I am going to vote today . . . . are you?

[JTG]

Those of you who have stated that you will not voting.. Shame on you..

If you cannot be arsed to exercise your democratic right & vote, please do not expect any sympathy from those of us who do vote when you start bitching.

utter utter nonsense

many of the most politically engaged people I know do not vote. but they participate far more in the lives of their communities and work harder for a better world than people who turn out once every so often to put an X in the box of crook A or crook B

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Don't forget we don't all live in London either.

There is no sentient life outside the M25, fact.

 

[Vintage Paw]

utter utter nonsense

many of the most politically engaged people I know do not vote. but they participate far more in the lives of their communities and work harder for a better world than people who turn out once every so often to put an X in the box of crook A or crook B

This is important. Why does crossing a box give you the right to moan about government, but working tirelessly in community projects, fighting against injustice (cliché but what the hell), organising local protests etc. not?

If all you do is cross a box, why should that entitle you to anything? A facetious question, and not one I necessarily agree with the sentiment of, but when framed against the above, it's every bit as valid as Andy the Don's.

e2a: I'm choosing to ignore you, Paulie

 

[danny la rouge]

Those of you who have stated that you will not voting.. Shame on you..

I am one who won't be voting today. Please explain my shame.

 

[Bakunin]

Why do you view the democratic process it as a sham..?? Yes I would like to see proportional representation for Westminster/General elections. But local/Mayoral/Scottish/welsh elections are not on a first past the post principal.

Question to you, what system would you like see..?? Realistic answer please, autonomous anarchism is not a realistic answer.

Funny you should mention autonomous Anarchism, but I happen to be a member of the Anarchist Federation.

As to why I regard the current electoral process as a sham, it seems to me that all we really have is a choice between careerist politicians, who, whatever their claims to the contrary, all tend towards self interest when they get their grubby hands on the levers of power. So the illusion of 'choice' is exactly that, an illusion.

And I'd agree with other posters that there are other forms of activity far more meaningful than simply ticking a box once every few years.

 

[Andy the Don]

I am one who won't be voting today. Please explain my shame.

Firstly, is there an election in your area today..?? If yes this is your one chance every four years to make a positive action to how local area is run. Please do not say "I do not agree with any of the candidates", surprise, surprise I do not agree with many of the things the candidate I voted for is standing on. But on balance the candidate I voted for represents my views on how London should be run politically.

 

[danny la rouge]

Firstly, is there an election in your area today..??

No.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Firstly, is there an election in your area today..?? If yes this is your one chance every four years to make a positive action to how local area is run. Please do not say "I do not agree with any of the candidates", surprise, surprise I do not agree with many of the things the candidate I voted for is standing on. But on balance the candidate I voted for represents my views on how London should be run politically.

But what if none of the candidates, on balance, represent your views on how London should be run politically? If there was just BNP candidate #1 and Independent fascist candidate #2 standing, who would you vote for?

Got to do you democratic duty now. So pick.

For many of us, politics doesn't fit so easily into ready-prepared boxes as it appears to for you. We all have the right to vote, we all have the right not to vote.

 

[Andy the Don]

Funny you should mention autonomous Anarchism, but I happen to be a member of the Anarchist Federation.

I know that, your user name kind of gave it away..

As to why I regard the current electoral process as a sham, it seems to me that all we really have is a choice between careerist politicians, who, whatever their claims to the contrary, all tend towards self interest when they get their grubby hands on the levers of power. So the illusion of 'choice' is exactly that, an illusion.

A choice between careerist politicians, well politics is for some a career. Regarding self interest of the candidates, well they will stand for the party that best represents their political view. The same we will vote for the candidate that best represents our political view.

And I'd agree with other posters that there are other forms of activity far more meaningful than simply ticking a box once every few years.

Yes I agree with this. But by voting we are holding our elected representatives to account. We are making them take notice of our views. The rest of the time they can just say "oh look its the disgruntled minority if they wanted real change they would make an effort & vote on polling day". By voting we are holding them to account, for one day we all matter, they are interested in what we think & say. Yes I do agree that they should be interested 24/7 in what we think & say but we only get the chance to vote every four to five years. BTW I do not agree with compulsory voting, but I believe that the London mayoral election is a straight fight between a progressive & reactionary conservative candidate & I know which one I want to be mayor of my city. Apologises for being very London centric.

 

[lighterthief]

It's the closest we will ever get to it, and a darn sight closer than it is in lots of countries!

Universal suffrage and all that

Too right. People who don't vote deserve to be sent to countries that don't have elections, IMO.

 

[Andy the Don]

But what if none of the candidates, on balance, represent your views on how London should be run politically? If there was just BNP candidate #1 and Independent fascist candidate #2 standing, who would you vote for?

Got to do you democratic duty now. So pick.

For many of us, politics doesn't fit so easily into ready-prepared boxes as it appears to for you. We all have the right to vote, we all have the right not to vote.

But there would never be only two candidates standing on the same basic political platform. There are candidates representing most Londoners political view. As I said there will never be a candidate who represents your views 100%. You vote for the candidate who best represents your views.

 

[ethel]

But what if none of the candidates, on balance, represent your views on how London should be run politically? If there was just BNP candidate #1 and Independent fascist candidate #2 standing, who would you vote for?

Got to do you democratic duty now. So pick.

For many of us, politics doesn't fit so easily into ready-prepared boxes as it appears to for you. We all have the right to vote, we all have the right not to vote.

i'd stand myself.

