Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to think that if you believe in democracy, then you believe in the right to abstain from voting?

72 replies

CrystalHaze · 07/05/2015 13:03

Sick of the sodding sight of smug, self-righteous 'I've voted, you MUST vote too' posts on social media.

If you believe in democracy, then surely you have to accept that some people will not vote and will not care that they didn't vote, and that people whose decision to vote or not was swung by a facebook post are probably people who haven't applied a great deal of critical thought to their choice?

Or is there the remotest chance that there are people out there who haven't spotted that there's an election today, or who somehow 'forgot' and need to be reminded via facebook?

[And yes, I did vote. I didn't need to be 'told' to do it either. Managed to make that decision all by myself, but thanks for the billion reminders, facebook activists]

OP posts:

tabulahrasa · 07/05/2015 13:39

DoraGora - while I realise that, it's still annoying to see people complain about something for months and then see them going, I never vote, what's the big deal?

But to be fair, they are annoying people in general, I'm just too nice to delete people from Facebook...instead I bitch about them anonymously, lol.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 07/05/2015 13:39

Ok, but if you want show you have abstained rather than just not bothered you need to go. The turnout %age will be counted - the spoilt votes will be counted. If you want your abstention to be mean/do something then you need to spoil your vote.

Of course people can have made a well thought out decision to not vote in anyway, but if they want their abstention to mean anything in the political process people need to know about it.

Kewcumber · 07/05/2015 13:40

Exhorting people to vote on FB isn't any worse than being told off on MN for considering voting for a party that is different to your own choice.

And my Fb feed just says I've voted - doesn't say anything about not havng the right to abstain.

I think those who do vote find it irritating when the number of non-voters is so large. Its depressing.

WD41 · 07/05/2015 13:42

Not turning up isn't abstention, it's apathy. Go and spoil your ballot at least.

Personally I love to see this stuff on FB and that my friends are politically engaged.

Hakluyt · 07/05/2015 13:43

"How is not turning up not the same as abstaining? It's actively exercising your democratic right not to participate in the proceedings."

But indistinguishable from the "can't be arsed". Just jumbled together under "turnout"

Spoiled ballot papers are at least counted. Personally I think voting should be compulsory but with a "none of the above" box.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 07/05/2015 13:46

The problem with a "none of the above" box is what happens when "none of the above" wins with a landslide ?

Hoplikeabunny · 07/05/2015 13:47

Because not voting in our current system is not an informed choice.It is not an abstention, it makes no difference, sends no message, and is an insult to the people who fought for the universal franchise.

It is an informed choice, and I am abstaining, it has nothing to do with not being bothered, I live next to the polling station, it would take me 2 minutes. Of course not voting sends a message. It either sends the message that there is no one for you to vote for, which is totally unfair and ridiculous, or if it sends the message that people can't be bothered to vote, then that in itself is a message isn't it? If people can't be bothered, then politicians need to listen to that and ask themselves why people care so litte, whether that be because they don't think they will make a difference, or because they are so disenchanted with the whole system. In my opinion, it is just wrong to say it doesn't send a message, because I think it does, which is why i'm doing it.

Okay, so I could spoil my ballot, but I don't want to do that. A spoiled vote is still counted as a vote, and therefore shows in history books alongside mistakes and damaged ballot papers. In my opinion, abstaining is the best way of showing displeasure with the political system and therefore the only way to have any real change in the future.

You may not agree with me, but you canot say that abstaining means that I can't be bothered, because that isn't true, I have thought about it, and I have made an informed decision.

TedAndLola · 07/05/2015 13:50

If people can't be bothered, then politicians need to listen to that and ask themselves why people care so litte, whether that be because they don't think they will make a difference, or because they are so disenchanted with the whole system.

Why on earth would politicians be worrying about non-voters? They only care about voters because that's who gives them the power and authority. Why do you think they have so many pro-OAP policies? Because OAPs vote.

SmellsLikeSurgicalSpirit · 07/05/2015 13:51

Hundreds of women were imprisoned, tortured by means of force-feeding and Emily Wilding Davison died so that women could be allowed to be seen as equal and allowed to vote. I consider it my duty to do so and if I really, really could not bring myself to vote for a candidate I'd spoil.

I've always voted and from when the DC were babies bringing them in a pushchair to the polling station.

I think that voting should be compulsory, actually - it's a precious, hard won right for everyone and maybe there ought to actually be a physical "None of the above" box on the ballot paper so that voters could express their dissatisfaction.

