# Voting is a farce



## z107 (19 Dec 2005)

_Split from this thread since it was not really on topic there. ClubMan._



> The only power we have, is the power to change the regime (by peaceful and democratic means)


The people also have the power to change the regime by civil war. Is this why you have the brackets around the peaceful bit?

(Off topic - but voting is pretty much a farce to appease the electorate. The people who want power, stay in power via this mechanism. People vote according to the following criteria:
1. Who they think will win - everyone likes to back a winner. This is controlled by the media.
2. Who their peers votes for, such as parents etc.
3. Many people don't even bother voting, making the result unrepresentative.
4. Some people would have met their candidate on the doorstep and blindly agreed a vote - or maybe liked the nice poster on the lamppost.
5. Tiny proportion read the manifestos and make a (somewhat) informed decision.)


----------



## Sherman (20 Dec 2005)

> 1. Who they think will win - everyone likes to back a winner. This is controlled by the media.
> 2. Who their peers votes for, such as parents etc.
> 3. Many people don't even bother voting, making the result unrepresentative.
> 4. Some people would have met their candidate on the doorstep and blindly agreed a vote - or maybe liked the nice poster on the lamppost.
> 5. Tiny proportion read the manifestos and make a (somewhat) informed decision.)


 
So what you're saying is that the public is stupid?

What's the alternative? A 'benevolent' dictator who 'knows best' for us?

We get the government we deserve, no more, no less.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Dec 2005)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> (Off topic - but voting is pretty much a farce to appease the electorate. The people who want power, stay in power via this mechanism. People vote according to the following criteria:
> 1. Who they think will win - everyone likes to back a winner. This is controlled by the media.
> 2. Who their peers votes for, such as parents etc.
> 3. Many people don't even bother voting, making the result unrepresentative.
> ...


 Do you have any practical/realistic suggestions for improvements on the situation as you see it?


----------



## shnaek (20 Dec 2005)

Voting is indeed a farce but it is the best system we have at present. The will of the majority will never be a great way to rule though. You end up with average politicians making average decisions. If you are lucky.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Dec 2005)

I strongly disagree that voting, and by extension democracy, is a farce regardless of what might motivate some people to vote (their prerogative after all and subject to privacy so impossible to measure accurately) or the (poor) quality of (some of) the representatives elected. What *is *a farce is the likes of the _Seanad _which isn't even a democratic institution with members either appointed or elected by select cabals. It really should be abolished or replaced with an upper house whose members are elected by universal suffrage.


----------



## Humpback (20 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> What *is *a farce is the likes of the _Seanad _which isn't even a democratic institution with members either appointed or elected by select cabals. It really should be abolished or replaced with an upper house whose members are elected by universal suffrage.


 
Apart from the cost to the state, why should we really care? 

It's just a talking shop for wanna-be politicians and a retirement home for those that fall out of favour for the electorate. It doesn't have any real meaningful input into the running of the country?


----------



## shnaek (20 Dec 2005)

The seanad may be a farce, but I don't think it's a bad idea to have unelected intellectuals and philosophers perusing certain issues of relevance to the running of the state.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Dec 2005)

It is *absolutely *anti-democratic to give unelected individuals the power to influence the governing of the state and enactment of legislation no matter how limited.


----------



## redbhoy (20 Dec 2005)

Bring on the Civil War!
I dont personally think the majority of the public are stupid. Misled maybe. I do agree with the people voting for the perceived winners though!

Unfortunately our elected representitives are clever enough to throw the odd few crumbs from the table down to the downtrodden to keep them thinking- sure we've never had it better.
Or that other classic- Sure, you'll never change it- thats how its always been.
Political education should be compulsory in primary and secondary and voting should be made compulsory also.
Although whichever government which brings it in will be voted out in the first changed election by the 50% or so of people who've never voted and are annoyed that they've to go out and miss a half hour of coronation street albeit to help elect the future government who'll run(ruin) their lives!


----------



## TarfHead (20 Dec 2005)

IMHO

Many people in this country do not understand PR and the way in which the second and lower preferences come into play (and I do not claim to be an expert).

I know my mother will usually vote for her favourite and will give some no-hoper her 3rd or 4th preference out of sympathy. By the time they've got that far down the ballot for distributions, the no-hoper is long since eliminated, so the preference was in vain.

Just once, in 1997, did all my preferences get counted, assuming of course my ballot paper was in whatever surplus(es) were relevant.


----------



## Gabriel (20 Dec 2005)

redbhoy said:
			
		

> ...and voting should be made compulsory also.



Yeah...bring on the Totalitarian state.


----------



## Humpback (20 Dec 2005)

redbhoy said:
			
		

> Political education should be compulsory in primary and secondary


 
Agree, most definitely.



			
				redbhoy said:
			
		

> voting should be made compulsory also.



Strongly strongly disagree. 

I have never voted in my 14 years of being eligible to vote, and I don't intend to start.

Why would you go and make me vote????


----------



## Janet (20 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Strongly strongly disagree.
> 
> I have never voted in my 14 years of being eligible to vote, and I don't intend to start.
> 
> Why would you go and make me vote????