 

[Andy the Don]

No.

Well that could well be the reason why you are not voting today..

 

[Andy the Don]

i'd stand myself.

I'll vote for you sarahluv..

"X" <-- my vote for sarahluv

 

[Bakunin]

Too right. People who don't vote deserve to be sent to countries that don't have elections, IMO.

To the salt mines with them!

A simply ridiculous argument, if it can be called that.

 

[Thora]

I'm voting for Boris, he's so cute!

 

[Vintage Paw]

But there would never be only two candidates standing on the same basic political platform. There are candidates representing most Londoners political view. As I said there will never be a candidate who represents your views 100%. You vote for the candidate who best represents your views.

Most. What if none of the candidates standing (in my ward - not London obv. - there are the big 3, that's all) represent my views?

You cannot make a blanket statement decrying every single person who chooses not to vote. You cannot make the assumption based on your own reasoning about who to vote for and why, that others feel comfortable making those same decisions or even see it as a valid way of choosing.

(I take your point about the 2 candidates - I was clearly being facetious.)

 

[Vintage Paw]

i'd stand myself.

I couldn't adequately represent the people I would be asking to vote for me. I do not have the experience nor the skills, nevermind not actually currently being in the right situation to be able to stand (in that I would not be able to give it the time it needed and deserved).

So I could stand, vote for myself, and then be happy in the knowledge that at least I did my democratic duty.

lol

 

[girasol]

I'm voting for Boris, he's so cute!

hands off, he's mine!

 

[Andy the Don]

Most. What if none of the candidates standing (in my ward - not London obv. - there are the big 3, that's all) represent my views?

You cannot make a blanket statement decrying every single person who chooses not to vote. You cannot make the assumption based on your own reasoning about who to vote for and why, that others feel comfortable making those same decisions or even see it as a valid way of choosing.

(I take your point about the 2 candidates - I was clearly being facetious.)

Sorry in my previous posts I was being very London centric & we are lucky to have the full political spectrum of candidates standing. Yes I can see that you could have issues with voting for a particular candidate. So in your case may I suggest that you vote tactically for the best ABC (anyone but conservative) candidate. BTW I have always believed that local council elections should be non-political. You vote for the person & not the political party.

 

[_angel_]

Voted on the way to work. One of the polling officers is a neighbour & a number of our neighbours were also voting at the same time. So a very friendly & chatty voting experience.

Those of you who have stated that you will not voting.. Shame on you..

If you cannot be arsed to exercise your democratic right & vote, please do not expect any sympathy from those of us who do vote when you start bitching.

It's only 'democratic' if someone actually represents your view. None of the main parties (or even smaller ones) reflect any of my views. I'm not in London but there are local elections here. What's the point?

Last year labour won the biggest overall vote in Leeds* and the tories and libdems collaborated to control the council. That's just plain wrong IMO.


* By quite some distance too.

 

[Fez909]

i get to vote twice today. Not in the way Londoners do, but actually make two votes for the same election!

My girlfriend is away and I am voting for her. She has told me what to vote for, but obviously I could choose my candidate and no one would ever know!

Speaking of my candidate, I have a last minute dilemma: do I vote for the party I would most like to win, but who realistically aren't going to. Or the incumbent lot on a slim margin, who have been most excellent in my area, even though I loathe their party?

 

[Fez909]

BTW I have always believed that local council elections should be non-political. You vote for the person & not the political party.

Would it be true to say that a council would be better received by the Government when asking for funding, or similar, if they were of the same party?

 

[Andy the Don]

Would it be true to say that a council would be better received by the Government when asking for funding, or similar, if they were of the same party?

What the local authority requires to improve the residents lot should be the only requirement for central government funding. Unfortunately over the past twenty years it has become a political hot potato with central government controlling & wanting more control over local government funding.

 

[spanglechick]

it's true for many people that no party represents their views - but i guess the only way it makes sense not to use your vote is if you see not result as being worse than any other. In VP's hypothetical election between BNP and the fash or whoever, then if you truly believed the outcomes would be as bad either way, you wouldn't vote.

However, in London today there is a pretty close contest between IMO someone who would be a bit shit, and someone else who'd be a fucking catastrophe. The idea of not using my vote to try and avert the catastrophe seems a bit odd. If i thought london under ken and london under boris would be just as bad as each other, then I guess i wouldn't vote.

 

[girasol]

/ takes out record player and plays same old record again

Not to mention that there's a good chance that some other party may win, if people vote for their first choice first and then Ken, to keep Boris out.

 

[ricbake]

Seven times more people just looking at this poll than those voting in it. . . . . . .

but of those who vote here we still have better than 60% say they will excercise their democratic right.

The last election for mayor less than 35% of people turned out.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Seven times more people just looking at this poll than those voting in it. . . . . . .

but of those who vote here we still have better than 60% say they will excercise their democratic right.

The last election for mayor less than 35% of people turned out.

Well I'm not in the UK, so not able to vote.

Any indications of turnout/ poll predictions yet?

 

[harpo]

Yep, just been. Unpleasant scene in the paperwork queue involving two 'old dears' making loud comments about how there 'aren't many English in 'ere'. Relics from when my area was a NF stronghold, I suppose.

 

[JTG]

If yes this is your one chance every four years to make a positive action to how local area is run.

Absolute nonsense, we can do this every day of our lives, it doesn't require 'democracy' to do so.

I'm suspicious of anyone who genuinely believes their vote is the only way they contribute to their society, because it's no contribution at all 99% of the time.