That Russell Brand's interview . . . . .

[race aficionado]

And yes, he does make a lot of sense in that interview, especially in his reasoning as to not voting.

That's about the stupidest thing you can do in a democracy. Don't vote and then stand back and piss and moan about what politicians do. You want change then go out and support someone who thinks more or less as you do and then vote for them.

People who don't vote have lost any right to complain about anything. IMO of course.

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

[Ranger]

I thought that was pretty hard listening.

[janneppi]

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

They can always cast an empty voting ballot.


I do think more political parties can get more people voting.
We have eight(ish) main parties in Finlad that cover a wider range than only two or three can focus on. Winning party gets to have a prime minister and ask other parties into their goverment.
It goes roughly like this: (last result /in goverment G or in opposition O )
- Capitalist (20.38 / G)
- Center Lefties (19.10 / G)
- Racists (19.05 / O)
- Farmers (15.76 / O)
- Left wingers (8.13 / G)
- Tree huggers (7.25 / G)
- Jesus people (4.03 / G)
- Swedes (4.28 / G)

[BDunnell]

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

He seemed to have made up his mind never to vote, which is rather different from sometimes not voting. Then he says that he wants, in effect, to impose some indeterminate form of new system. As I wrote above, it strikes me that he objects to democracy.

[Starter]

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.

[race aficionado]

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.

Why waste time voting for Mickey Mouse?
A low voting turnout will show that people don't buy the available choices.
Of course more has to be done to make a difference and to not appear indifferent.
More candidates with an awareness that the system is not working have to make themselves available but with the 2 party system here in the USA and the tea partiers creating havoc and making a mockery of the USA in the eyes of the world is again a sign that the system is messed up. Let those members of the legislative and the executive branches ware their suits like the racers do in NASCAR, That way we could see their "sponsors" and know who really is in charge of our government. It's pathetic really.

[D-Type]

Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.

Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.

Now here's a thought;
In Britain a 'spoilt' ballot paper counts as a vote. A candidate loses his deposit if he doesn't get a minimum percentage of the vote (I think it's 5%). So if nearly everybody went along and 'spoilt' their papers all the candidates, including whoever got elected, would lose their deposits for not having attracted enough votes. I expect it's a similar situation in other countries.

[BDunnell]

Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.

As someone who finds themselves without a party to vote for — I abhor the recent actions of the one I used to support, and will not vote for either of the other two main parties on matters of general of specific principle — I object to the idea that I should seek to make some silly statement. In any case, you can't cast 'write-in ballots' in the UK, which is, after all, the country under discussion here.

[BDunnell]

Now here's a thought;
In Britain a 'spoilt' ballot paper counts as a vote. A candidate loses his deposit if he doesn't get a minimum percentage of the vote (I think it's 5%). So if nearly everybody went along and 'spoilt' their papers all the candidates, including whoever got elected, would lose their deposits for not having attracted enough votes.

Unlikely ever to happen, not least because of the fact that an awful lot of people who do vote are less informed than plenty of those who make a choice not to. I place myself currently in the latter group. Electing not to vote is not necessarily a sign of disengagement in the democratic process. I would class myself as a damn sight more engaged than is someone who always votes for one party no matter what.

In any case, stunts of the type you outline are not going to do any good. One of the major problems relates to the type of people who tend to be selected as candidates by the major parties these days.

[Rollo]

Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.

We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing.
- Sir Humphrey, Yes Minister.

Starter's comments here are bang on the mark. You don't effect change by simply standing on the outside, you effect change by jumping right to the centre and changing things. Not voting is tacit agreement with the way things are.

This is the reason why Occupy was always doomed to fail. Not once did I ever hear anyone at all suggest putting people into either the Congress, State Houses or Town Halls; for that reason it deserved to fail.
Placing people into parliaments was the reason why the trade unions in Britain and Australia eventually won things like minimum wages and conditions like holiday pay. By placing people into parliaments and winning government.
It's also the same reason why Congress 113 and 112 have been so incredibly stupid, pathetic and weak. If people really didn't want to see the complete and utter clustercuss* that took place last month, then why did they continue to vote for the two machines which are proven not to work?

I agree with Mr Brand that there needs to be a Revolution but by the same token, the only way that that happens in a democracy is via the word democracy - that is dêmos "People" and kratos "Power".
Power to the people, by the people and for the people is not won by by not voting, it's by voting for something different.

In the 2013 Federal Election in Australia, I had nine candidates in my electorate. Thanks to the Alternative Vote (which is a far
better method than first past the post), I put the Labor Party 8 and the Liberal Party 9.
My vote was counted; sure it didn't amount to much but it was counted... and if enough people vote for change, it will happen.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJP31ZiUgeM