I also think voting should be compulsory.  Or at least everyone eligible to vote should have to turn up on the day - they should then have the choice to vote or register a conscientious objection type view to the process.  But too many people don't vote out of sheer laziness and I have a big problem with that.


----------



## Gabriel (20 Dec 2005)

Janet said:
			
		

> I also think voting should be compulsory. Or at least everyone eligible to vote should have to turn up on the day



What happens to you if you don't turn up? Will they send us to Guantanemo?


----------



## tiger (20 Dec 2005)

Janet said:
			
		

> I also think voting should be compulsory. Or at least everyone eligible to vote should have to turn up on the day - they should then have the choice to vote or register a conscientious objection type view to the process. But too many people don't vote out of sheer laziness and I have a big problem with that.


 
Wasn't that one of the problems with the electronic voting systems, there was no way to spoil your vote (= conscientious objection for some) ?

(sorry if this takes this thread off on a tangent...)


----------



## Janet (20 Dec 2005)

Could be.  They should just add in a choice of name which is "none of the above" - that'd do it, don't you think?

Re the punishment for people who don't turn up, what would work?  Prison may be a bit extreme.  Why not a fine (hey, if they were actually able to collect them maybe they'd recoup some of the money spent on the e-voting mess!). 

I believe it's compulsory in Australia - anyone know what they do there?


----------



## Purple (20 Dec 2005)

The system isn't perfect but it's better than anything that went before and anything that has been proposed since.
Some people are lazy, some are disinterested, some are cynical and some are just too stupid to know what it is all about; there are plenty of reasons why people don’t vote.
No system will get everyone out to vote but everyone having the same opportunity and voice is what matters.


----------



## Marion (20 Dec 2005)

> but everyone having the same opportunity and voice is what matters.


There really is no point in moaning/whingeing/arguing/debating/ about events before or after an election/vote/referendum if one doesn't bother to exercise one's vote. 

Marion


----------



## ClubMan (20 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> I have never voted in my 14 years of being eligible to vote, and I don't intend to start.


Seems odd (to me anyway) not to vote but to then call on others to make their voices heard by lobbying politicians directly.


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> There really is no point in moaning/whingeing/arguing/debating/ about events before or after an election/vote/referendum if one doesn't bother to exercise one's vote.
> 
> Marion



Rubbish.

What about those who couldn't be arsed voting because they don't feel there's anyone out there worth voting for?


----------



## shnaek (21 Dec 2005)

In Australia and I believe some other European countries one faces a fine if one doesn't vote. I too agree with this sysytem, once you are able to spoil your vote if completely dis-satisfied.
I also believe there is no incentive for politicians to be any good as there are elections every few years so it's not in their interest to make policies which take the future into account. Just short term parochial gain.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Dec 2005)

shnaek said:
			
		

> I also believe there is no incentive for politicians to be any good as there are elections every few years so it's not in their interest to make policies which take the future into account. Just short term parochial gain.


Isn't this a problem with how voters measure & assess their politicians rather than any inherent problem in the political system itself.


----------



## Purple (21 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Isn't this a problem with how voters measure & assess their politicians rather than any inherent problem in the political system itself.


I agree completely. I think that on balance, accross the political spectrum, we get better than we deserve from our TD's.


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> I agree completely. I think that on balance, accross the political spectrum, we get better than we deserve from our TD's.



Can someone define for me..."what we deserve"?

_Not directly aimed at you Purple_


----------



## ClubMan (21 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> What about those who couldn't be arsed voting because they don't feel there's anyone out there worth voting for?


If they think that they could do better then they could always stand for election themselves. Or they could become politically active in order to influence the selection of "better" candidates?


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> If they think that they could do better then they could always stand for election themselves. Or they could become politically active in order to influence the selection of "better" candidates?



This is always the same answer that comes back. Sorry - I don't buy it.
We're a happy little country really so most of us don't care all that much. At days end I go home to my nice house in my nice car. We're a relatively wealthy country so our politicians get away with murder. The 'get involved or shut up' argument is wasted on me. 
I want my cake and to be able to eat it. I want to not have to get involved in politics but have competent people doing it and doing it right. There's too many farces going on for me to have any confidence in any of the FF boys and the other crowd(s) just seem like a bunch of clowns if you ask me. 

I'm afraid I might be alone in also thinking the electorate isn't all that bright. An unpopular one that I'd say  The rise of SF is a good example of this.


----------



## Janet (21 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I might be alone in also thinking the electorate isn't all that bright. An unpopular one that I'd say



No, I'd sort of agree with this.  But it's not that I think the electorate isn't all that bright.  Uninformed may be a better word.  As someone said above politics (or at least the running of the government, the constitution and so on) should be taught at primary and secondary level.  I can only remember one civics class (we did civics for about two months in 1st year and that was it) where we were shown diagrams which represented the Dail and the Seanad and PR voting was explained.  As a teenager I probably knew more about the American constitution (possibly still do) because of all those films and sitcoms where you'd see kids learning the 5th amendment etc.


----------



## Marion (21 Dec 2005)

> Rubbish.
> 
> What about those who couldn't be arsed voting because they don't feel there's anyone out there worth voting for? ...





> I want to not have to get involved in politics but have competent people doing it and doing it right.


 

Ok! Let’s say that with your winning argument above that you have convinced me and everybody else that there is absolutely nobody in the country who is worth voting for at local or at national level.

So, nobody votes. We therefore have no politicians at local or national level.

Who is going to run the country on a day-to-day basis? Who is going to represent us in Europe? 

You want competent people. Who will decide who is competent to do the job? Do we want a democracy or is there another political system that you would prefer?

Marion


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> Ok! Let’s say that with your winning argument above that you have convinced me and everybody else that there is absolutely nobody in the country who is worth voting for at local or at national level.
> 
> So, nobody votes. We therefore have no politicians at local or national level.
> 
> ...




That's a simplistic retort.

I'll spell it out then. *Some* people in this country feel disenfranchised with the whole system and do not look at the vast majority of political figures as people worth voting for. I happen to know there's some worth voting for.

Your answer, the like it or lump it answer and most of the rehashed, jaded replies here are exactly why myself and many others will just never bother. The real answer goes deeper than dealing in simplistic scenarios where no one votes and we have no politicians.
In reality there will always be people who vote - but I know that my problem will become more and more of a problem for this country, as a whole, over the years. Just look at the voting turnout figures recently?

Here's another way of looking at it. Why is me not wanting to vote my problem? Surely it should be FF's problem and they should be doing something about it? Simple logic for FF/FG/Lb. Why do people not want to vote come the big day? Answer = ....


----------



## Marion (21 Dec 2005)

> I happen to know there's some worth voting for.


 
Did you vote for them or were they outside your electoral area?

Marion


----------



## DoctorEvil (21 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> You want competent people. Who will decide who is competent to do the job?



If a politician is not competent he should not be re-elected but it is amazing to see how the ones involved in the biggest scandals over the years always seem to get back in!!!


----------



## Marion (21 Dec 2005)

They get back in because they have highly efficient electoral machines. They go out and get the votes - they ensure that people get to the voting stations. 

Marion


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> They get back in because they have highly efficient electoral machines. They go out and get the votes - they ensure that people get to the voting stations.
> 
> Marion



Which brings us back to "the electorate".


----------



## Marion (21 Dec 2005)

> Which brings us back to "the electorate".


 
Yes, indeed it does.

It highlights the importance of casting one's vote in order to ensure that these "incompetents" or those who have been engaged in shady dealings will not be re-elected. 

If we don't endeavour to ensure that they will not be re-elected, then we can't really complain about the standards of our politicians. 

Marion


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Dec 2005)

As all good reactionaries will tell you, democracy is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Therein lies its greatest flaw and its supreme vindication.

However, "if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson, 1816). Put another way, if 51% of the voting population prefers bread and circuses, then bread and circuses we shall have — or 'nice cars' and 'nice homes', whatever...


			
				Clubman said:
			
		

> Do you have any practical/realistic suggestions for improvements on the situation as you see it?


Absolutely none!  Other than political activism/running for election...


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

I think we draw different conclusions from the same point Marion.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> Why do people not want to vote come the big day? Answer = ....


Because it's more tedious/less satisfying than the alternatives?


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> Because it's more tedious/less satisfying than the alternatives?



I'm sure that has something to do with it, but question is why have so many people total apathy to Irish politics?


----------



## Janet (21 Dec 2005)

I think the point gabriel is that you seem to be waiting for the low turnout of voters to start bothering the politicians.  And it should.  But I think the reality of it is that those politicians who are most corrupt are going to be least bothered by this as they will always have their people to vote them back in.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> I'm sure that has something to do with it, but question is why have so many people total apathy to Irish politics?


Must be all that bread and circuses...


----------



## Marion (21 Dec 2005)

I take the electorate to mean all those who are eligible to vote - not those who actually vote.

You wonder why don't people go out and vote. It may well be apathy.

But, I would also hazzard a guess that people are essentially happy with their own lives  - even if not voting means having to put up with a dodgy politician in the area. Maybe it's a form of selfishness? 

In general, people will become politically motivated on issues where they themselves are immediately affected.

Marion


----------



## ClubMan (21 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> This is always the same answer that comes back. Sorry - I don't buy it.


Just because you may have heard the same answer before and you don't buy the answer doesn't render it invalid.


----------



## Gabriel (22 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> I take the electorate to mean all those who are eligible to vote - not those who actually vote.



Isn't the electorate made up of the number of people registered to vote?


If you want to think it's something else that's fine...but it's not. If it were what you were saying we'd have 100% turnouts every election!



			
				Marion said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a form of selfishness?
> Marion



Equating not voting with selfishness is very naive.

It has far more to do with people's disbelief that anything changes. If you have very poor choice then what's the point? 



			
				Marion said:
			
		

> In general, people will become politically motivated on issues where they themselves are immediately affected.



Very true.



			
				Clubman said:
			
		

> Just because you may have heard the same answer before and you don't buy the answer doesn't render it invalid.



It renders it invalid for me personally, especially when no one is even close to recognising it as an issue for the government and not *necessarily* for the individual. Far too much 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country' lark for my liking.


----------



## Gabriel (22 Dec 2005)

Janet said:
			
		

> I think the point gabriel is that you seem to be waiting for the low turnout of voters to start bothering the politicians.  And it should.  But I think the reality of it is that those politicians who are most corrupt are going to be least bothered by this as they will always have their people to vote them back in.