And yes, I'm one of those arseholes who will tell people who didn't vote without a very, very good reason that they have no right whatsoever to whine about the current administration!

wasabipeanut · 07/05/2015 13:53

The trouble with not voting is that the mere action of not voting increases the likelihood of a Tory government given that Tories typically show much higher turnout rates. Now that's fine if you actually are a Tory but the chances are non voters aren't - which means they are directly increasing the likelihood of their least favourite option.

Hoplikeabunny · 07/05/2015 13:54

Why on earth would politicians be worrying about non-voters

Because they should care about everybody! They don't care about voters who spoil their votes either. Spoiled votes/non voters, they are all percentages aren't they, percentages that aren't listened to and no one cares about.

wheresthelight · 07/05/2015 13:55

it is really getting on my goat too. especially the ones promoting the suffragettes etc.

people have the right to vote or not vote for whoever they want. but then I also think if you choose not to vote then you lose the right to complain about the policies of whoever does get into government tomorrow

worridmum · 07/05/2015 13:56

I have found its the people that refuse to vote the loudest to complain about politics.....

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 07/05/2015 13:56

I'd support compulsory voting - preferably with the addition of a "none of the above" box, but spoiling the paper is always an option otherwise

If "none of the above" got the most votes, the election would have to be re-run, either with fresh candidates or with candidates who would have to up their game in terms of engaging the electorate. I don't think that would always be a bad thing

TedAndLola · 07/05/2015 14:01

Because they should care about everybody!

Yes but if you don't vote, you're not giving them any reason to consider and listen to the issues that affect you. Pensioners were protected from most of the "austerity" cuts because if they HAD been affected, they would have gone out and voted for a non-Tory party in protest. Other groups don't vote, so politicians can do what they want to those groups without punishment.

Not voting is saying "do what you want to me and there will be no repercussions for you".

bearleftmonkeyright · 07/05/2015 14:01

I have tried really hard to get my head around what you are saying but I can't agree. What is the point if nobody exercises their democratic right. Vote or if you feel that strongly spoil your paper. Not bothering isnt sending any kind of message.

Original poster

CrystalHaze · 07/05/2015 14:02

"And yes, I'm one of those arseholes who will tell people who didn't vote without a very, very good reason that they have no right whatsoever to whine about the current administration!"

That doesn't make you an arsehole at all, that's just commonsense ~ those who actively choose not to vote have no right at all to complain about the outcome.

But in a democratic society people do have to right to chose not to participate in the electoral process if they so wish. I don't actually agree with that decision, and I am always disappointed to hear that people haven't voted, but I recognize that it's un-democratic to tell people that they HAVE to participate in democracy against their will especially via a smug-arsed fb post.

OP posts:

SoupDragon · 07/05/2015 14:03

Spoiled ballot papers are at least counted.

And lumped together with those that made a mistake or just wrote "wibble" across the paper. No one knows how or why the paper was spoilt. It's just as pointless from that point of view as not turning up.

DoraGora · 07/05/2015 14:05

If people can't be bothered, then politicians need to listen

That's wrong, isn't it! If they ignore people who do vote, why should they listen to the ones who don't. But, if NOA could win a seat, it would matter, then!

Iggi999 · 07/05/2015 14:05

Even in a meeting, if you want to abstain from the vote you need to put your hand up - doing sod all doesn't count for anything.

LurkingHusband · 07/05/2015 14:07

I have no problem with people not voting.

I have every problem with them telling me that it means anything other than whoever wins will immediately add that non-vote to their support and use it to beat the rest of society. Because that's what happens.

A non-vote is a vote for "whoever wins". Which, if you like your democracy like you like your sandwich run ("Just get me whatever they have") is fine.

However, I can't believe all non voters believe that .....

DoraGora · 07/05/2015 14:10

A non vote is only a count-me-in vote because there is no I hate this system option.

DoraGora · 07/05/2015 14:11

And a NOA box, alone, wouldn't change that. You'd need NOA seats in parliament, too.

Hoplikeabunny · 07/05/2015 14:14

But, if NOA could win a seat, it would matter, then!

True, but it can't, so until that point, I exercise my right to abstain, because in my opinion, this sends the strongest message.

Even in a meeting, if you want to abstain from the vote you need to put your hand up

True, but in the GE, there is no 'hand up' option, other than spoiling the vote, which isn't an adequate alternative in my opinion.

My only options are- Tories, UKIP, Green or spoil- what a choice!!

Hoplikeabunny · 07/05/2015 14:17

A non-vote is a vote for "whoever wins". Which, if you like your democracy like you like your sandwich run ("Just get me whatever they have") is fine.

Is this true? So by not voting the party who wins gets my vote by default? If not then I don't understand how not voting gives them my vote?

Flip

1 2 3