnout was 39.7%
The assumption is that the rest couldn't be bothered or were voting "None of the above"
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I still don't understand the accusation? I just asked a relevant question and you accuse me of something? Rather silly. I'm not playing a game of soccer lol.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Or they can be saying the exact opposite. I don't vote and I'm not tacitly saying any option is fine. I'm loudly saying no one has the right to rule over me.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Being raised in America, the mantra that I observed was that the legitimacy of the rule came from the people. That's what made America special and the best. Because we all have a democratic say in our government.
I don't think what I'm asking is too hard to grasp, but I'll try to elaborate.
America government is supposedly a government for the people by the people. That's what kids are taught in America (it wasn't too long ago i was one, though, I find the time between me and my school days widening more quickly than i anticipated, it's weird). If no one really takes part in the democratic process, (like a soft majority), is the ideals that the kids are taught about their government false? Democracy supposedly gets its "legitimacy" from the fact that everyone has a say. If a majority of people don't participate, or even if the non voting population has the highest rate of votes (e.g. Trump 30%, Biden 30%, Not voting 40%) then is the idea that democracy is a government "by the people" false?
I obviously believe every form of government to be "illegitimate". But I thought this was an interesting way to explore the logic behind democracy, the most well loved political system.
If the right of a democratic government to exist doesn't come from the fact that it's people legitimize the system through voting, then where does it's "legitimacy" come from?
I am trying to understand the mindset of statists. I was once one, but you guys are yet still.
My mindset is that anarchists are most often naive folks with an adolescent understanding of the role of, and need for, governance in civil society.
Dominant view in the western world would be to suggest that voter apathy is not a concern for the legitimacy of the government or system.
Public sentiment which is characterized as 'voter apathy' is basically seen as something that people need to be educated/indoctrinated or shamed out of.
I do not agree with this perspective. Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.
Instead of expecting dominant political parties to put forward a program and do work to bring the apathetic crowd into the polls, those who carry this belief misdirect their rage that should be against the system and ruling powers against non-voters. This 'voter apathy' formulation essentially accepts the legitimacy of the election as a first principle and the deflection of blame makes it a very potent ideological narrative for the dominant political groups to reproduce.
In Canada the Indigenous population have relatively low turnout (with the exception of the most recent election where the Canadian government promised reconciliation, but it is projected to fall again). It is a decently popular perspective to note that many Native people consider participating in the Canadian federal elections to be complicit in the erosion of the sovereignty of First Nations.
Some articles on the CBC about this below:
Secret Chief
Very strong language
If the candidates aren't going to vote why did they stand?
Despite my above post, I must say that I highly disagree with this aspect of your post.
There is a big difference between whether or not you agree or condone a government or state and whether it is recognized as legitimate by its subjects or the international community. To take such an absolutist stance that no government is 'legitimate' in my view serves to obfuscate what sovereignty is. Political Legitimacy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Rage is inappropriate. What is appropriate is that the informed non-voter be held accountable for the consequences (if any) of his or her inaction.
I'd disagree about the message you send by not voting.
You're "loudly" saying it by acting entirely in keeping with someone whose position is "meh - whoever you pick to rule over me is fine"?
Fair objection, I may have been a tad hyperbolic.
Be held accountable in what sense?
Exactly, it comes from the voters, not from the non-voters. Nobody cares about your opinion if you don't vote.
First, non-voters do not constitute a monolithic cohort.
- There is the non-voter who is simply indifferent.
- There is the non-voter who rails against the machine no matter the nature of the machine.
- There is the non-voter who believes that boycotting the election will send a message more valuable that any possible vote.
- There is the non-voter who believes that any vote would be unprincipled.
Perhaps that would be part of the problem.
Wirey
Fartist
I remember when I was a wee lad in Nova Scotia, there was a time when I had a dream of buying a new hunting rifle. I was barely old enough to get a hunting license, but like all kids before me I figured "Hey, money should be easy to get if you want it, right? Just look at how Willis and Arnold did after they met the Drummonds!" So I applied for a student job on a project that the Province of Nova Scotia was running.
The first (and I mean first) thing that happened was that they checked to see if my parents had voted in the last provincial election. That taught me everything I ever needed to know about voting. We have created as system that rewards participants who engage in that system, and punishes the outsiders. When I hear someone say "I don't vote," what I actually hear is "My sense of self-interest is out of whack, and I have no clue how the world really works." I vote in every election. Federal, provincial, municipal. Hell, I would literally vote for dog catcher. And as a consequence, when I contact my MP, or my MLA, or my alderman, and say "I want an answer," I get one. Vote. Vote! It's in your best interest!
The first (and I mean first) thing that happened was that they checked to see if my parents had voted in the last provincial election. That taught me everything I ever needed to know about voting. We have created as system that rewards participants who engage in that system, and punishes the outsiders. When I hear someone say "I don't vote," what I actually hear is "My sense of self-interest is out of whack, and I have no clue how the world really works." I vote in every election. Federal, provincial, municipal. Hell, I would literally vote for dog catcher. And as a consequence, when I contact my MP, or my MLA, or my alderman, and say "I want an answer," I get one. Vote. Vote! It's in your best interest!
Yerda
Veteran Member
Another student wouldn't have been considered if their parents hadn't voted in a provincial election?
That officials abusing access to data might use it against your family if you don't?