The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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...
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...
Page:
And there's no reason why you can't do that by not voting, people show there discontent in different ways. Some choose to vote for another party, while other choose not to vote at all because they don't agree for voting for someone else they dislike. If they wanted to keep it like this for years to come then why are they planning forward the change of leader? If they didn't wan't people to vote they would surley keep Mr Blair in office for another 4 years. But because they do wan't people to vote for them in the next election, thats the reason I feel there changing in the near future, because they know they will win under the leadership of Mr Brown and win back voters they lost in this election.
kevstar wrote:
> You see, I don't agree with all this, I think if a majority got
> slashed to even a few thousand because of people refusing to vote,
> then next time they'll work dam hard to get that vote back,
> especially if it's a seat that they always win. Take the North East,
> a traditional Labour stronghold area, thats been blown away now
> because it's mainly Labour and Lib Dems now. If you ask the voters
> what there problem is they say Tony Blair, not Labour. Now when Mr
> Brown takes over, why won't they be looking to win my vote back? I
> would call it suicide to the Labour party if they didn't. I
> personally think they will despite what you say, it doesn't make
> sence them not trying to win the votes back.
Really? And yet, with voter turnout constantly falling, it's in a parties interests to keep people apathetic; how else d'you think the tories did so well for so long. Labour have simply learned the same trick. And by your refusal to vote, your opinion (whatever it may be) gets dismissed, and the parties concentrate their efforts on people who have actually voted. For example, Libdem are on the rise in the North East. That's because they're more left wing than labour now. If the Labour party paid lip-service to their left wing roots with more care? Then those Libdem votes go back to Labour. And as for the people who didn't vote? Who cares; they didn't vote last time and probably won't again. The only way you get the attention of the politicians is by exercising the only right you have to affect their lives.
> You see, I don't agree with all this, I think if a majority got
> slashed to even a few thousand because of people refusing to vote,
> then next time they'll work dam hard to get that vote back,
> especially if it's a seat that they always win. Take the North East,
> a traditional Labour stronghold area, thats been blown away now
> because it's mainly Labour and Lib Dems now. If you ask the voters
> what there problem is they say Tony Blair, not Labour. Now when Mr
> Brown takes over, why won't they be looking to win my vote back? I
> would call it suicide to the Labour party if they didn't. I
> personally think they will despite what you say, it doesn't make
> sence them not trying to win the votes back.
Really? And yet, with voter turnout constantly falling, it's in a parties interests to keep people apathetic; how else d'you think the tories did so well for so long. Labour have simply learned the same trick. And by your refusal to vote, your opinion (whatever it may be) gets dismissed, and the parties concentrate their efforts on people who have actually voted. For example, Libdem are on the rise in the North East. That's because they're more left wing than labour now. If the Labour party paid lip-service to their left wing roots with more care? Then those Libdem votes go back to Labour. And as for the people who didn't vote? Who cares; they didn't vote last time and probably won't again. The only way you get the attention of the politicians is by exercising the only right you have to affect their lives.
Hedfix wrote:
> But it isn't if you're in an area where it's the same party in the
> lead by a large amount everytime, your vote seems meaningless and
> galvanising every other person who didn't vote to vote for your cause
> just isn't going to happen.
That must be why Martin Bell failed to unseat Neil Hamilton, with his huge majority, in Tutbury and Hatton...oh.
>
> This is the point. Not every place has the average extra 40% of
> people and even if they did, how many would be willing to go and make
> that change?
And that is MY point; by being unwilling to make the change, their views (whatever they may be) can and will be ignored by politicians.
>
> Someone apathetic voters may very well vote for the status quo over
> something that threatens them and you might actually see the same
> sort of results just with more people voting. People fear change.
Yup. And politicians exploit that fear. And the longer the likes of you or I just sit there saying "well, we can't make a difference so lets not bother", the less right we have to look ourselves in the mirror. I forget the exact wording of the quote, but it's along the lines of "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". As in philosophy, so in life.
>
> Hypothetical I know but a constant big majority + minor chance for
> change + unlikely chance of the system changing + unlikely chance
> that the extra 40% will see eye to eye enough to make a difference =
> voter apathy
And as the political parties (well...labour and the tories) use this to their advantage, it's not likely to change. Which means it's up to people to get up off their corpulent backsides and attempt to change things themselves. Even if it's something as simple as persuading a friend to vote who otherwise wouldn't have, that's a difference that's been made. And if everyone does that, it's a big difference.
Why sit and wait for things to change when one can make the difference oneself? Realistic? Make your own damn desires real; don't just wait for them to be made real for you.
[edit] and thanks for making the effort to at least try and come up with valid reasons for not voting.
> But it isn't if you're in an area where it's the same party in the
> lead by a large amount everytime, your vote seems meaningless and
> galvanising every other person who didn't vote to vote for your cause
> just isn't going to happen.
That must be why Martin Bell failed to unseat Neil Hamilton, with his huge majority, in Tutbury and Hatton...oh.
>
> This is the point. Not every place has the average extra 40% of
> people and even if they did, how many would be willing to go and make
> that change?
And that is MY point; by being unwilling to make the change, their views (whatever they may be) can and will be ignored by politicians.
>
> Someone apathetic voters may very well vote for the status quo over
> something that threatens them and you might actually see the same
> sort of results just with more people voting. People fear change.
Yup. And politicians exploit that fear. And the longer the likes of you or I just sit there saying "well, we can't make a difference so lets not bother", the less right we have to look ourselves in the mirror. I forget the exact wording of the quote, but it's along the lines of "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". As in philosophy, so in life.
>
> Hypothetical I know but a constant big majority + minor chance for
> change + unlikely chance of the system changing + unlikely chance
> that the extra 40% will see eye to eye enough to make a difference =
> voter apathy
And as the political parties (well...labour and the tories) use this to their advantage, it's not likely to change. Which means it's up to people to get up off their corpulent backsides and attempt to change things themselves. Even if it's something as simple as persuading a friend to vote who otherwise wouldn't have, that's a difference that's been made. And if everyone does that, it's a big difference.
Why sit and wait for things to change when one can make the difference oneself? Realistic? Make your own damn desires real; don't just wait for them to be made real for you.
[edit] and thanks for making the effort to at least try and come up with valid reasons for not voting.
You see, I don't agree with all this, I think if a majority got slashed to even a few thousand because of people refusing to vote, then next time they'll work dam hard to get that vote back, especially if it's a seat that they always win. Take the North East, a traditional Labour stronghold area, thats been blown away now because it's mainly Labour and Lib Dems now. If you ask the voters what there problem is they say Tony Blair, not Labour. Now when Mr Brown takes over, why won't they be looking to win my vote back? I would call it suicide to the Labour party if they didn't. I personally think they will despite what you say, it doesn't make sence them not trying to win the votes back.
Light wrote:
>
>
> Except that your vote IS powerful enough to provoke the change. But
> only if one bothers to use it. Anyone who refuses to until they get
> cast-iron guarantees that they personally will have made a
> difference? Egocentric assmonkeys.
But it isn't if you're in an area where it's the same party in the lead by a large amount everytime, your vote seems meaningless and galvanising every other person who didn't vote to vote for your cause just isn't going to happen.
This is the point. Not every place has the average extra 40% of people and even if they did, how many would be willing to go and make that change?
Someone apathetic voters may very well vote for the status quo over something that threatens them and you might actually see the same sort of results just with more people voting. People fear change.
Hypothetical I know but a constant big majority + similar parties + lack of information + unlikely chance of the system changing + unlikely chance that the extra 40% will see eye to eye enough to make a difference = voter apathy
Being realistic and not idealistic you aren't going to see that change any time soon.
>
>
> Except that your vote IS powerful enough to provoke the change. But
> only if one bothers to use it. Anyone who refuses to until they get
> cast-iron guarantees that they personally will have made a
> difference? Egocentric assmonkeys.
But it isn't if you're in an area where it's the same party in the lead by a large amount everytime, your vote seems meaningless and galvanising every other person who didn't vote to vote for your cause just isn't going to happen.
This is the point. Not every place has the average extra 40% of people and even if they did, how many would be willing to go and make that change?
Someone apathetic voters may very well vote for the status quo over something that threatens them and you might actually see the same sort of results just with more people voting. People fear change.
Hypothetical I know but a constant big majority + similar parties + lack of information + unlikely chance of the system changing + unlikely chance that the extra 40% will see eye to eye enough to make a difference = voter apathy
Being realistic and not idealistic you aren't going to see that change any time soon.
kevstar wrote:
> If Mr Brown was in office then they know they would have got more votes.
That's not necessarily true.
If Brown's PM then he's not Chancellor, and that's quite a crappy-assed thing.
Why can't he be both?
> If Mr Brown was in office then they know they would have got more votes.
That's not necessarily true.
If Brown's PM then he's not Chancellor, and that's quite a crappy-assed thing.
Why can't he be both?
kevstar wrote:
> Well it's obvious isn't it? Do you think i'm the only one who didn't
> vote Labour because of Mr Blair? I don't. If Mr Brown was in office
> then they know they would have got more votes. they should be aware
> that a lot of people didn't vote to show thier discontent towards Mr
> Blair, and should also be aware that when Mr Brown comes into office
> they'll wan't to win many of those voters back that. So yeah if they
> wan't my vote in 4 years time they should care, and I think thats the
> people they'll target in the next election. And as I said before, what
> your saying isn't exactly democratic is it. And don't try ands say i'm
> not being democratic because I am. Not voting in my eyes can still
> have a say on the outcome of a election.
Oh it can affect the outcome. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that the government will pay not the slightest bit of attention to your wants and desires; they'll only give a damn about those who actually prove they can be bothered to vote. If the numbers of people voting are reducing (and they are), then the competition becomes over those who still vote. And governments continue to become less representative because of people like you, who sit at home and wait for a political party to come running. Which, when there's not even any guarantee you'll vote, they won't do. I'm sure they do want your vote, but as you've proven you can't be relied upon to actually cast that vote, why should they bother?
So as is, you continue to have precisely no say whatsoever in the way the country is run. You're an angry voice shouting in the wilderness; background noise; ignored.
> Well it's obvious isn't it? Do you think i'm the only one who didn't
> vote Labour because of Mr Blair? I don't. If Mr Brown was in office
> then they know they would have got more votes. they should be aware
> that a lot of people didn't vote to show thier discontent towards Mr
> Blair, and should also be aware that when Mr Brown comes into office
> they'll wan't to win many of those voters back that. So yeah if they
> wan't my vote in 4 years time they should care, and I think thats the
> people they'll target in the next election. And as I said before, what
> your saying isn't exactly democratic is it. And don't try ands say i'm
> not being democratic because I am. Not voting in my eyes can still
> have a say on the outcome of a election.
Oh it can affect the outcome. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that the government will pay not the slightest bit of attention to your wants and desires; they'll only give a damn about those who actually prove they can be bothered to vote. If the numbers of people voting are reducing (and they are), then the competition becomes over those who still vote. And governments continue to become less representative because of people like you, who sit at home and wait for a political party to come running. Which, when there's not even any guarantee you'll vote, they won't do. I'm sure they do want your vote, but as you've proven you can't be relied upon to actually cast that vote, why should they bother?
So as is, you continue to have precisely no say whatsoever in the way the country is run. You're an angry voice shouting in the wilderness; background noise; ignored.
Hedfix wrote:
> Seems like a bit of a chicken and the egg/Catch-22 situaton there.
>
> "Why won't you vote?"
>
> "Because my vote doesn't matter at the moment."
>
> "But you have to vote in-order to get the system changed."
>
> "But my vote isn't powerful enough where I am to provoke the
> change to give it more power."
Except that your vote IS powerful enough to provoke the change. But only if one bothers to use it. Anyone who refuses to until they get cast-iron guarantees that they personally will have made a difference? Egocentric assmonkeys.
> Seems like a bit of a chicken and the egg/Catch-22 situaton there.
>
> "Why won't you vote?"
>
> "Because my vote doesn't matter at the moment."
>
> "But you have to vote in-order to get the system changed."
>
> "But my vote isn't powerful enough where I am to provoke the
> change to give it more power."
Except that your vote IS powerful enough to provoke the change. But only if one bothers to use it. Anyone who refuses to until they get cast-iron guarantees that they personally will have made a difference? Egocentric assmonkeys.
kevstar wrote:
> Not voting in my eyes can still
> have a say on the outcome of a election.
It does if you have a sure-fire winner who you don't disagree with.
Now spoiling ballot papers is a nice idea and I do like the intentions behind it but at the moment there isn't enough backing behind such a thing. I know a group was trying to get more people to do it but I think the general population isn't fully aware of what spoiling your ballot paper is meant to represent.
> Not voting in my eyes can still
> have a say on the outcome of a election.
It does if you have a sure-fire winner who you don't disagree with.
Now spoiling ballot papers is a nice idea and I do like the intentions behind it but at the moment there isn't enough backing behind such a thing. I know a group was trying to get more people to do it but I think the general population isn't fully aware of what spoiling your ballot paper is meant to represent.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Maybee because it's Mr Blair thier discontent with and not Labour
> themselves. I reackon if Mr Brown took over before the election,
> turnout would not only have improoved, but so to would the Labour
> seats they won.
>
> Maybe it is. The fact is, you didn't even turn up to register your
> vote, so why should Labour care what you think?
Well it's obvious isn't it? Do you think i'm the only one who didn't vote Labour because of Mr Blair? I don't. If Mr Brown was in office then they know they would have got more votes. they should be aware that a lot of people didn't vote to show thier discontent towards Mr Blair, and should also be aware that when Mr Brown comes into office they'll wan't to win many of those voters back that. So yeah if they wan't my vote in 4 years time they should care, and I think thats the people they'll target in the next election. And as I said before, what your saying isn't exactly democratic is it. And don't try ands say i'm not being democratic because I am. Not voting in my eyes can still have a say on the outcome of a election.
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Maybee because it's Mr Blair thier discontent with and not Labour
> themselves. I reackon if Mr Brown took over before the election,
> turnout would not only have improoved, but so to would the Labour
> seats they won.
>
> Maybe it is. The fact is, you didn't even turn up to register your
> vote, so why should Labour care what you think?
Well it's obvious isn't it? Do you think i'm the only one who didn't vote Labour because of Mr Blair? I don't. If Mr Brown was in office then they know they would have got more votes. they should be aware that a lot of people didn't vote to show thier discontent towards Mr Blair, and should also be aware that when Mr Brown comes into office they'll wan't to win many of those voters back that. So yeah if they wan't my vote in 4 years time they should care, and I think thats the people they'll target in the next election. And as I said before, what your saying isn't exactly democratic is it. And don't try ands say i'm not being democratic because I am. Not voting in my eyes can still have a say on the outcome of a election.
Page: