The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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."
"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."
Hedfix wrote:
> A break from the usual 3 parties who provide the apathy.
>
> It's not exactly proving your point.
D'you know who stood in your constituency? Was it just the 3 main parties? Did you check to see if you had any alternatives?
Most non-voters didn't I'm betting. They assumed.
And how exactly do "rose tinted glasses" prevent one from spoiling a ballot paper even when ones choices are limited to 3?
> A break from the usual 3 parties who provide the apathy.
>
> It's not exactly proving your point.
D'you know who stood in your constituency? Was it just the 3 main parties? Did you check to see if you had any alternatives?
Most non-voters didn't I'm betting. They assumed.
And how exactly do "rose tinted glasses" prevent one from spoiling a ballot paper even when ones choices are limited to 3?
Hedfix wrote:
> and surely some of this apathy can be traced back to 'proportional
> representation' or whatever it is, where that other 40% is spread out
> in such a way that thet wouldn't make that much of a difference to
> most of the seats?
>
> Here I am out of m depth, so please correct me if I am in error. :)
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.
> and surely some of this apathy can be traced back to 'proportional
> representation' or whatever it is, where that other 40% is spread out
> in such a way that thet wouldn't make that much of a difference to
> most of the seats?
>
> Here I am out of m depth, so please correct me if I am in error. :)
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.
Light wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
>
> Were you looking at the other two main parties with rose-tinted
> spectacles then?
>
> Nope. I was making the effort to make a difference. Y'know, like the
> people of Bethnal and Bow did when the overturned Oona King's huge
> majority to elect George Galloway...
A break from the usual 3 parties who provide the apathy.
It's not exactly proving your point.
> Hedfix wrote:
>
>
> Were you looking at the other two main parties with rose-tinted
> spectacles then?
>
> Nope. I was making the effort to make a difference. Y'know, like the
> people of Bethnal and Bow did when the overturned Oona King's huge
> majority to elect George Galloway...
A break from the usual 3 parties who provide the apathy.
It's not exactly proving your point.
and surely some of this apathy can be traced back to 'proportional representation' or whatever it is, where that other 40% is spread out in such a way that thet wouldn't make that much of a difference to most of the seats?
Here I am out of my depth, so please correct me if I am in error. :)
Here I am out of my depth, so please correct me if I am in error. :)
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?
> 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?
Hedfix wrote:
>
> Were you looking at the other two main parties with rose-tinted
> spectacles then?
Nope. I was making the effort to make a difference. Y'know, like the people of Bethnal and Bow did when the overturned Oona King's huge majority to elect George Galloway...
>
> Were you looking at the other two main parties with rose-tinted
> spectacles then?
Nope. I was making the effort to make a difference. Y'know, like the people of Bethnal and Bow did when the overturned Oona King's huge majority to elect George Galloway...
kevstar wrote:
> Democracy = Every person having their say
>
>
> You didn't bother yourself to have your say, so you're not taking
> part in the democracy.
>
> Ohh but I am, i'm saying that i'm discontent with the people who were
> in with a chance of running the Country. If Mr Brown was in office I
> would have been there in a flash.
And you're saying it here. In a web forum. You're not saying it in the national electoral roll. And that is the only place it counts.
>
> The ONLY say one has in the way the country is
> being run (officially at least) is by voting.
>
> No it's not. If Labour had a majority od 10,000 and in the next
> election it was reduced to say 1,000, and the turnout was 10% down on
> last time, the people who didn't vote for them this time shows that
> thier no vote certainly did matter. To say that a no vote doesn't
> have a say is very wrong indeed.
Assuming that all 10% would vote for labour? Okay, so by not voting you help get rid of them. You have no say on who replaces them. You place power in the hands of the minority, and you get no say whatsoever in how that power is then exercised.
>
>
> If you want to register
> discontent, then turn up and spoil your paper. Otherwise the only
> thing you register is your ass-groove in the sofa.
>
> Why? Why do you wan't people spoiling the paper for?
Because it shows that you are willing to vote, but that none of the political parties are representative of you. If the 40% of the people who didn't vote spoiled their papers instead, every single political party would sit up and take notice; they know that people are willing to vote for any party who manages to meet what their requirements are.
As is, you can be ignored. Entirely.
> Democracy = Every person having their say
>
>
> You didn't bother yourself to have your say, so you're not taking
> part in the democracy.
>
> Ohh but I am, i'm saying that i'm discontent with the people who were
> in with a chance of running the Country. If Mr Brown was in office I
> would have been there in a flash.
And you're saying it here. In a web forum. You're not saying it in the national electoral roll. And that is the only place it counts.
>
> The ONLY say one has in the way the country is
> being run (officially at least) is by voting.
>
> No it's not. If Labour had a majority od 10,000 and in the next
> election it was reduced to say 1,000, and the turnout was 10% down on
> last time, the people who didn't vote for them this time shows that
> thier no vote certainly did matter. To say that a no vote doesn't
> have a say is very wrong indeed.
Assuming that all 10% would vote for labour? Okay, so by not voting you help get rid of them. You have no say on who replaces them. You place power in the hands of the minority, and you get no say whatsoever in how that power is then exercised.
>
>
> If you want to register
> discontent, then turn up and spoil your paper. Otherwise the only
> thing you register is your ass-groove in the sofa.
>
> Why? Why do you wan't people spoiling the paper for?
Because it shows that you are willing to vote, but that none of the political parties are representative of you. If the 40% of the people who didn't vote spoiled their papers instead, every single political party would sit up and take notice; they know that people are willing to vote for any party who manages to meet what their requirements are.
As is, you can be ignored. Entirely.
kevstar wrote:
> Listen, every legal person in this Country has a say in the way the
> Country is run, if someone wants to show there discontent towards a
> party by not voting, then thats fine, as long as theres a reason
> behind it.
How exactly do you show discontent by not voting...? If you want to show discontent with the Labour party but no one else 'suits' you, turn up and write "I like Labour, but Blair's an arrogant t0s$$er" on the ballot. That actually registers your discontent, rather than parties just regarding you as another person who couldn't be bothered...
What your saying is not exactly democratic is it. And what
> if you wern't on the electrol role? Or if you were homeless? What if
> you were in hospital or in prison for something you didn't do?
Well, that's more of a case of you couldn't vote, as opposed to your case where you couldn't be arsed to vote...
Or
> like me, if you didn't like any of the leaders on offer? I could sit
> here for the next hour and think of many reasons why people don't or
> won't vote. Just because they don't vote doesn't mean they shouldn't
> have a say in the running of the Country, does it.
Well, I agree with you on that point, you should still have a say... Though I'm not sure how you propse to do it... The problem is that your best opportunity to have your say has just passed you by. If you didn't bother to go vote then it seems unlikely you'll bother to register discontent in any other way (ie. go to a protest or anything), so it doesn't look like you will get a say really...
> Listen, every legal person in this Country has a say in the way the
> Country is run, if someone wants to show there discontent towards a
> party by not voting, then thats fine, as long as theres a reason
> behind it.
How exactly do you show discontent by not voting...? If you want to show discontent with the Labour party but no one else 'suits' you, turn up and write "I like Labour, but Blair's an arrogant t0s$$er" on the ballot. That actually registers your discontent, rather than parties just regarding you as another person who couldn't be bothered...
What your saying is not exactly democratic is it. And what
> if you wern't on the electrol role? Or if you were homeless? What if
> you were in hospital or in prison for something you didn't do?
Well, that's more of a case of you couldn't vote, as opposed to your case where you couldn't be arsed to vote...
Or
> like me, if you didn't like any of the leaders on offer? I could sit
> here for the next hour and think of many reasons why people don't or
> won't vote. Just because they don't vote doesn't mean they shouldn't
> have a say in the running of the Country, does it.
Well, I agree with you on that point, you should still have a say... Though I'm not sure how you propse to do it... The problem is that your best opportunity to have your say has just passed you by. If you didn't bother to go vote then it seems unlikely you'll bother to register discontent in any other way (ie. go to a protest or anything), so it doesn't look like you will get a say really...
Light says
No, but we can make judgements based on what has happened in the past; Labour lied to take us to war in the past, they have also lied about tax increases, and have lied about public spending. Yet not one of the 40% of non-voters tried to make a difference to Labour being returned as government.
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.
No, but we can make judgements based on what has happened in the past; Labour lied to take us to war in the past, they have also lied about tax increases, and have lied about public spending. Yet not one of the 40% of non-voters tried to make a difference to Labour being returned as government.
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.
Page: