Most people who could vote on Thursday (in the UK) did not. It was an overwhelming majority. The typical reasons for not voting are (i) can’t be bothered; (ii) no candidates or parties worth voting for; (iii) a principled stand against democracy, on the basis that it is flawed; (iv) a principled stand against democracy, on the basis that no democracy would be better; (v) a belief that all politicians are the same and voting makes no difference. Whatever the reason, these people won the day. Their non-participation in the democractic process ensured that those elected cannot claim to represent the considered will of the majority. Shame on them.
People Who Couldn’t Be Bothered To Vote
You deserve everything which is foisted upon you by elected politicians. You have no right to complain about anything. Your contribution to the national debate equals zero. You couldn’t care less, literally. You’re lucky that people care about you. Some people anyway. Personally, I have less respect for you than I do for someone who casts a vote for the thieving Tory bastards.
No Candidates Or Parties Worth Voting For
This is an excuse. You could have turned up at the polling station and registered your disgust by spoiling your ballot paper. Spoilt ballots are counted and declared. I suspect that there are so very many people in your category that you form the bulk of the non-voters. Had you spoilt your ballot paper, your frustration with the politics on offer would have become the main story for years to come. Politicians would have been put into panic mode because they would have seen that you had made the effort to get to the polling station and are therefore capable of being persuaded to vote for someone in future. Democratic politics is a competition. Politicians compete for the voters, not the non-voters. Ballot spoilers are competed for more than people who object silently. You want perfection! You’re only prepared to vote for someone or a party which mirrors your views very closely, even though that is practically impossible. As in the rest of your life, you have to make some compromises. Assuming that you want to have relationships with other people, that is. You have no relationship with democratically elected politicians precisely because you’re not willing to compromise. Fuck you.
People Who Prefer A Different Form Of Democracy
I’d like to see a different system of elections too. The question is, how to obtain it? You’re doomed to forever suffer the system we have if you don’t vote because when the politicians come around to canvass your vote, they’ll realise that you’re not going to vote and simply ignore your opinion. It really is as simple as that. Your opinions are worthless to those standing for office. Whereas, if you expressed that opinion strongly, at least one political party would include it in its manifesto to try to win your vote. I suspect that if a different system of democracy was introduced, you’d find some other excuse not to vote. Do you really think that your personal opinion is so precious that it cannot be tarnished by joining in with the system we’ve got? You’ll never get what you want with this attitude. You’re smug. You’re useless.
People Who Don’t Like Democracy At All
This is probably the only justifiable reason for not voting. This is the reason given by many anarchists for not voting. If you’re an anarchist who doesn’t vote, you’d do well to remember that fascists do vote even though they’d prefer a regime which would round you up and shoot you. It’s only a vote, for Kropotkin’s sake! Voting doesn’t preclude you from taking many other types of political action. It’s just one method of expressing your opinion. Using the others but avoiding the vote is like romance without seduction. Feels nice doesn’t it? What a loverly comfortable world you live in. Next time you get the chance to vote, please consider the rest of us more than yourself!
All Politicians Are Bastards
Why shouldn’t they be? After all, you’re not offering any incentives to be different are you? Many of them are self-serving wankers, I agree. These people populate all political parties, sadly. However, the trick is to realise that you can chop and change your vote, which produces political change. You have a paranoid complex. You probably fear everyone in authority and prefer a life of constant struggle to one where you contribute. Getting involved, even to the extent of ticking a box on a piece of paper or spoiling the ballot, is a pretty easy contribution to make. You can’t even manage that. You’re the bastard here.
All Of The Above
Thanks a bunch. Thanks to you, we’ve got a thieving Tory bastard elected as Mayor of London. I bet most of you would have preferred someone else on the list but you’ve allowed him enormous power for the next four years. I hold you in utter contempt. You can complain all you like about politics. It doesn’t matter. You are irrelevant.
Inspiration For This Post
I’d like to thank @Hollysmither on twitter for inspiring me to get this shit off my chest. She says she’s a “Trade Unionist, a feminist and book gobbler”. Yet she doesn’t vote. I got into a row with her about that and imagined that I had upset her, so I apologised. She refused to accept the apology. I’ve never heard of a trades unionist who doesn’t vote before. She takes a keen interest in local politics but since she doesn’t vote, local politicians don’t care about her. Why would they?
I’ve always been a keen supporter of the trades union movement. I cannot understand why they continue to bankroll the Labour Party after it launched an illegal war but that is their democratic right and I respect that. Here’s someone who considers herself to be politically active, is a member of a trades union which funds a major political party and can’t bring herself even to spoil her ballot paper. She seemed pretty clear about her reasons for not voting. Here they are (please note I haven’t included my part of the conversation because these tweets came in quick succession – usually I block people who bombard me like this).
Click to enlarge image
Of course voting isn’t the only way to effect change but it is one crucial way. This is the politics of self-indulgence, the persona of someone who is ‘always right’ and the preference of the intellectually lazy. Clearly, she recognises that voting can change things – she says “voting is not the only way to effect change” – but refuses to do it. Refusing to vote for a particular party but refusing to engage with the entire process by spoiling her ballot renders her political views about as worthy as pub talk. I know you’re going to read this @HollySmither so let me tell you straight. You get everything you deserve from your local council. Why should anyone even consider your views, if you won’t consider scratching something on a political form once every few years? I looked into your timeline I saw that you tweet with the hashtag #acab.
Click to enlarge image
Some of my more genteel readers might not know that ACAB stands for “All Coppers Are Bastards”. A friend of mine is a copper. I got to know him through some musician friends. He works in the techie end of things, catching predatory paedophiles. @HollySmither thinks he’s a bastard for doing that? Come off it, Holly. You’re the bastard here. You’re the reason we don’t attract good quality people to politics. Even though your views are practically worthless because you’ll never vote ‘on principle’, I’ll give you a right of reply.
Time For A Song
When you’re feeling challenged, music can really lift the spirits. All sorts of wishful thinking can be neatly endorsed by music. It’s a great solace. Here’s a classic track. I love it. Turn it on and listen while you’re doing something else. Its all bollocks though. The hippies made a massive contribution to our world. As did the punks!
I watched the BBC coverage of the election to the very end and was struck by the number of times it was mentioned that Boris was more enigmatic, that’s why he got more votes. It occurs to me, from afar, that if enigmatic = buffoon then they voted for the right man.
It also occurred to me that, unless you live in London, nobody gives a toss about who becomes Mayor of London. It has no impact on our lives and yet we were bombarded with it from every avenue. The thing about seeing this from a distance is that you really get the sense that this is a noble sentiment gone completely awry – allowing the election of mayors has turned a traditional role to become one of political puppetry.
As for those who didn’t vote in any of the elections – shame on you – you got what you deserved.
London is the black hole around which our economic galaxy revolves. Whilst the London Mayor doesn’t directly affect the rest of us, the London economy does and the Mayor’s policies can have an effect on that.
Three points:
1) I’m not sure if you’re deliberately misinterpreting ACAB, but so you know in future it is partially rhetorical, and should not be read as implying that everything done by everyone who works for the police makes them a bastard. If I say, in a fit of rage, “all tories are bastards!” and someone replies “well, Ted Heath loved classical music. Does that make him a bastard?” a sensible response would be “no, music is all well and good. It’s signing up as a Tory that makes him a bastard”. Trying to catch predatory paedophiles is good, but the objection people have to the police is that they are contractually obliged to obey the state, and the state periodically demands that the police on the street crack the skulls of protesters. Of course some police sign up to help people and quit when tasked with violently assaulting innocent people, but they are evidently few and far between. ACAB is a reasonable acronym because #MBGITNPOCABBSFWAWATBUTI (‘my best guess is that 99.999 percent of coppers are bastards because so few walk away when asked to beat up the innocent’) is unwieldy.
2) In the tweets you’ve quoted Hollysmither does not say she does not vote on principle. Her first reason is that no one represents her, so presumably if she agreed with a candidates policies she’d vote.
3) You’ve offered absolutely no reasons in favour of your claim that she’s the reason politics doesn’t attract good people. Indeed, as she is, in your words, a “bastard” it’s hard to see how that claim could follow from the rest of your post. Given this invalid inference, I think you should probably stop describing yourself as a philosopher.
It’s a strapline, describing my previous careers in the order I pursued them.
Well, that was a slightly nasty remark, and having had 5 minutes to think about it, I apologise. Nevertheless, I’d be interested to know why you think principled non-voters prevent politics from attracting good people.
Apology accepted. Not sure if it was required though
Broadly speaking, non voters discourage quality candidates because lower turnouts in elections create the strong impression that politics is disrespected. Who wants to devote their energies in those circumstances?
Hmm. I’m not convinced by that response at all.
1) Plenty of talented people devote themselves to small-scale causes, develop their talents as artists and so on, without being motivated by a desire for universal respect. That are many worthwhile pursuits that do not, and are unlikely to ever, command widespread respect.
2) Good politicians should take it upon themselves to persuade people they are worth voting for. I think it’s more likely that bad candidates, bad parties and a bad system keep potential voters away, than the disrespect of the apathetic electorate causing potentially good candidates to find alternative employment.
3) We’re talking specifically about those who do not vote out of principle here. If someone thinks contemporary politics is utterly barren, it’s unlikely their opinion will influence somebody tempted to go into politics (as that very temptation betrays a fundamental disagreement with the principled abstainer).
The notion that talented would-be politicians are out there thinking “Well, I would stand as a candidate if only the 0.1% of the population who thinks our electoral and political systems are rotten to the core respected me” just doesn’t ring true.
I broadly agree with your point about spoiling papers (and I think “none of the above” or “I refuse to participate in this farce” should be an option on every ballot paper), but I don’t think principled non-voters have the power you ascribe to them.
It was a one liner. I haven’t got time to expand on it (I’m replying here from a phone whilst balancing on rafters). Mainly I’d like the principled non voters to spoil their ballots so as to distinguish them from the lazy. You make some fair points. Thanks for your comments.
Hello Scrapper Duncan,
You say ‘Their non-participation in the democractic process ensured that those elected cannot claim to represent the considered will of the majority”. Well a) its never stopped politicians from claiming legitimacy after a low turnout anyway and b) almost every election is the election of a person/party that the majority of voters didn’t want.
You say that people who don’t bother to vote “deserve everything which is foisted upon you by elected politicians. You have no right to complain about anything”. It could be said that it is those who vote who have no right to complain as they are the ones responsible for electing these people.
You say that we must compromise and not expect manifestos that mirror our views perfectly and that we must participate so that our thoughts can be heard and incorporated in some small way into their policies. Even a spoiled ballot is better than nothing.
Please explain to me the correlation between someone’s vote and its interpretation by politicians? If I vote for Boris, do I support 100% of his polices or just 63%. How does he know? He may assume the former. Maybe I spoiled the ballot paper because I don’t like any of them, or its because i’m a lunatic – how do they know what my intentions were? Maybe I want a different political system but none of the candidates offer that – how can I express that on a ballot?
You have correlated political engagement with the blunt and reductive instrument of voting. That is a mistake which I urge you to consider. I also urge you to contemplate and study some democratic theory and notions of freedom of action.
By the way, I voted, and always do…
I’ve never blogged before, but seeing as I had a whole blog inspired by and directed at me, then I thought I’d better respond: http://grannysmither.tumblr.com/
Pingback: A refusenik justifies non voting | Scrapper Duncan
“when the politicians come around to canvass your vote, they’ll realise that you’re not going to vote and simply ignore your opinion. It really is as simple as that. ”
If indeed an overwhelming majority of people did not vote, then perhaps it is precisely because politicians ignore their opinions.
You make it very clear that you think the opinions of non-voters are worthless, don’t you think that your sentiment has something to do with why people don’t vote?
I’m sure your little box tick made you feel great, some of us don’t want to waste our time engaging with a political engine that thinks we’re irrelevant. If they think my opinion is worthless, then why waste my time telling them I think their political party is worthless?
You’ve spent more time commenting on this post than it takes to vote. Do you really manage to use your time so efficiently that you can complain it would be wasted by voting?
Well it’s not any concern of yours how efficiently I manage my time. But I’m actually quite insulted. Right, I don’t support any of the candidates and I don’t support the process that I’m being implored to engage in. I don’t think representational democracy works, I don’t think it benefits the majority of people and I have a strong feeling that a sizable proportion of that majority who don’t vote have the same feeling. Many of us are working toward what we feel are more valuable ends, as Holly points out on her blog, we’ve seen ways in which organising ourselves yields far greater results than writing to parliament.
And yet you’re insisting that I’m somehow obliged to go scribble something on a piece of paper in such a way that it will count as a non-vote, just to show everyone how useless I think their electoral television show is? If there was a genuine space within the voting process for dissent and the expression of criticism then perhaps I’d be tempted to go and articulate some of my feelings. But no, all voting offers me is the chance to waste a sheet of paper.
You said what a message it would send if everyone went out and spoiled their ballots, what if nobody voted?
Of course direct action and forms of political engagement other than actually electing people yield results. However, these are almost always negative results in that they express opposition to something. They don’t produce any positive results. Pretty much everything positive has been produced by elected politicians. The problem we currently face is that the big two main parties lack any vision for society – thus my argument for a spoilt ballot.
You claim you’d attend a polling station and complete a box explaining why you’ll vote for ‘none of the above’ but won’t spoil your ballot with the same commentary?!
I didn’t suggest everyone spoil their ballots because it’s not very likely. Equally unlikely is no-one voting. The thieving Tory bastards will always vote.
Hmm, you’re completely wrong about other forms of political engagement only yielding negative results.
Spoiling a ballot is not an adequate response, nor is None of the Above really. Nor are they the same. The only way I can express mself in a ballot box is with an inarticulate yelp that might just be deemed an error. It won’t make a jot of difference, no one speaks for me.
Easy to claim but you don’t provide an example of any form of direct action creating something new? Let’s take an example from London politics: the congestion charging zone could not have been created by direct action, it took converted effort by a political organisation which got elected. Direct action is great for stopping things, not so helpful for starting them.
Well the congestion zone is a responsive measure? Holly listed some good examples of direct action that yielded positive results. I would say the general strike before the war is another good example. The concessions made to the working class after the war came about largely because of their strength and self-organisation before it. Suffragettes are another good example, they didn’t vote for their right to vote.
Okay, I concede that there are some examples of positive outcomes of direct action but maintain that there is plenty that will never be achieved by it. For example, it can’t set up large scale organisations like the NHS and stands virtually no chance of creating green energy industries to combat climate change.
However, I think you’re sidetracking. I’ve been clear that it is isn’t an ‘either – or’ situation. You don’t have to stop being a trades union activist (as an example), in order to vote or spoil your ballot in a demonstrably deliberate manner.
I’m surprised that this post has generated so much traffic, mainly because I’d have thought that non-voters were unconcerned about the views of voters. Vice versa, I’m also surprised that I have bothered to debate any of it. Who cares what non-voters think? Certainly not any elected legislature and, when I last checked, I didn’t notice direct action by the working class (promoted by @HollySmither as being the only successful method for change) preventing any cuts whatsoever. In fact, the ordinary folk of this country and around the world are being financially raped by high capital. All these non-voters who oppose that economic violation but refuse to stop the thieving Tory bastards from being elected are really helpful aren’t they? I’m particularly impressed by their contribution to the arts. Less so by their contribution to politics.
The greens will not stop the cuts, friendly capitalism doesn’t exist.
I’ll leave you a link:
http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Colin_Ward__The_Case_Against_Voting.html
Give us government and we would but, whoops, nearly forgot, you won’t do that will you? You prefer to remain a victim than risk change.