Maybe true but I'm not waiting for anything actually 

What I'm saying is whatever low percentage turnout we have for every election speaks volumes about how people actually feel about politics in this country.

Right now I'm not sure how much politicians care. They'd care a lot more if FF and FG were neck and neck in the polls.


----------



## shnaek (22 Dec 2005)

They'd care a lot but probably about the wrong things, like local incinerators, roads, hospital closures etc. instead of thinking about the future and our disasterous urban planning and car dependant society, disasterous health system and lack of basic amenities in large housing estates people used to call villages.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> It renders it invalid for me personally, especially when no one is even close to recognising it as an issue for the government and not *necessarily* for the individual. Far too much 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country' lark for my liking.


My comments were not made in the context of an "ask not what your country etc." approach but rather in the context of suggesting a realistic/practical route to those who feel that there is nobody worth voting for and (by virtue of the fact that they comment on this) are obviously exercised by this rather than being totally apathetic.


----------



## RainyDay (22 Dec 2005)

shnaek said:
			
		

> They'd care a lot but probably about the wrong things, like local incinerators, roads, hospital closures etc. instead of thinking about the future and our disasterous urban planning and car dependant society, disasterous health system and lack of basic amenities in large housing estates people used to call villages.


SO they care about the things that their constituents bring to them - right? When are their constituents going to start thinking/talking/worrying about the big picture?


----------



## Marion (22 Dec 2005)

I actually meant eligible to vote in the sense of those who are registered but clearly it has a different meaning.

Some people won't ever vote. That's their prerogative. We live in a democracy.


Marion


----------



## redbhoy (22 Dec 2005)

Why do some people always try to make light of arguments on subjects like this.
i.e bring on the totalitarian state and throw us in Guantenemo if we make voting compulsory.
Like it or not we've had huge success as a country over the last few years. Enormously fruitful years but have we benefited as much as we could have. 
No!
Why? Because the government will only start doing things it should if people scare them into thinking that the status quo is about to be upset.
i.e. the time when FF succumbed to the demands of one elected representative- Tony Gregory! They would have done anything to stay in power. Even looking after the people from the North inner city who up til then were left in a state of squalor!
Why is voting not made compulsory?- because the government wouldnt know what would happen after the next election!


----------



## Gabriel (22 Dec 2005)

redbhoy said:
			
		

> Why is voting not made compulsory?- because the government wouldnt know what would happen after the next election!



I'd imagine if you talked to any lawyer it has far more to do with civil liberties.


----------



## shnaek (22 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> SO they care about the things that their constituents bring to them - right? When are their constituents going to start thinking/talking/worrying about the big picture?



Exactly my point. This points out a flaw in the democratic system. Ireland is a country, not a collection of federated counties. Being from Tullamore I know well the benefit of having a minister in a home town. Still, the good of the country should come first.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> Some people won't ever vote. That's their prerogative. We live in a democracy.


I agree. Many times when I could not in conscience vote for any candidates standing I have always used my vote but spoiled it to make sure that it was not used by somebody else. I don't believe that voting should be made compulsory either but I don't understand why some people moan about the system and then moan about practical suggestions/advice given to them by others.


----------



## Marion (23 Dec 2005)

I have little regard for people who will not make their intentions known at a meeting or at a vote but who will, after the event, attempt to usurp the democratic process by undermining it, or attempt to ridicule a decision made by others who acted in good faith. 

If people have principles and have registered an objection to a vote because they are conscientious objectors - well, in my opinion, that's a different issue. 

Marion


----------



## Gabriel (23 Dec 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> I have little regard for people who will not make their intentions known at a meeting or at a vote but who will, after the event, attempt to usurp the democratic process by undermining it, or attempt to ridicule a decision made by others who acted in good faith.
> 
> If people have principles and have registered an objection to a vote because they are conscientious objectors - well, in my opinion, that's a different issue.
> 
> Marion



Funnily enough I have little time for people who fail to realise the importance of an issue - being blinded as it were by their own vindications - and who instead attempt to belittle others due to their own lack of understanding.

I don't think anyone here, so far, has been trying to usurp the democratic process. I'm certainly not. I believe democracy is the best system we have (so far). What I'm trying to point out is that many people don't bother voting as they don't believe there's anyone worth voting for. Whether FF, FG or Labour are in power I doubt we'll notice much difference to be honest. That's my point. 



			
				clubman said:
			
		

> but I don't understand why some people moan about the system and then moan about practical suggestions/advice given to them by others



What practical suggestions have been offered? Did I miss them? Spoiling your vote? Is that one? 
I think you may be answering the wrong question then...the question we need to be asking is not 'why can't we get people to vote'....it's why aren't people voting? That brings us to the core of the issue - namely the g******es we have as TD's.
Let's say I don't like the fact that FF have been in power for the past x number of years. Would you have me vote for Enda Kenny's party?? I'd rather have a toaster running the show :|


----------



## Marion (23 Dec 2005)

Gabriel, your stated point is very clear. You are a conscientious objector.

The spoiled vote might be a crude method of showing ones dissatisfaction but I think it has its merits. At least a message of sorts is being given. 

At the moment, in the results of an election how can you be distinguished from those who have not voted because they have no political opinions or have no interest in voting? As a conscientious objector, how do you make known your dissatisfaction with your candidates to enable change to be effected?


Perhaps more people would be encouraged to turn up to register their dissatisfaction if ballot papers were to have a specific space where people could lodge their objections? 


   Marion


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

I am inclined to agree with Gabriel.

I have been eligible to vote for 15 years and I have only voted in 1 referendum. I have never voted in a general election because I never perceived any candidate in my constituency worth voting for - and I dont particulary care whether its FG, Lab, PD or FF in power or a combo. I detest certain politicians in every party but there are some damn good ones too. If Michael Martin was in my constituency, I would certainly go out and vote for him.  

As time goes by, I am getting less and less interested in Irish politics. I salute the people who are committed and interested in Irish politics but some of us just dont care. Thats life.


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

As for making voting compulsory - that is insane.

It is compulsory in Australia - when i was there, some old guy (70+) was jailed for refusing to vote. Unbelievable.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> What practical suggestions have been offered? Did I miss them?


Obviously you did. 


> I think you may be answering the wrong question then...the question we need to be asking is not 'why can't we get people to vote'....it's why aren't people voting? That brings us to the core of the issue - namely the g******es we have as TD's.


That's precisely the question that my suggestions above address. However, on the evidence of this thread, I'm not sure if people who want to just moan about the system running for election would reduce the alleged g******e quotient in the _Oireachtas _to be honest.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> As time goes by, I am getting less and less interested in Irish politics. I salute the people who are committed and interested in Irish politics but some of us just dont care. Thats life.


You don't care enough to vote yet you care enough to engage in ridiculous populist publicity stunts? Maybe you should run for office too.


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

It worked a treat Clubman ! The Grocery Act is no more !


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

The likelyhood was that it was going to be abolished in any case so I wouldn't necessarily assume that the nappies swung it.


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> You don't care enough to vote yet you care enough to engage in ridiculous populist publicity stunts? Maybe you should run for office too.



That is incorrect and please quote my whole post instead of taking me out of context. I did care to vote once - and I will vote in another referendum that I feel strongly about. And I will vote for a TD if I feel strongly about him/her. But for the last 15 years, I couldn't care less who is TD for my constituency.
Dont fall off that high horse now !

Happy Christmas !


----------



## Gabriel (23 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Obviously you did.
> 
> That's precisely the question that my suggestions above address. However, on the evidence of this thread, I'm not sure if people who want to just moan about the system running for election would reduce the alleged g******e quotient in the _Oireachtas _to be honest.



Didn't I already deal with this suggestion in a previous post Clubman??

If you don't like anyone you're voting for then get involved yourself. It's a poor suggestion if you ask me. If I wanted to be in politics then I'd probably already be involved. 
If I don't like the service I get in my local shop I don't become a shopkeeper do I?

Again, the onus is put on the voter instead of looking at the political situation itself. Perhaps we need to vet our TD's better. I'm sure there's all sorts of ways this could be done. I know some people have suggested these ideas in the past - training to be a politician etc...


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> That is incorrect and please quote my whole post instead of taking me out of context. I did care to vote once - and I will vote in another referendum that I feel strongly about. And I will vote for a TD if I feel strongly about him/her. But for the last 15 years, I couldn't care less who is TD for my constituency.
> Dont fall off that high horse now !
> 
> Happy Christmas !


 You're the one who said that you don't care about politics in the context of a discussion about voting. Not sure what high horse you're talking about but given the choice between a high horse and being the lowest common denominator I know what I'd choose...


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> Didn't I already deal with this suggestion in a previous post Clubman??


 So why were you asking again about practical/useful suggestions?



> If you don't like anyone you're voting for then get involved yourself. It's a poor suggestion if you ask me.


 Seems reasonable to me. That's why I suggested it.



> If I don't like the service I get in my local shop I don't become a shopkeeper do I?


 Why not? Especially if you are one of those many people who accuse many retailers of ripping off people and profiteering?



> Again, the onus is put on the voter instead of looking at the political situation itself. Perhaps we need to vet our TD's better.


 Isn't voting for them or not as the case may be the ultimate form of vetting available to the electorate?


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> You're the one who said that you don't care about politics in the context of a discussion about voting. Not sure what high horse you're talking about but given the choice between a high horse and being the lowest common denominator I know what I'd choose...



The turnout in the 2002 general election confirmed a downward trend in voter participation and represented the lowest turnout since the foundation of the State. Are all these non-voters lowest common denominators too ?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2005)

Not necessarily - just those who moan about the system (often while contradictorily claiming not to care about politics at all) and claim that there is no reason to vote but don't have courage of their convictions to do something to address the perceived problems. 

On a more general note [broken link removed] makes for some pertinent and interesting reading.


----------



## Teabag (23 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Not necessarily - just those who moan about the system (often while contradictorily claiming not to care about politics at all) and claim that there is no reason to vote but don't have courage of their convictions to do something to address the perceived problems.
> 
> On a more general note [broken link removed] makes for some pertinent and interesting reading.



Did you even read my posts ?!?! 

Where did I moan about the system ? I dont moan that I dont vote - I just dont vote - I dont try to get other people not to vote - I was simply saying that it is ok for me not to vote if thats what I want to do. It hasn't bothered me who was my local TD for the last 15 years. Get it ?

What do you mean courage of my convictions ? You know nothing of my convictions you arrogant man. Yes, I did sent a nappy to Michael Martin. You say that is rediculous. I disagree. I felt it could help rectify a perceived problem in this country. I am happy I did. Which TD in my constituency should I have voted for in order for this to happen ?

Now, pick out a line from above (or from a previous post) and attack me down another tangent with another stab in the dark.

Good night.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Dec 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> Where did I moan about the system ? I dont moan that I dont vote - I just dont vote - I dont try to get other people not to vote - I was simply saying that it is ok for me not to vote if thats what I want to do. It hasn't bothered me who was my local TD for the last 15 years. Get it ?
> 
> What do you mean courage of my convictions ?


Er, keep your hair on. I wasn't necessarily referring to you above. If you read my post you will see that I was talking much more generally.



> You know nothing of my convictions you arrogant man.


Please note the . If you can't discuss the issue without resorting to personal abuse then maybe you should desist altogether?


----------



## daithi (24 Dec 2005)

merry christmas everybody!!!!....d


----------



## z107 (25 Dec 2005)

> So what you're saying is that the public is stupid?
> 
> We get the government we deserve, no more, no less.



What we get is what the system dictates. We get politicians who are good at being voted into power. No more, no less. According to the current system, anyone can run the country, regardless of skill or qualification. (That's precisely what we've got!)

If you were unfortunate enough to have to under go surgery, who would you like to perform the operation?

a. A team who has just won a popularity contest - maybe in the style of 'Big Brother' tv show.

b. A team who have undergone rigorous training and have extensive experience in the procedure.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Dec 2005)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> What we get is what the system dictates. We get politicians who are good at being voted into power. No more, no less. According to the current system, anyone can run the country, regardless of skill or qualification. (That's precisely what we've got!)


Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.


----------



## GreatDane (26 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.


 
Agreed 

I always use my vote (well, assuming Im able to get to the polls), at least this way, I get my pick of a bad lot or perhaps, contribute towards the removal of someone I really don't like thats currently in power !

Cheers

G>
[broken link removed]


----------



## z107 (26 Dec 2005)

> Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.



It seems to be taboo to even suggest that our current form of democracy is a bad system. Why not blame the system? 

You can't change the users (voters) so the only other option is to change the system. Any half decent systems analyst should be able to tell you this.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Dec 2005)

While you can't change the voters, you can certainly change the way they vote - if you really want to do so. Voter education, political participation, civics classes in school would be just a few top-of-the-head suggestions - I'm sure there are many other options out there.

The half-decent analyst would certainly tell you that you don't rush to replace the current system until you can propose a better alternative. So let's see your alternative - there is no taboo here - If you have another serious alternative, let's see it.


----------



## z107 (26 Dec 2005)

> The half-decent analyst would certainly tell you that you don't rush to replace the current system until you can propose a better alternative. So let's see your alternative - there is no taboo here - If you have another serious alternative, let's see it.



I don't have all the answers, just some half-baked ideas. I'd be happy to present these if anyone is interested. You have already suggested a way the current system could be improved, (although 'voter education' could be regarded as a bit of a euphemism! )

I suppose the first step would be some sort of agreement that the current system is flawed - to the extent that it doesn't work for the people.


----------



## RainyDay (27 Dec 2005)

You're right insofar as defining the problem to be solved is definitely the first step. But I'm struggling with this. I'm not claiming the current system is perfect, but I don't accept your broad claim that 'it doesn't work for the people'. Would you care to expand on this?


----------



## Marie (27 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> While you can't change the voters, you can certainly change the way they vote - if you really want to do so. Voter education, political participation, civics classes in school would be just a few top-of-the-head suggestions - I'm sure there are many other options out there.
> 
> The half-decent analyst would certainly tell you that you don't rush to replace the current system until you can propose a better alternative. So let's see your alternative - there is no taboo here - If you have another serious alternative, let's see it.


 
Perhaps there are two intertwining issues here (and before some Concrete Thinker jumps down my throat requiring to know "where/who above _said this _what follows is a distilled gist of the debate, to my mind).  

The first could be rephrased as:- "Irish parliamentary politics is moribund and politicians are a self-selecting 'club' which attracts and tolerates similar individuals with limited abilities and no leadership vision."

The second could be rephrased thus:- "The Irish electorate (those who vote, those who don't, those who spoil et al) serve only their own or local economic interests in use of their vote and lack understanding of bigger issues".

Might not _both _of these corruptions of the democratic process be remedied by a public press which was objective and comprehensive in putting before the public the possibilities and restraints of political action in context.   Though it's called "the media" investigative journalism increasingly fails to provide a forum for these important debates.


----------



## z107 (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*

Moderator note: This post and several of those that follow have been split from this thread where they were off topic.

-- _ClubMan_
 
These laws are created by humans, so it follows that 'guilt' or 'innocence' are also a human invention. Laws also change, what might have been legal last year, might now be illegal.

With this in mind, I can't see how there is any direct correlation between what's right or wrong (if these concepts even exist) and the laws of the land. So contrived 'guilt' may be discrete, but it probably doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things.

I also believe that tax is extortion. This is because as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



			
				umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> These laws are created by humans, so it follows that 'guilt' or 'innocence' are also a human invention. Laws also change, what might have been legal last year, might now be illegal.
> 
> With this in mind, I can't see how there is any direct correlation between what's right or wrong (if these concepts even exist) and the laws of the land. So contrived 'guilt' may be discrete, but it probably doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things.


 I don't really see the relevance or point in engaging in this level of semantics on the issue to be honest. This seems to be getting into more philosophical than practical territory.


> as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.


 What is "too much choice" in this context? Do you consider the abity to elect public representatives or even stand for election yourself enough choice? Or too little choice? On the face of it it sounds to me like you don't think that democracy is the best (albeit not necessarily ideal) system of governance which would put you in a tiny minority. Thankfully.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*

upsidedown, you are going WAY too deep there buddy!


----------



## z107 (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



> I don't really see the relevance or point in engaging in this level of semantics on the issue to be honest. This seems to be getting into more philosophical than practical territory.



We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.



> What is "too much choice" in this context? Do you consider the abity to elect public representatives or even stand for election yourself enough choice? Or too little choice?



The current election process is a farce, engineered to keep certain individuals in power. I expressed my views in a previous thread about this.



> On the face of it it sounds to me like you don't think that democracy is the best (albeit not necessarily ideal) system of governance which would put you in a tiny minority. Thankfully.



Correct, I certainly do not think our current incarnation of democracy is the best. Far from it in fact. How do you know I'm in a tiny minority? - what evidence do you have to support this?

This is going off topic.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



> We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.


 It's not, but in the context of the country and society we live in it is wrong.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



			
				umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.


 I never said that it was universally wrong. I was assuming that readers would be reasonable enough to infer that I was couching my comments in the context of and with reference to the existing tax and legislative system that pertains and not in some vacuum in which all rules are mutable.


> The current election process is a farce, engineered to keep certain individuals in power. I expressed my views in a previous thread about this.


 I would strongly disagree with that opinion. I probably said it in that thread but why not stand for election yourself if you think you can do better?


> Correct, I certainly do not think our current incarnation of democracy is the best. Far from it in fact. How do you know I'm in a tiny minority? - what evidence do you have to support this?


 Most of the 63% of the electorate who [broken link removed] presumably consider the system worth participating which would suggest that you would be in a minority in considering the system a farce.


----------



## z107 (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



> It's not, but in the context of the country and society we live in it is wrong.



To summarise my point, our society could be 'wrong' in the first place.



> I never said that it was universally wrong. I was assuming that readers would be reasonable enough to infer that I was couching my comments in the context of and with reference to the existing tax and legislative system that pertains and not in some vacuum in which all rules are mutable.



Assumptions! 



> I would strongly disagree with that opinion. I probably said it in that thread but why not stand for election yourself if you think you can do better?



I don't have the marketing budget.



> Most of the 63% of the electorate who [broken link removed] presumably consider the system worth participating which would suggest that you would be in a minority in considering the system a farce.



Really? Did you personally conduct the survey? Is there really a relationship between considering the system a farce and voting? - maybe people have no other choice. There may certainly be other factors to consider.
I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*

So you don't like the way in which we elect/appoint our leaders and because of this you don't think anyone has a duty of obligation to fund public works or services? I don't see cause and effect there. To me you are muddying the waters with a spurious argument. (No offence intended)


----------



## ClubMan (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



			
				umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> I don't have the marketing budget.


If you were serious about running then you'd surely find some way of raising election funding from like minded people?


> Really? Did you personally conduct the survey?





> Is there really a relationship between considering the system a farce and voting? - maybe people have no other choice. There may certainly be other factors to consider.


OK - if you don't accept that most people are at least reasonably happy with the existing democratic system then perhaps you could show me some evidence that they are not?


> I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?


Of course.


----------



## z107 (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



> So you don't like the way in which we elect/appoint our leaders and because of this you don't think anyone has a duty of obligation to fund public works or services? I don't see cause and effect there. To me you are muddying the waters with a spurious argument. (No offence intended)



That's not quite what I said. here is what I actually stated:


> I also believe that tax is extortion. This is because as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.


Note that I didn't use the word 'anyone'.
(Which part of your post was supposed to be offensive?)


> If you were serious about running then you'd surely find some way of raising election funding from like minded people?


I'm not serious about running for election. I simply don't agree that the current system works well. Consider as well that there is a fundamental flaw in that like minded people would want to fund the election of someone else!


> Really? Did you personally conduct the survey?


Apologies. This should read "Really? Did you personally conduct _a_ survey?"


> OK - if you don't accept that most people are at least reasonably happy with the existing democratic system then perhaps you could show me some evidence that they are not?


I don't recall where I stated anything like this. I do not know how many people are not happy with the democratic system. You are the one that stated I'm in a 'tiny minority' with absolutely no evidence to back it up.


> > I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?
> 
> 
> Of course.


So it seems that this 63% includes people who _ presumably *do not* consider the system worth participating _?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



			
				umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> Consider as well that there is a fundamental flaw in that like minded people would want to fund the election of someone else!


 Is there - what is it?


> I do not know how many people are not happy with the democratic system. You are the one that stated I'm in a 'tiny minority' with absolutely no evidence to back it up.


 Exhibit A: 63% participation in the last general election. 


> So it seems that this 63% includes people who _ presumably *do not* consider the system worth participating _?


 Surely turning up to spoil one's vote *is *participation? At the very least it shows that the individual wants to make sure that nobody else can use his/her vote. I've done it myself when I did not see anybody worth voting for (mainly presidential elections).


----------



## z107 (10 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*



> Exhibit A: 63% participation in the last general election.


Participation does not mean that people are happy with the system. I participated in 2002 even though I believed the system to be a farce. 
Unless you can find an unbiased survey that shows that a minority of people are disaffected, your claim that I'm in a minority is unfounded. This 63% figure is irrelevant because it only represents those who voted. (It is a pretty dire turnout as well!)

To answer your other question, if someone believes that the current system is flawed, why would they want to fund someone's election?


----------



## ClubMan (11 Feb 2006)

*Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion*

What's your suggestion for a better system than the one we have?


----------



## Observer (12 Feb 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> It seems to be taboo to even suggest that our current form of democracy is a bad system. Why not blame the system?
> 
> You can't change the users (voters) so the only other option is to change the system. Any half decent systems analyst should be able to tell you this.


 
Your argument is suffering from a severe case of anti-climax.  You start off with some interesting foreplay about how flawed the current system is.  Then you offer the promise of a new changed system. But when invited to do the business and suggest a real alternative that will stand up, you totally run out of steam and fail to consummate the argument. 

We all know democracy is not perfect.  It is however better than every other system that's already been tried.  Do you have a better alternative in mind or not?


----------



## z107 (12 Feb 2006)

> What's your suggestion for a better system than the one we have?





> Then you offer the promise of a new changed system.


The purpose of this thread, I would hope, is to see if people agree that voting is a farce. If a good number of people do agree that this is the case, maybe we could open up another thread to discuss alternatives. I would be very interested in hearing other people's opinions. I'm the first to admit that many of my own ideas are flawed.

Maybe as a group we could come up with a workable system.

In the meantime, will anyone take the leap and agree that voting is a farce?


----------



## ClubMan (12 Feb 2006)

Why not open the thread now about possible alternatives to or improvements on democracy since you at least seem to think that voting is a farce? Surely you don't need safety in numbers to have the courage of your convictions on this matter? I'd be interested in hearing your own suggestions no matter how flawed they are.


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Feb 2006)

To posit that 'voting is a farce' would suggest to me that the, ehm, proposers of the motion would at least be prepared to indicate _some_ viable alternative...?


----------



## ClubMan (13 Feb 2006)

It seems that _upsidedown _prefers engaging in floccinaucinihilipilification on this matter to making constructive suggestions as to the possible alternatives.


----------



## michaelm (13 Feb 2006)

I feel that voting is very important and is far from being a farce.  I do however feel that something needs to be done to engage those who are apathetic toward voting  and those who feel that it makes no difference.  

It's no wonder that people have switched off voting, the Seanad is at best toothless and at worst pointless, the Dáil is nearly always empty or on holiday, the Nice 1 result was ignored and viewed by the politicians as an embarrassment - they told the Europeans 'Don't worry, we'll put it back to the people and ensure we get the right answer'.  All parties colluded to ensure that we wouldn't have an election for President, if that happened in an African or middle eastern country there would have been an outcry.  The politicians step up to take credit for anything that goes right but blame EU regulations when things go wrong. 

 Electronic voting was a nonsense and would have made it impossible to privately cast a protest vote, what a waste of money, it would have been better spent on a campaign showing the importance and relevance of going out to vote, and to think we're still wasting money paying for the machines to be stored.  Maybe after the next election they'll get rid of the machines under the WEEE but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in an illegal dump in Wicklow.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Feb 2006)

michaelm said:
			
		

> the Seanad is at best toothless and at worst pointless


 The _Seanad _is an anti-democratic institution. Only sectoral, special interest groups have a vote. Not the general public. This is definitely one area in which our democratic system could be improved - e.g. universal franchise for the election of most (allowing for some _Government _appointees as happens now) or all senators.


----------



## Observer (13 Feb 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> The purpose of this thread, I would hope, is to see if people agree that voting is a farce. ..........In the meantime, will anyone take the leap and agree that voting is a farce?


Would you, in turn, settle for agreement that voting lies somewhere on a continuum between *"not quite useless but seriously flawed verging on farce"*  and *"not quite perfect and better than most but could be improved"*

This would then allow a new debate on how to improve, change or reform the system?  I don't see why its necessary to condemn the current system as farcical in order to engage on a debate as to what should be done with it (or calling in the systems analysts)


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2006)

My problem with the current system is that our democratically elected government allows itself to be dictated to by special interest groups who set out how the country is to be run over the following few years. Government is no longer by the people. The people now have but one of many voices who call the shots.
I agree completely with ClubMan about the Seanad but I think that the usurping of our sovereign government by un-elected interest groups is a far more serious issue.
I am of course talking about social partnership (the last few pages of Animal Farm keep springing to mind when I think of all the partners in the once smoke filled rooms…).


----------

