GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"Why you should vote today"

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.

Thu 05/05/05 at 07:58
Regular
"not dead"
Posts: 11,145
That is, if you're legally entitled to.

If you don't vote, then you can't really complain when promises are inevitably broken.

If you don't vote you can't swear whenever they come on the TV or radio.

If you don't vote you're saying they can do what the heck they like.

Whilst it may seem entirely futile, if you don't vote you haven't even tried to do anything about it.

This morning I figured that the Government is a little like Top Cat. They'll place a shiny coin in your hand, and tell you how great they are, but just before your fingers close around it they'll snatch it away with that little bit of string attached to it that you never noticed.

Mind you, when the choice is between a smug, lying, patronising sycophant, a man that looks like a particularly greasy sexual pervert, and a ginger, alcoholic gnone (and face facts, ginger is an issue, that's why Labour never got in under Kinnock), then I can see why you'd be tempted not to...
Sun 15/05/05 at 17:35
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Blank wrote:
> Stuff. Interesting it was too.


So, can you explain to me why a bunch of politicians who's job depends on other people turning up to vote for them, should make any effort whatsoever to help people who make no effort to keep those politicians in a job? The idea that they'll continue to represent people, even if those people didn't vote for them, is a nice one. It also has no basis whatsoever in reality. Did Thatcher continue to serve people who didn't vote for her? Why don't we ask the miners...

One assumes you've heard of the principle "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"? If you're not helping to keep a politician in a job (the voter record shows you've voted, but doesn't show who for; if you're a voter, then potentially you'll vote for them. If you're not, you won't), you're not helping them. Which makes it that much less likely for them to help you.

If you get disillusioned with a government and if you've actually voted, that government may well take the time to find out what the problem is; Labour have lost 100 seats, and you can bet they'll attempt to remedy this. But they'll do so by listening to people who vote.


And all of this also avoids addressing one simply fact; 40% of the public didn't vote. Labour won with 36% of the vote. Are you seriously trying to say that voting makes no difference when that 40% could have completely changed the parliament?
Sat 14/05/05 at 20:19
Regular
"One Man Landslide"
Posts: 441
kevstar wrote:
> No, I didn't vote which is enough to show my didcontent, just because
> I show my discontent in a different way does not mean it won't make a
> difference, unless your Light of course, eahh. Just listen to what
> your saying will you, perhaps we should take a vote on it.

But you avoided taking part in the one system that could make a difference to your life, that of government. Having not played any part, not even spoiling your ballot, how have you showed your discontent? Surely by not voting at all you've shown 'nothing'?
Sat 14/05/05 at 10:05
Regular
"Don't let me down"
Posts: 626
Light Wrote
Precisely. Everyone on this board knows your discontentment. You're down as not having voted. So not one single politician will give a damn what you think.

Says who, you? Thats your opinion and it stinks as far as I can see.

Scream your anguish all you like; when all is said and done, not a single complaint you make will be given the slightest credence.

Says who, you? Nice to know you speak on behalf of every pollitician in the Country. Is this another one of your facts is it? Perhaps your would like to give me some evidence of this?


If your discontent was REALLY that great, you would have bothered to do something about it. As is, you did nothing.

No, I didn't vote which is enough to show my didcontent, just because I show my discontent in a different way does not mean it won't make a difference, unless your Light of course, eahh. Just listen to what your saying will you, perhaps we should take a vote on it.
Sat 14/05/05 at 02:06
Regular
"8==="
Posts: 33,481
Blank wrote:
>
> But that's just it - you don't have to be dissatisfied at the time of
> voting. What if, say, I voted Labour, then became disillusioned and
> decided to complain; in your view, I have a right to, yes? Now what
> if I didn't vote at all, and was vaguely happy with the government
> for a time after the election until I became disillusioned and
> decided to complain? I have no right to? Why not?

Yep. That's what I was trying to say further down.
Sat 14/05/05 at 01:14
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
Light wrote:
> Nope, you have even less right to complain about it. You made
> absolutely no effort to change the government, no effort to register
> your dissatisfaction,

But that's just it - you don't have to be dissatisfied at the time of voting. What if, say, I voted Labour, then became disillusioned and decided to complain; in your view, I have a right to, yes? Now what if I didn't vote at all, and was vaguely happy with the government for a time after the election until I became disillusioned and decided to complain? I have no right to? Why not?

I understand the principle of your argument - if your house is on fire, and you have the chance to put it out, and you don't, then you can't complain when it burns down. Fair enough. But if my house isn't on fire at the time when someone offers me the chance to put it out, I'd think it a nonsense question - but surely I can still moan about my house burning down. This seemed like a good analogy at the start, but the second half is naff on wheels, so feel free to ignore.


> If a person can't even make the token effort to engage the political
> process, then why should the political process make any effort to
> sort out their concerns?

Because that's the job of the government, to serve the people without special treatment? They aren't there to serve voters, they're their to serve everyone in the country. If I don't think Tony Blair is doing a good job as Prime Minister, I think I'm entitled to say so, and to criticise him as fully as I see fit, whether I voted for him, against, or not at all. Because he's there to serve me, no matter what I do. Along with everyone else.
Fri 13/05/05 at 10:32
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Mumbai Duck wrote:

> I'm reluctant to wade back into this again, since we didn't really
> get anywhere before, but as a side issue I feel I have to point out
> that it's unlikely *ever* to be in the interest of an incumbent
> government to intorduce PR, since due to the nature of the
> constituancy-based system, such a move would always reduce their
> majority.

True enough; it'll only get brought in as a matter of political expedience. So, for example, had all those people who'd said they were going to vote libdem done so, we could have has a hung parliament. With the Libdems as political kingmakers. And what would the price be of a coalition with them? PR you say? Hmm.....
Thu 12/05/05 at 18:01
Regular
Posts: 8,220
Light wrote:
> No, admittedly you do have a point there. But whilst that 40% don't
> bother to turn up to vote, why should any incumbent government change
> the system to proportional representation? As it stands, they can rely
> on their core vote to get elected safe in the knowledge that 40% of
> people who may or may not agree with them won't make the effort to
> vote.

I'm reluctant to wade back into this again, since we didn't really get anywhere before, but as a side issue I feel I have to point out that it's unlikely *ever* to be in the interest of an incumbent government to intorduce PR, since due to the nature of the constituancy-based system, such a move would always reduce their majority.
Thu 12/05/05 at 15:17
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
munn wrote:

> Why can't he be both?

Theoretically, he can. There's nothing in Law that I'm aware of to stop it.
Thu 12/05/05 at 14:02
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Pandaemonium wrote:

> Yeah, you've shown your discontent, but you've screamed it in a
> silent voice. You're a non-entity as far as the government is
> concerned. At least a spoiled paper SHOWS discontent, as opposed to
> be being lumped into "couldn't be bothered to vote"


Precisely. Everyone on this board knows your discontentment. You're down as not having voted. So not one single politician will give a damn what you think. Scream your anguish all you like; when all is said and done, not a single complaint you make will be given the slightest credence. If your discontent was REALLY that great, you would have bothered to do something about it. As is, you did nothing.
Thu 12/05/05 at 13:56
Regular
"Lisan al-Gaib"
Posts: 7,093
kevstar wrote:
> Stuff.

Yeah, you've shown your discontent, but you've screamed it in a silent voice. You're a non-entity as far as the government is concerned. At least a spoiled paper SHOWS discontent, as opposed to be being lumped into "couldn't be bothered to vote"

Freeola & GetDotted are rated 5 Stars

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Thank you very much for your help!
Top service for free - excellent - thank you very much for your help.
Excellent support service!
I have always found the support staff to provide an excellent service on every occasion I've called.
Ben

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Close Feedback

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.