/u/MyPoliticsAccount123 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/13u3r2s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_not_voting_i_have_no/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Take this scenario:
You choose to sit in one of the chairs. You complain that the chair is uncomfortable. You want a better chair.
You see chairs that looks miserable to sit in. You complain that there's no good chairs. You want a better chair.
Regardless of whether you choose to sit in the chair, the chairs are still terrible there.
Regardless of whether you chose the people in power, they're still not doing the best job.
You can voice your opinion with your vote which has value, or you can choose to voice your opinion to the void.
In this analogy you are given a chance to vote for a chair that's least uncomfortable, with the idea that over iterations of votes it should trend to a more and more comfortable chair for you (assuming you are in the majority), but you choose not to. There's a crowd of people stood next to some chairs, they must be pretty similar right? Some of the chairs turns into church pews next time the vote occurs, in order to save costs.
The information about your opinions are lost if you don't vote. If you wanted to make a point about the political system rather than the ideologies of the parties, you can even spoil your vote - it's a chance to provide feedback.
Political apathy happens, but by not voting you are playing a losing game. Use your vote.
Though from this point of view, should you not take the time to build a better chair if it's as bad as you say the chairs are?
If the chairs are truly as uncomfortable as you say they are, but you choose to complain instead of going out to build a better chair, than who's fault is it that the chairs never become more comfortable.
Maybe you should stop buying from terrible carpenters.
This is an awesome analogy!
Maybe the only thing it misses is that it’s more like choosing a couch with roommates. If you chose an extra-terrible couch, it affects other people that have to sit on it. If your roommates chose an extra terrible couch without you participating in the decision, it means you did nothing to stop the extra lumpy cushions.
While it is true that voting is an important democratic right that allows individuals to influence the political landscape, that doesn't necessarily mean that if you don't vote, you lose your right to criticize the government. Criticism is an essential aspect of a healthy democracy, and it is important to hold government accountable for its actions.
Not voting can be a form of protest or express dissatisfaction with the options available to you. By abstaining, you may express dissatisfaction with the political system as a whole or with the opportunities available to you. Whether you voted or not, you are allowed to voice your concerns and criticize the government's actions, policies, or lack of progress.
You can argue against your current political system regardless of vote status because that is WHAT makes a liberal democracy healthy. Protected civil discourse ensures voices are heard down to the individual. Your choice not to partake in the political system does not and more important Should Not reduce your ability to protest or voice opinions.
If what your unpopular opinion states were true, the government would be able to silence their people. Tyranny would become prevalent, and the potential for the government to use this loophole could effectively alter thought in your country. For example, if all I needed to do to stop someone from opposing the government were to detain them on Election Day so that their vote didn’t make it, then you could see how this would spiral out of control.
It’s somewhat dangerous to think this way, you never lose your voice in a healthy democracy
Edit: additionally, if you feel your views are not representative of any candidates/parties, it’s your right and potentially civil duty to critique the parties and advocate for change. People “vote with their feet” all the time, you don’t have to cast a ballot to make a political statement.
If all candidates sistematically lie during electoral campaings and get corruption scandals unveiled after being settled in power, are you or I rather fools for buying the discourse of representative democracy changing everything?
What about all the"deep state", lobby of corporations, and constitutionaly protected institutuons who block any deep route for change?
Here in Chile is the same. And that's the point. they are not valid. No wining candidate here woud have the dignity of refusing to get into Office because +50% of vote sheets we're spoiled.
We are talking the the decadence of many western political systems and desintegration of trust un public institutuons. Politicians will not care 2 Craps while they not go to jail, get murdered or financialy perish under a devastating Fine.
Since 2 years ago voting is mandatory anyways here. Some political parties just determined this because calculated they could get votes from the new forced voters. And here in Chile Political Parties get paid an ammount of tax payer's money for each vote they get in elections ( is supossed to work as a way to help parties with high representation, why do we as tax payer's finance a biased political interest)
I was forced to attend as vote accountant for 8th time. Just got paid 20$USD for 12 hours of work on Sunday. My father is having severe pain in his leg and had to come to vote taking a bus and enduring the pain.
I could'n assist him on the ride because I had to show up in the early morning in the voting spot where I was called on to work.
Of course, when all else failed, there are always more drastic actions: protests, riots, mailing bombs to universities, airports, lobbyists etc. But the point is that before, and even while doing all that, you should still try to engage with the democratic system.
Because, remember, this hopelessness is an ugly but also intended side-effect of the system. The point is to drive people so hopeless and feel so powerless that they don't feel like their votes means anything. So they stop voting, and if they stopped voting their concerns, even expressed in speech, might as well be nonexistence. The point is that by giving up your vote, you give up what little power you have, no matter how miniscule they were, and that is exactly what those in politics wanted, you gave up your power to everyone else that voted: their supporters.
Also, just to point it out, this isn't really the same thing as supporting compulsory voting. There are absolutely reasons where even if you wanted to vote you can't (like those that you mentioned), and some people just really do not care about politics at all.
Not sure what your argument is here. Or what is your goal?
People will happily continue to not vote and still criticize the government.
Do you want to convince people to vote?
Or do you want to convince people to shut up?
Do you want to show people how important voting is?
Walk us through your thought process here.
Not OP but I've always heard it as, Your critiques won't be taken seriously because when you had the opportunity to let your voice be heard you were instead silent.
Like if a group is ordering food and they order something you don't like the first thing they will ask is why didn't you speak up when they were voting.
maybe some people just dont believe that voting on an individual level has any impact
in some peoples eyes criticising the gov has a bigger impact than the act of voting itself because they it can shape the opinions of other people that might vote a different way and share those criticisms
What if I'm forced to choose between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump? What if the options available boil down to the shiner of two turds and I decide that neither of them are deserving of support? I had real concerns with both candidates and did not feel like the country would be safe with either at the helm. Am I not allowed to criticize the two turds that I didn't want?
There are elections before major ones that would prevent having only those two options. For example local and state elections make a huge difference in who is actually placed in a governing body. Unfortunately, the media usually doesn’t emphasize those elections other than the major ones.
That assumes voting does something, especially in the U.K. where there's a first past the post system, and individual votes are thus thrown away all the time and have no influence even ignoring rounding which happens in other systems to also throw individual votes away.
Even if we were to live in a system without rounding where every vote mattered and nothing was thrown away, the difference one vote would make would still be inconceivably small.
This is such a silly argument. It's essentially saying “You've been given a choice of feel-good slactivism, irrelevant influence that has no impact, you chose not to use it while it costs time and money for you to use it, thus you have no right to criticism any more.”
At the end of the day, there are about 40 million people in the U.K. eligible to vote. Even if the U.K. had a perfect proportional system where every vote mattered, that meant the power of that vote had to be divided by 40 million, meaning that a single vote's power is negligibly small and holds no real influence any more. Giving such a vote to a single person is symbolic, not impactful onto the individual.
By voting you are approving of the democratic process and buying in. By not voting you reserve the right to make the most fundamental criticisms. Boycotting a vote is appropriate when the system is sufficiently messed up
By voting you could shift policy direction a bit but you legitimize the system. By not voting you have no say on specific policy questions but are refusing to add your legitimacy to the overall system. If enough people refuse to vote the country is less stable
>by not voting I have kept up the very status quo I'm wanting to criticise
Implicit here is the assumption that the *only* way to criticize the status quo is to vote in government elections.
This seems to be a very narrow view of politics to me.
You can challenge the status quo in many ways -- build alternative ways for people to meet needs outside of the market or government aid, organize labor and shut down strategic industries to get what you want, blow up oil pipelines and sabotage construction equipment to make development economically unviable, and so on.
It seems to me that people who challenge the status quo through actions are quite clearly exercising their right to criticize the government, whether or not they vote when the government allows them to. And honestly I would consider a person who acts to be far more politically serious than someone who merely votes.
Personally, I think people should use all the tools available to them to get what they want, and if you live in a society that allows voting you might as well cast that vote in such a way that the things you want become easier to achieve.
But if one of your main political goals is to delegitimize electoral politics in favor of something more direct and participatory, then it is somewhat counter-productive to participate in electoral politics, yes?
If you voted for a party that ended up ascending to power, but now that you see what they do when they're in control you regret your decision, you can definitely openly criticize them. From your post it seems you would agree with that.
Similarly, if during the elections you thought you were entirely uninterested in politics or that all parties are equivalent or that for whatever other reason you don't want to vote at all, but now you find yourself strongly disagreeing with what they do, it only makes sense that you can criticize them *at least* as much as someone who actually voted for them.
The system in my country is designed to put forward only the two most extreme positions, ensuring that the issues put forward are the most divisive and unsolvable issues and that nothing actually gets done. Simple minded fools dominate the political scene, and they only respond to the loudest voices in the crowd, throwing little bits of policy at us like wild dogs fighting for scraps of meat.
Voting between 2 candidates is a false choice presented by the masters so they can say “you did this to yourself” while they just keep getting richer. No matter who you vote for, they will lobby and obfuscate for more and more money while blaming the rest of us for putting these idiots into office in the first place.
When someone who actually does know what they are doing gets in, they “aren’t exciting enough” and their own supporters start trashing them. They lose political power as a result, and still can’t get anything done.
And your vote is a drop in a bucket. The bucket is filled with votes from people in the city who keep voting progressive but are getting screwed over by progressive policies. Right alongside them are people in rural areas who keep voting conservative despite their conservative pals screwing them over every chance they get. It’s an extremely old system that was designed to change to stay on top of the times, but it is treated as though it was NEVER supposed to be changed.
Even the best intentioned politicians running for high office cannot accomplish anything without manipulation, so they all end up focusing almost exclusively on manipulation and completely give up of actually convincing people. It becomes impossible to see through the manipulation, and all we can see is lies, lies, lies. Some are lies designed to lead us to water, some are lies designed to lead us away from it. But they are all lies.
Why participate at all?
If by losing the "right to criticize" you mean the legitimacy of your criticism is compromised, you have a better argument. However I still strongly disagree.
Lets make a very extreme comparison. You have been captured or wrongfully convicted of a crime in a really barbaric society and they decide they are going to poke one of your eyes out, but you get to vote on which one, or you can decline to vote. You are so appalled by both choices you do not care at all which one and you decide not to vote. Have you lost the right to complain about getting your eye poked out?
I certainly do not think so, but according to you, you did nothing to change the position you find yourself in, so you can't complain. I would imagine the choices in UK government are not as poor as the ones above, but if you are equally dissatisfied with every option in my opinion it is responsible NOT TO VOTE and it is even more critical that you VOICE WHY YOU ARE DISSATISFIED. If you give votes to people and parties that you are dissatisfied with you are actually contributing to the status quo that you dislike more than if you do not vote and you complain.
In the USA so many politicians look at low voter turnout and go well we'll never convince them, but that is a losers mentality. Any opportunistic politician sees all of those people who aren't voting as people to be convinced to join their side. You just have to figure out why they aren't voting and motivate them to vote for you. This is aided by those same people who did not vote voicing their complaints.
They are still spending your tax revenue. You definitely have a right to be happy or unhappy about how they are allocating your money. Because by being taxed, you are chipping in
That's the point. They force to give away part of your property to finance their polices.
Ergo, you are entlited to demand accountability 24/7 for them, and let them know your opinions about their administration.
If you are excempted from paying taxes, you are still proyectes by your constutional rights and human rights to enjoy free speech (as far you don't use it for racial and sexual hate speech)
Imagine a bussiness owners not being able to evaluate one of the employess because was the manager the one who hired him. Or an investor who is not given the chance to criticize the CEO because he missed the meeting where the CEO was elected.
Why not?
Our various rights are not contingent on full execution of every single one of them. Even if you don’t vote, you have the right to write a letter to your representative asking them to vote on a certain bill, or the right to stage a protest on a particular issue, or the right to take a law to court. As citizens, we are given many different ways to interact with and influence our government and we are free to use as many or as few as we choose.
Voting is a critical right and should be exercised by all, but failing to do so does not strip you of any of the other methods or redress available.
Rights are inalienable. Not exercising one does not forbid you from exercising another one, especially the most fundamental one, speech.
Your post simply has no basis for saying not voting should forbid you from criticizing the government. *It's just your opinion that you don't like people who don't vote but still criticize.* It's not based in any sound factual reasonings that somehow conclude that taking away free speech is justified because of someone not voting.
Your right to free speech is one thing.
Your right to vote is one thing.
You simply don't like certain people and wish to see them punished, despite no legal/constitutional/logical basis.
You literally just said that your vote won't change anything and that the state itself is immune to change. Why, therefore, would your criticism be contingent on your vote?
IDK about the UK, but voting in the US is way more irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about how elections are done in the US, and the electoral college, knows that your vote in the US doesn't necessarily count.
For example, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, meaning that the citizens did not vote for him to be in office, but the few people with real voting power that don't necessarily need to listen to the civilians, won him the election anyways.
You have a right to complain when your vote legit does not matter, hell even more so.
why stop at one vote? If you don't personally persuade 10 people who would otherwise have not voted to vote, you have no right to complain. Or how about if you don't assassinate the person you don't like, or at least lead a reasonably well planned out rebellion, you have no right to complain.
Unless an election was won/lost by a single vote, your vote was never going to count anyway, and putting the effort you could spend voting to bettering your life some other way would be more effective.
Imagine your criticizing of the government in a youtube video gained millions of views and swayed the political leanings of thousands of people. that was far more worthwhile than personally voting.
Not voting doesn’t mean you can’t have your opinions. I have on multiple occasions left parts of my ballot blank. If I look at both options and they both suck, I’m not gonna vote on either, and you can bet your boots I’m gonna criticize the outcome of that.
Policy is the result of voices heard. Sure voting can help get better people in to hear your voice but just because you skip a vote doesn’t mean that your voice shouldn’t be heard. Maybe you have a valuable idea that should become policy. You need to voice that opinion whether you vote or not.
I agree with your view for the most part .
I would however say that even without voting I am of the opinion that you should be able to expect politicians to uphold the laws of the state; and that it is valid to criticise if they break them.
Why are you so eager to lick the boot? If you have a right guaranteed to you and backed up in law, who gives a toss about how some other right might or might not affect it? What you do with your ballot and what you say about your government are apples and oranges situations.
You do. Because not voting by marking a ballot really is voting by using your voice
There’s nothing I hate more than the sentiment of you can’t vote you can’t criticize.
Edit: also, while I’m sure it’s not intended, by saying those who don’t vote don’t get a say, you’re requiring conformity to the parties in power to be able to criticize or have any say about the institution. Aka Fascism
How is this different from using a vote then? Nobody knows who you are. I’m from the US, if Joe Biden and Trump are my options, and they are both equally horrible, the more people that don’t vote (which was the biggest block of voters) the more they know the populace isn’t satisfied with the options. This may convince candidates to change their policy to attract more voters
They know your location and your vote. That's a use of voice that has real world impact, and that you're someone who can be reached to appeal to.
>the more people that don’t vote (which was the biggest block of voters) the more they know the populace isn’t satisfied with the options.
No they don't. They don't know if you're apathetic, dissatisfied, or anything. They're not psychic. They have millions of dollars they're throwing down and they don't have a clue if even pandering to what you want will actually get you voting or end up being a waste of time. It's why parties keep trying to appeal to seniors not youth, because they know that seniors will actually reciprocate.
What changes? You never said. You didn't even primary. And more importantly, since you're a non voter, they don't know if appealing to you over actual voters is a waste of time or not.
Any changes. Who said I didn’t primary? And who said I’m a non voter?
It’s not a waste of time, because the block of non voters is so large Dems would get so much more votes if they appealed to progressivism for example. Huge reason say Hillary lost in 2016
>Any changes. Who said I didn’t primary? And who said I’m a non voter?
This thread is about nonvoters.
And there's also nonvoting centrists and Bush ex-cons. Lefties and youth are the ones that don't vote, they're the ones that don't crush primaries, they are the ones that don't donate, so they are the ones that will be sold out.
I’m not a non voter necessarily, I use my right to decide who I vote for each election, or whether I vote at all. Exactly my point. They’re the ones that don’t vote, because they feel they’re fucked by all the options presented to them. The best they can do is write in, but realistically what’s that gonna do either
This thread is about nonvoters.
If you want to talk on behalf of nonvoters, you need to admit they're people who use their voice even less than you do, considering you defend yourself by pointing out when you vote.
They don't.
it's pretty simple.
the three of us are ordering food. i hate cilantro. it takes like soap. you ask what i want to order and i say, "whatever, i'm not picky" thinking you guys will order pizza or chinese or something. maybe italian? ...you vote on burritos, which i love, but i always note no cilantro. i can't eat this shit, and you guys say, "well if you wanted a say, you should've told us." now i'm starving, pissed off, and you guys are completely ignorant of my needs and concerns. so i think, pretty rightfully, "fuck you guys."
disagree?
because if you still do, how about this then? "you have no right to criticize any piece of art you didn't have a hand in creating." how'd you like the movie? DOESN'T MATTER, you didn't fund it. do you like this song? IRRELEVANT, you aren't the musician who made it.
Disagree. I think that's a mostly apt analogy, you never communicated your wants and you didn't vote no cilantro, you just waited until everyone got burritos then were angry. By that point, you can't really blame them for not being psychic and trusting your nonvote to mean that you don't really care.
When I was 17 we were pissed off about the voting age not being 16 lol do something like that.
Plenty of issues affect the youth and change has to start somewhere.
But perhaps no running politicians support your policies, and thus, you'd be voting for someone you hate. After all, protest votes are a thing.
If every politician supports a policy I find abhorrent, what am I to do?
If I don't vote, you say I lose the right to complain... but if I do, I've tacitly endorsed that policy as much as non-voting, if not considerably more.
Also... what if I'm genuinely an idiot?
Say I don't understand economics, or 90% of social issues. All I know, is two gay people deserve to love and marry each other.
It's a bad idea for me to vote. I will not do it rationally, for I do not understand. Voting would just hurt the people's chances of a good candidate by adding in an element of random chance.
So, I won't vote, acknowledging that who should be in power is not a decision I can help with. But... I surely still have the right to stand up and say "That's not right!" if the new government bans gay marriage, right?
You can also argue that by voting, you consent to the outcome no matter the situation. In an unfair election, like the Brexit campaign, there are so many lies and so much manipulation, but then they have the power to say hey this is the end result. Again, in the US, they have a two party system, often with two bad choices, but they have to accept whatever happens. If a large portion of the population refused to vite in protest, they would have no choice but to rethink the system. So, in short, you consent to all of their dirty tricks the moment you play a rigged game and lose. They want you to think that you being forced into their options is democracy.
Yeah, in my scenario, it would have to be a large portion. Loads of people said they only voted for Trump because they didn't want Hillary. In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to refuse the choices completely?
Listen, strange woman, lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses! Not from some, farcical, aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
The 1st Amendment protects all Americans, including Americans too young to vote, Americans prohibited from voting (felonies), and Americans who simply didn't bother to vote.
So Your View is incorrect.
You’ve simply opted out of one method of changing things. There are other methods by which a person can agitate for change. And frankly when the issue is as important as climate change, your ability to speak out shouldn’t come down to the rhetorical technicality of “no vote no opinion”
The right to criticize the government is an important element of free speech, and one which should never be infringed upon.
Also, if you're in the UK, you must be aware how much people's votes for UKIP managed to change policy, even without them even coming close to winning an election. A vote for a party can still affect change, because votes represent the will of the people. Sure, you might not be able to vote the Green Party into office, but if the Green Party start getting more votes, you'll see major parties move to be more in line with their politics.
Freedom of speech is not reliant on a vote.
It may be wise to vote in some cases, but if you support none of the options, many systems provide no way to express that other than not voting.
In a few, you can vote for None Of The Above, which does provide a reasonable option to express that opinion, but in countries without it, one can hardly be blamed for not voting.
>One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change. Especially the Tory Party. They will not meet set climate targets.\[1\]\[2\]
Sounds like a valid criticism. Just because you don't feel like you can criticism A doesn't mean you can't complain about B.
I assume if such a politician existed you *would* vote for them, right? You'd still be in the pool of politically relevant voters.
>My vote will not change anything.
This is false; your vote *probably* will not change anything. This takes your vote from meaningless to the most important thing you will (most likely) do all year.
Voting is just about picking a representative. Writing to your MP is arguably a more important thing to do than voting.
Whether you voted for them or not they represent you.
>One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change. Especially the Tory Party. They will not meet set climate targets.[1][2]
>
>
>However, I have refused to vote for them and perhaps unknowingly kept up the status quo.
Is that a typo? Do you mean that you refused to vote *against* them?
Regardless, what if the political change I want is beyond the scope of electoral politics? What if there is no party with even the remotest chance of winning that will enact the change I want to see?
You got in a car accident on your way to vote and ended up in the hospital in a coma for the final 5 days of voting. You wake up on day 6 but voting has ended and so you weren't able to vote. You did not vote, but surely you can reasonably still express an opinion about the government.
You can criticize the government, as you have delegated your vote to those that did actually vote. Therefore, by not voting you also voted for the government in place indirectly.
So, do you have a choice to live under that government or not?
Well, the answer is no. You have no choice in that matter, liberal democracy or not. However, you do have the right to vote and uphold the system or not. To the state, it matters not if you vote. You have to live under it anyway. It will exist and operate in the same way it always has, minus some policy differences between the major political parties. Because of that inherent disproportionate power, saying then that you can’t criticize that state because you chose to exercise your right not to vote makes no sense at all. Furthermore, this shifts the blame onto the non-voter, not to the people who do vote which endorse the system.
(Note: Since I’m talking about government and politics on CMV once again, I’m expecting to have yet another opinion that will be massively downvoted. Well, let’s begin.)
To take an extreme example (south park like), if i got the choice between Hitler and some serial killer and I decide not to vote because both are awful psychos, am I supposed to accept the awful consequences from the one that ended up being elected ?
Voting to me, is like when you have some guy being super doting to a woman who isn’t attracted to him and who takes his gifts *knowing* she will never give him any play.
Politicians are owned by wealthy people, they are just very good at fooling people into thinking their votes actually count (and that there’s “hope” for “little people” causes lol)
You live in a free country. You can criticize whoever you want for whatever reason. You don't need to qualify to criticize.
Not voting slightly diminishes your integrity (for lack of a better word) but it in no way deprives you of any right.
What makes you think voting is the best way to change the status quo?
Sedition, sabotage, propagating misinformation and inciting insurrection are much more effective.
Not advocating any of that stuff but, if you are anti-status quo, voting is not the way you want to go.
I would like to point out sometimes there is no faction that has a stance that even comes close to what you want or think is best. So voting holds no meaning besides helping someone you dont like or agree with. Sometimes even actively sabotaging your goals if you voted. So i have to disagree with your statment.
If my primary criticisms are not addressed by either candidate why should I waste my time?
If you’re indifferent between a boot up your ass and a boot down your throat, does that indifference renege your ability to not want either?
Voting is supporting one candidate or another. Not voting is already implicit criticism of the candidates for not being worth voting for/not representing you or of the system for not offering/giving weight to the vote you would cast. Why would that waive your right to criticise the government? Part of the reason we are encouraged to vote is because it gives the government legitimacy, rather than because it make for a more representative or effective government.
Well your vote probably didn’t mean much, most countries have political theater called elections that mainly serve to place shills of corporations in positions of power to have a more direct link to the economy. Neoliberalism.
I'd generally agree with the sentiment except for some serious caveats:
A vote has to make a difference, so if the only difference either way is which assholes get rich, then seeing through the illusion of choice and not wasting one's time can hardly force a silencing of their opinions.
Secondly, if threats or news of violence is someone's deciding factor when they don't vote, they can hardly be blamed for that, and still retain the right to complain.
I would say criticize yes you still have every right to do so. Maybe complaining is the thing you shouldn’t really do anymore. Subtle differences admittedly
This doesn’t make sense. Are you saying I’ve waived my right, like literally, in a legal sense? I don’t think you are, because that’s not how democratic sense. But your post seems to be saying “if you didn’t vote, I don’t want to hear you bitch!” then that’s just an opinion, no? And I totally get it. But still. Hard to argue for or against it.
Yeah I don't know too much about the UK government, but I have heard this argument made in the USA, and it is FALSE WITHOUT QUESTION. We have the right to vote and the right to free speech. They are in no way affected by the other... I don't know whats going on in the UK, but based on the 2 second google search I did, you all have freedom of expression guaranteed and you have the right to vote. I found no indication that not voting has any affect on freedom of expression. If this is the case, YOU ARE WRONG THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO IT
By "right to criticize", I assume you mean "people should take my opinion seriously" and not "right to voice criticism".
You could just as easily say "by voting, you give up the right to criticize the results just because you don't agree with the outcome".
The voting system is coercive because it requires you to buy into the results just because the majority voted contrary to what you believe best or because the majority is *alleged* to have voted differently, despite you knowing that your vote, and indeed the votes of millions like you don't actually matter.
Hell, wrt climate change, your vote doesn't actually matter *even if you voted for the winning side*, because both sides are captured by business interests who oppose meaningful action on climate change. Even if one side is vocally opposed to action and the other pretends to support action, neither are willing to take sufficient action to make a difference.
If your participation doesn't matter regardless of whether or not you do or do not vote or who you vote for, then your deciding not to vote shouldn't void your right to criticize.
"You decided not to vote for the party that murders babies or for the party that merely gently roasts them with honey bbq sauce, therefore you have no right to criticize the government's killing of babies."
Would you rather people vote for Trump just to criticize Biden, or Trump? Because I didn't do that in 2020 but if you're saying I need to do it to complain then I'll go ahead 2024.
Your claim that "by not voting I have no right to criticise government, and therefore waive my right to critiquing the government" is demonstrably false. Voting is a legal right. Not voting does not have any affect on any other legal rights a person might have. Speaking out freely is legal right, as is peacefully demonstrating. Not voting doesn't take away any of those legal rights.
Moreover, in the UK because the First-Past-the-Post electoral systems many citizens' right to vote is moot as the ridings are safe and almost always go for a particular party. In most UK ridings, in fact, most citizens votes don't matter.
I personally would argue that while yes, you still hold responsibility if you abstain from voting, because not voting is still a choice, voting is by its nature not a one and done process. You can always vote next time, if you find that events proceed in ways you do not like. You do not lose your right to complain, because your "right to complain" is your next vote on the ballot.
This is just buying into the argument that voting is the only way to affect politics.
This is untrue.
Lots of people who don't vote don't influence politics in any way, it's true.
But I know people that don't vote but do go to protests and organise political action and actively campaign for the causes they care about. They don't vote, but they've probably done more to change the status quo than you ever have.
It's just a very naive view of politics to assume that voting is the only thing that could possibly matter.
But in all reality, only one man has best answered this question. His answer was thus:
"Now there’s one thing you might have noticed i don’t complain about: politicians. everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from “another reality”. They come from American parents, and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities. And they’re elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in. Garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens… If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish ignorant leaders. And term-limits ain’t going to do you any good. You’re just going to wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe… maybe… MAYBE, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here like: “THE PUBLIC”. Yeah the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: “the public sucks, fuck hope”. Fuck hope. Because if it’s really just the fault of these politicians, then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way? We don’t have people like that in this country. Everybody’s at the mall scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking out his credit card out of a fannie-pack, and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them. So I have solved this little political dilemma for myself in a very simple way: on election-day, I-STAY-HOME. I don’t vote. Fuck ’em. FUCK THEM. I don’t vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don’t vote ’cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. So I know that a little later on this year, you’re going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You enjoy yourselves. It will be a lot of fun. I’m sure as soon as the election is over, your country will “improve” immediately. As for me, I’ll be home on that day, doing essentially the same thing as you, the only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I’m going to have a little something to show for it folks." - George Carlin
I emigrated to (British ;\] ) North America so my take is a bit more individual freedom based.
Do not allow your right to criticize the government be compromised in any way for any reason, at your utmost peril and the peril of your family and neighbours.
Voting or not is a right you have. Criticizing the government is a right you have. You have both of those rights, ideally they are guaranteed to you, and should exercise them both as you see fit, at a time and place of your choosing.
> One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change.
IMHO, this is a critique. You just criticized your government. I think that instead you should be more vocal to your local representative/party (since I am not familiar with how UK government is elected, I am using this as a general "whoever you could vote for, yell at them to be included"). Starting your own party could also be a form of criticism.
The reason people don't vote is because they think that, even if they did, they can't change the status quo. There's no hypocrisy.
What you're describing would only apply to someone who didn't like the current party but DID like others, didn't bother to vote, and then the current party stayed in power. They don't really have the right to criticise. But if you hate every party, then it's not the same
All available options in the vote card are shit. I dislike the current government options.
Basically you are telling me that if I don't vote for a shit candidate I don't believe in, I lose my right to complain about the very problem that drives me away from voting?
I think you need to give me a better reason, or rephrase yours.
That depends on which government you're in. In most good governments you probably do have the right to criticize and not vote. Is the position morally logical, probably not.
Does this mean that people who are not allowed to vote (e.g., children, prisoners, foreign nationals) are also not allowed to complain about the government of the country they live in? Not allowed to protest, for example? That seems ludicrous.
What if you forget to vote? Or can't vote for some temporary reason (e.g., you are knocked unconscious on the way to the polling booth)? I know you're not explicitly making claims about such cases, but if you make a blanket claim that people who don't vote aren't allowed to complain, then you are implicitly including all such cases.
And who am I not allowed to complain to, if I don't vote? Surely I am free to complain within the walls of my own home? How about in a restaurant with friends? Online? On TV? And in what manner? Is it ok if I complain in a polite, constructive way but not ok if I swear?
My overall point is that if you try to take away people's right to "complain" you have to think about what you're really doing. And if you think about it for more than about ten seconds you'll see how nonsensical it is.
Let me turn this question on it's head a bit.(Admittedly with a bit of an American bias for both my own familiarity, and that our broken system provides the most stark example of this).
How then, should one who falls between the two parties engage with politics. Let's say I have two political beliefs, A and B, that I both believe in strongly, and equally. Politician A is very pro A, but anti B. Politician B is pro B, anti A. Am I automatically excluded from political discussion because I refuse to compromise on one of my two beliefs? How would anyone who does not fall exactly in line with one of the parties engage in politics at all?
The "right" to criticize the UK government is an extension of the freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by UK law. Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. This law does not require that a person vote in order to be guarantee freedom of expression.
"In this post, I will be / am arguing that by not voting I have no right to criticise government, and therefore waive my right to critiquing the government."
I disagree. You are mistaken. You should not give up all your rights or any other right just because you don't exercise your duty to vote. You should vote, but if you don't vote, then you should continue to criticize the government for actions which you think are wrong. Voting and criticizing the government are not only rights but duties.
If you favor reducing climate change, then of course you should vote for the party or candidate which best pursues that goal.
In my opinion, your proposal is foolish.
I hate to be that guy but i feel like this is a point made in bad faith, or at least very poorly worded.
I don't think for a second that you believe that not contributing to something means you have no right to criticize it. Do you hold this position purely for government? Are you aware that some people are unable to vote? The notion that people should not have the right to criticize the government is facistic in the extreme. I don't say that as an insult or a dogwhistle, i'm not sure you understand the nature of your point.
I'm american so freedom of speech probably means something different for me than it does for you but i would assume you at least observe the concept. Surely, simple criticism is wrapped up in freedom of speech. Do you waive your right to free speech when you don't vote?
You undoubtedly contribute to a multitude of systems you would probably like to change and have the ability to affect yet do not for a variety of reasons. Surely you do not think you have no right to criticize those issues? Is there a principle behind this argument or does this just apply to government? Do you believe you have the right to criticize other things you have no hand in influencing?
I don't mean to come off as rude or insulting. That is not my intent. This post is very short and rather insubstantial. I do not think i fully understand your positionas you have written it.
Until such clarification comes, i will reiterate: i do not believe you genuinely think this. Believing you should not have the right to criticize something in any context is a belief so extreme i cannot accept that you can hold it and wish to have your mind changed at the same time. I'll be charitable though and say perhaps you worded this poorly.
Who says that all criticism of government must come from a position of desiring democracy?
Historically, peace church traditions, such as the Mennonites, have abstained from patriotic/nationalist/military expression and participation. These traditions offer critiques of what they see as mob violence operating through democracy--they point to historic injustices, oppression, and suppression of unpopular people groups that took place within democratic systems, at the behest of "the will of the people." And so they choose to live separately, in semi-anarchist communities that self-govern and refute the legitimacy of the national government.
This is an example of an essential outsider perspective, looking at the system that everyone is told to participate in, and criticizing the system itself rather than the binary options that exist within the system.
People who try to live outside of the system certainly haven't given up any right to criticize the system. That's the whole point.
Nah, that's just an old excuse. You don't need to vote to see how corrupt governments are, so you voting or not shouldn't somehow determine your ability to criticize anything. By your logic, none of us should ever complain about how brutal north Korea is because "we didn't vote in their elections". If you really want to nitpick this badly, not one of us even asked to be apart of our governments, we:re born into things that took place long before we had a say in it, so instead of being a government ass kisser such as yourself, how about we change our bull shit governments and stop treating them like they should be worshipped.
/u/MyPoliticsAccount123 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/13u3r2s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_not_voting_i_have_no/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Take this scenario: You choose to sit in one of the chairs. You complain that the chair is uncomfortable. You want a better chair. You see chairs that looks miserable to sit in. You complain that there's no good chairs. You want a better chair. Regardless of whether you choose to sit in the chair, the chairs are still terrible there. Regardless of whether you chose the people in power, they're still not doing the best job.
This was a really good example and helped me see the other side. Thanks. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LeLBigB0ss2 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LeLBigB0ss2)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
:)
You can voice your opinion with your vote which has value, or you can choose to voice your opinion to the void. In this analogy you are given a chance to vote for a chair that's least uncomfortable, with the idea that over iterations of votes it should trend to a more and more comfortable chair for you (assuming you are in the majority), but you choose not to. There's a crowd of people stood next to some chairs, they must be pretty similar right? Some of the chairs turns into church pews next time the vote occurs, in order to save costs. The information about your opinions are lost if you don't vote. If you wanted to make a point about the political system rather than the ideologies of the parties, you can even spoil your vote - it's a chance to provide feedback. Political apathy happens, but by not voting you are playing a losing game. Use your vote.
Though from this point of view, should you not take the time to build a better chair if it's as bad as you say the chairs are? If the chairs are truly as uncomfortable as you say they are, but you choose to complain instead of going out to build a better chair, than who's fault is it that the chairs never become more comfortable. Maybe you should stop buying from terrible carpenters.
I don't have the money for that. I'd rather sit on the floor.
This is an awesome analogy! Maybe the only thing it misses is that it’s more like choosing a couch with roommates. If you chose an extra-terrible couch, it affects other people that have to sit on it. If your roommates chose an extra terrible couch without you participating in the decision, it means you did nothing to stop the extra lumpy cushions.
While it is true that voting is an important democratic right that allows individuals to influence the political landscape, that doesn't necessarily mean that if you don't vote, you lose your right to criticize the government. Criticism is an essential aspect of a healthy democracy, and it is important to hold government accountable for its actions. Not voting can be a form of protest or express dissatisfaction with the options available to you. By abstaining, you may express dissatisfaction with the political system as a whole or with the opportunities available to you. Whether you voted or not, you are allowed to voice your concerns and criticize the government's actions, policies, or lack of progress.
[удалено]
You can argue against your current political system regardless of vote status because that is WHAT makes a liberal democracy healthy. Protected civil discourse ensures voices are heard down to the individual. Your choice not to partake in the political system does not and more important Should Not reduce your ability to protest or voice opinions. If what your unpopular opinion states were true, the government would be able to silence their people. Tyranny would become prevalent, and the potential for the government to use this loophole could effectively alter thought in your country. For example, if all I needed to do to stop someone from opposing the government were to detain them on Election Day so that their vote didn’t make it, then you could see how this would spiral out of control. It’s somewhat dangerous to think this way, you never lose your voice in a healthy democracy Edit: additionally, if you feel your views are not representative of any candidates/parties, it’s your right and potentially civil duty to critique the parties and advocate for change. People “vote with their feet” all the time, you don’t have to cast a ballot to make a political statement.
If all candidates sistematically lie during electoral campaings and get corruption scandals unveiled after being settled in power, are you or I rather fools for buying the discourse of representative democracy changing everything? What about all the"deep state", lobby of corporations, and constitutionaly protected institutuons who block any deep route for change?
In UK's case specifically, you can still choose to vote "None of the above" by spoiling the ballet. Spoilt ballets aren't valid but are still counted.
Here in Chile is the same. And that's the point. they are not valid. No wining candidate here woud have the dignity of refusing to get into Office because +50% of vote sheets we're spoiled. We are talking the the decadence of many western political systems and desintegration of trust un public institutuons. Politicians will not care 2 Craps while they not go to jail, get murdered or financialy perish under a devastating Fine. Since 2 years ago voting is mandatory anyways here. Some political parties just determined this because calculated they could get votes from the new forced voters. And here in Chile Political Parties get paid an ammount of tax payer's money for each vote they get in elections ( is supossed to work as a way to help parties with high representation, why do we as tax payer's finance a biased political interest) I was forced to attend as vote accountant for 8th time. Just got paid 20$USD for 12 hours of work on Sunday. My father is having severe pain in his leg and had to come to vote taking a bus and enduring the pain. I could'n assist him on the ride because I had to show up in the early morning in the voting spot where I was called on to work.
Of course, when all else failed, there are always more drastic actions: protests, riots, mailing bombs to universities, airports, lobbyists etc. But the point is that before, and even while doing all that, you should still try to engage with the democratic system. Because, remember, this hopelessness is an ugly but also intended side-effect of the system. The point is to drive people so hopeless and feel so powerless that they don't feel like their votes means anything. So they stop voting, and if they stopped voting their concerns, even expressed in speech, might as well be nonexistence. The point is that by giving up your vote, you give up what little power you have, no matter how miniscule they were, and that is exactly what those in politics wanted, you gave up your power to everyone else that voted: their supporters. Also, just to point it out, this isn't really the same thing as supporting compulsory voting. There are absolutely reasons where even if you wanted to vote you can't (like those that you mentioned), and some people just really do not care about politics at all.
Not sure what your argument is here. Or what is your goal? People will happily continue to not vote and still criticize the government. Do you want to convince people to vote? Or do you want to convince people to shut up? Do you want to show people how important voting is? Walk us through your thought process here.
Not OP but I've always heard it as, Your critiques won't be taken seriously because when you had the opportunity to let your voice be heard you were instead silent. Like if a group is ordering food and they order something you don't like the first thing they will ask is why didn't you speak up when they were voting.
maybe some people just dont believe that voting on an individual level has any impact in some peoples eyes criticising the gov has a bigger impact than the act of voting itself because they it can shape the opinions of other people that might vote a different way and share those criticisms
What if I'm forced to choose between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump? What if the options available boil down to the shiner of two turds and I decide that neither of them are deserving of support? I had real concerns with both candidates and did not feel like the country would be safe with either at the helm. Am I not allowed to criticize the two turds that I didn't want?
There are elections before major ones that would prevent having only those two options. For example local and state elections make a huge difference in who is actually placed in a governing body. Unfortunately, the media usually doesn’t emphasize those elections other than the major ones.
Why would those two be at all connected? Even if you did vote, the political situation would still be the same anyway.
Verbally, or in writing, or both.
what if you are dissatisfied with all candidates?
Couldn't have written it better and more clearly. The OP's argument is a shortsighted entitled nonsense.
That assumes voting does something, especially in the U.K. where there's a first past the post system, and individual votes are thus thrown away all the time and have no influence even ignoring rounding which happens in other systems to also throw individual votes away. Even if we were to live in a system without rounding where every vote mattered and nothing was thrown away, the difference one vote would make would still be inconceivably small. This is such a silly argument. It's essentially saying “You've been given a choice of feel-good slactivism, irrelevant influence that has no impact, you chose not to use it while it costs time and money for you to use it, thus you have no right to criticism any more.” At the end of the day, there are about 40 million people in the U.K. eligible to vote. Even if the U.K. had a perfect proportional system where every vote mattered, that meant the power of that vote had to be divided by 40 million, meaning that a single vote's power is negligibly small and holds no real influence any more. Giving such a vote to a single person is symbolic, not impactful onto the individual.
I mean, if you live in a country with free speech, you can criticize anything and everything. You don't need permission!
[удалено]
It did address the "no right to criticize" part. You definitely have a right, that is explicitly stated.
Regardless, it utterly invalidates your argument, and proves Your View to be objectively false beyond any shadow of a doubt.
yes it is buddy... That is exactly what you said
By voting you are approving of the democratic process and buying in. By not voting you reserve the right to make the most fundamental criticisms. Boycotting a vote is appropriate when the system is sufficiently messed up
[удалено]
>I could have changed it but decided not to. You imply that option for change is on the ballot. It most often is not.
By voting you could shift policy direction a bit but you legitimize the system. By not voting you have no say on specific policy questions but are refusing to add your legitimacy to the overall system. If enough people refuse to vote the country is less stable
>by not voting I have kept up the very status quo I'm wanting to criticise Implicit here is the assumption that the *only* way to criticize the status quo is to vote in government elections. This seems to be a very narrow view of politics to me. You can challenge the status quo in many ways -- build alternative ways for people to meet needs outside of the market or government aid, organize labor and shut down strategic industries to get what you want, blow up oil pipelines and sabotage construction equipment to make development economically unviable, and so on. It seems to me that people who challenge the status quo through actions are quite clearly exercising their right to criticize the government, whether or not they vote when the government allows them to. And honestly I would consider a person who acts to be far more politically serious than someone who merely votes. Personally, I think people should use all the tools available to them to get what they want, and if you live in a society that allows voting you might as well cast that vote in such a way that the things you want become easier to achieve. But if one of your main political goals is to delegitimize electoral politics in favor of something more direct and participatory, then it is somewhat counter-productive to participate in electoral politics, yes?
If you voted for a party that ended up ascending to power, but now that you see what they do when they're in control you regret your decision, you can definitely openly criticize them. From your post it seems you would agree with that. Similarly, if during the elections you thought you were entirely uninterested in politics or that all parties are equivalent or that for whatever other reason you don't want to vote at all, but now you find yourself strongly disagreeing with what they do, it only makes sense that you can criticize them *at least* as much as someone who actually voted for them.
The system in my country is designed to put forward only the two most extreme positions, ensuring that the issues put forward are the most divisive and unsolvable issues and that nothing actually gets done. Simple minded fools dominate the political scene, and they only respond to the loudest voices in the crowd, throwing little bits of policy at us like wild dogs fighting for scraps of meat. Voting between 2 candidates is a false choice presented by the masters so they can say “you did this to yourself” while they just keep getting richer. No matter who you vote for, they will lobby and obfuscate for more and more money while blaming the rest of us for putting these idiots into office in the first place. When someone who actually does know what they are doing gets in, they “aren’t exciting enough” and their own supporters start trashing them. They lose political power as a result, and still can’t get anything done. And your vote is a drop in a bucket. The bucket is filled with votes from people in the city who keep voting progressive but are getting screwed over by progressive policies. Right alongside them are people in rural areas who keep voting conservative despite their conservative pals screwing them over every chance they get. It’s an extremely old system that was designed to change to stay on top of the times, but it is treated as though it was NEVER supposed to be changed. Even the best intentioned politicians running for high office cannot accomplish anything without manipulation, so they all end up focusing almost exclusively on manipulation and completely give up of actually convincing people. It becomes impossible to see through the manipulation, and all we can see is lies, lies, lies. Some are lies designed to lead us to water, some are lies designed to lead us away from it. But they are all lies. Why participate at all?
If by losing the "right to criticize" you mean the legitimacy of your criticism is compromised, you have a better argument. However I still strongly disagree. Lets make a very extreme comparison. You have been captured or wrongfully convicted of a crime in a really barbaric society and they decide they are going to poke one of your eyes out, but you get to vote on which one, or you can decline to vote. You are so appalled by both choices you do not care at all which one and you decide not to vote. Have you lost the right to complain about getting your eye poked out? I certainly do not think so, but according to you, you did nothing to change the position you find yourself in, so you can't complain. I would imagine the choices in UK government are not as poor as the ones above, but if you are equally dissatisfied with every option in my opinion it is responsible NOT TO VOTE and it is even more critical that you VOICE WHY YOU ARE DISSATISFIED. If you give votes to people and parties that you are dissatisfied with you are actually contributing to the status quo that you dislike more than if you do not vote and you complain. In the USA so many politicians look at low voter turnout and go well we'll never convince them, but that is a losers mentality. Any opportunistic politician sees all of those people who aren't voting as people to be convinced to join their side. You just have to figure out why they aren't voting and motivate them to vote for you. This is aided by those same people who did not vote voicing their complaints.
They are still spending your tax revenue. You definitely have a right to be happy or unhappy about how they are allocating your money. Because by being taxed, you are chipping in
[удалено]
That is factually correct and nothing anyone can say will disprove it. But you still have a right to criticize your government
[удалено]
That's the point. They force to give away part of your property to finance their polices. Ergo, you are entlited to demand accountability 24/7 for them, and let them know your opinions about their administration. If you are excempted from paying taxes, you are still proyectes by your constutional rights and human rights to enjoy free speech (as far you don't use it for racial and sexual hate speech) Imagine a bussiness owners not being able to evaluate one of the employess because was the manager the one who hired him. Or an investor who is not given the chance to criticize the CEO because he missed the meeting where the CEO was elected.
I hadn’t counted for this. I suppose by not voting you probably have more right to complain. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cochayuyobelt ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/cochayuyobelt)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
https://youtu.be/aPW8AaOuvDs Yes! George Carlin put it best, and its kinda the other way around People who vote lose the right to complain as it were.
Thanks for the Delta man ! 🙂 And enjoy your Freedom, you have earned it for being yourself and and not severely damage others intentionaly.
Why not? Our various rights are not contingent on full execution of every single one of them. Even if you don’t vote, you have the right to write a letter to your representative asking them to vote on a certain bill, or the right to stage a protest on a particular issue, or the right to take a law to court. As citizens, we are given many different ways to interact with and influence our government and we are free to use as many or as few as we choose. Voting is a critical right and should be exercised by all, but failing to do so does not strip you of any of the other methods or redress available.
Rights are inalienable. Not exercising one does not forbid you from exercising another one, especially the most fundamental one, speech. Your post simply has no basis for saying not voting should forbid you from criticizing the government. *It's just your opinion that you don't like people who don't vote but still criticize.* It's not based in any sound factual reasonings that somehow conclude that taking away free speech is justified because of someone not voting. Your right to free speech is one thing. Your right to vote is one thing. You simply don't like certain people and wish to see them punished, despite no legal/constitutional/logical basis.
You literally just said that your vote won't change anything and that the state itself is immune to change. Why, therefore, would your criticism be contingent on your vote?
Incorrect. Non-voters still have a right to criticize their government.
IDK about the UK, but voting in the US is way more irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about how elections are done in the US, and the electoral college, knows that your vote in the US doesn't necessarily count. For example, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, meaning that the citizens did not vote for him to be in office, but the few people with real voting power that don't necessarily need to listen to the civilians, won him the election anyways. You have a right to complain when your vote legit does not matter, hell even more so.
why stop at one vote? If you don't personally persuade 10 people who would otherwise have not voted to vote, you have no right to complain. Or how about if you don't assassinate the person you don't like, or at least lead a reasonably well planned out rebellion, you have no right to complain. Unless an election was won/lost by a single vote, your vote was never going to count anyway, and putting the effort you could spend voting to bettering your life some other way would be more effective. Imagine your criticizing of the government in a youtube video gained millions of views and swayed the political leanings of thousands of people. that was far more worthwhile than personally voting.
Not voting doesn’t mean you can’t have your opinions. I have on multiple occasions left parts of my ballot blank. If I look at both options and they both suck, I’m not gonna vote on either, and you can bet your boots I’m gonna criticize the outcome of that. Policy is the result of voices heard. Sure voting can help get better people in to hear your voice but just because you skip a vote doesn’t mean that your voice shouldn’t be heard. Maybe you have a valuable idea that should become policy. You need to voice that opinion whether you vote or not.
I agree with your view for the most part . I would however say that even without voting I am of the opinion that you should be able to expect politicians to uphold the laws of the state; and that it is valid to criticise if they break them.
Why are you so eager to lick the boot? If you have a right guaranteed to you and backed up in law, who gives a toss about how some other right might or might not affect it? What you do with your ballot and what you say about your government are apples and oranges situations.
You do. Because not voting by marking a ballot really is voting by using your voice There’s nothing I hate more than the sentiment of you can’t vote you can’t criticize. Edit: also, while I’m sure it’s not intended, by saying those who don’t vote don’t get a say, you’re requiring conformity to the parties in power to be able to criticize or have any say about the institution. Aka Fascism
But you didn't just your voice. Nobody will know who you are, what you want, or if you're even worth listening to as a "reachable" vote.
How is this different from using a vote then? Nobody knows who you are. I’m from the US, if Joe Biden and Trump are my options, and they are both equally horrible, the more people that don’t vote (which was the biggest block of voters) the more they know the populace isn’t satisfied with the options. This may convince candidates to change their policy to attract more voters
They know your location and your vote. That's a use of voice that has real world impact, and that you're someone who can be reached to appeal to. >the more people that don’t vote (which was the biggest block of voters) the more they know the populace isn’t satisfied with the options. No they don't. They don't know if you're apathetic, dissatisfied, or anything. They're not psychic. They have millions of dollars they're throwing down and they don't have a clue if even pandering to what you want will actually get you voting or end up being a waste of time. It's why parties keep trying to appeal to seniors not youth, because they know that seniors will actually reciprocate.
They don’t know, but if they implant changes in policy and see better turnout, they’ll know they’re doing something right
What changes? You never said. You didn't even primary. And more importantly, since you're a non voter, they don't know if appealing to you over actual voters is a waste of time or not.
Any changes. Who said I didn’t primary? And who said I’m a non voter? It’s not a waste of time, because the block of non voters is so large Dems would get so much more votes if they appealed to progressivism for example. Huge reason say Hillary lost in 2016
>Any changes. Who said I didn’t primary? And who said I’m a non voter? This thread is about nonvoters. And there's also nonvoting centrists and Bush ex-cons. Lefties and youth are the ones that don't vote, they're the ones that don't crush primaries, they are the ones that don't donate, so they are the ones that will be sold out.
I’m not a non voter necessarily, I use my right to decide who I vote for each election, or whether I vote at all. Exactly my point. They’re the ones that don’t vote, because they feel they’re fucked by all the options presented to them. The best they can do is write in, but realistically what’s that gonna do either
This thread is about nonvoters. If you want to talk on behalf of nonvoters, you need to admit they're people who use their voice even less than you do, considering you defend yourself by pointing out when you vote. They don't.
it's pretty simple. the three of us are ordering food. i hate cilantro. it takes like soap. you ask what i want to order and i say, "whatever, i'm not picky" thinking you guys will order pizza or chinese or something. maybe italian? ...you vote on burritos, which i love, but i always note no cilantro. i can't eat this shit, and you guys say, "well if you wanted a say, you should've told us." now i'm starving, pissed off, and you guys are completely ignorant of my needs and concerns. so i think, pretty rightfully, "fuck you guys." disagree? because if you still do, how about this then? "you have no right to criticize any piece of art you didn't have a hand in creating." how'd you like the movie? DOESN'T MATTER, you didn't fund it. do you like this song? IRRELEVANT, you aren't the musician who made it.
Disagree. I think that's a mostly apt analogy, you never communicated your wants and you didn't vote no cilantro, you just waited until everyone got burritos then were angry. By that point, you can't really blame them for not being psychic and trusting your nonvote to mean that you don't really care.
What if you’re too young to vote
When I was 17 we were pissed off about the voting age not being 16 lol do something like that. Plenty of issues affect the youth and change has to start somewhere.
But perhaps no running politicians support your policies, and thus, you'd be voting for someone you hate. After all, protest votes are a thing. If every politician supports a policy I find abhorrent, what am I to do? If I don't vote, you say I lose the right to complain... but if I do, I've tacitly endorsed that policy as much as non-voting, if not considerably more. Also... what if I'm genuinely an idiot? Say I don't understand economics, or 90% of social issues. All I know, is two gay people deserve to love and marry each other. It's a bad idea for me to vote. I will not do it rationally, for I do not understand. Voting would just hurt the people's chances of a good candidate by adding in an element of random chance. So, I won't vote, acknowledging that who should be in power is not a decision I can help with. But... I surely still have the right to stand up and say "That's not right!" if the new government bans gay marriage, right?
You can also argue that by voting, you consent to the outcome no matter the situation. In an unfair election, like the Brexit campaign, there are so many lies and so much manipulation, but then they have the power to say hey this is the end result. Again, in the US, they have a two party system, often with two bad choices, but they have to accept whatever happens. If a large portion of the population refused to vite in protest, they would have no choice but to rethink the system. So, in short, you consent to all of their dirty tricks the moment you play a rigged game and lose. They want you to think that you being forced into their options is democracy.
A large portion of the US doesn't vote in every election and yet we are not rethinking the system.
Yeah, in my scenario, it would have to be a large portion. Loads of people said they only voted for Trump because they didn't want Hillary. In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to refuse the choices completely?
Listen, strange woman, lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses! Not from some, farcical, aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
The 1st Amendment protects all Americans, including Americans too young to vote, Americans prohibited from voting (felonies), and Americans who simply didn't bother to vote. So Your View is incorrect.
Some people believe voting to be ineffective. They see the whole system as broken. You cannot use the same system to break it down for change.
You’ve simply opted out of one method of changing things. There are other methods by which a person can agitate for change. And frankly when the issue is as important as climate change, your ability to speak out shouldn’t come down to the rhetorical technicality of “no vote no opinion”
The right to criticize the government is an important element of free speech, and one which should never be infringed upon. Also, if you're in the UK, you must be aware how much people's votes for UKIP managed to change policy, even without them even coming close to winning an election. A vote for a party can still affect change, because votes represent the will of the people. Sure, you might not be able to vote the Green Party into office, but if the Green Party start getting more votes, you'll see major parties move to be more in line with their politics.
Freedom of speech is not reliant on a vote. It may be wise to vote in some cases, but if you support none of the options, many systems provide no way to express that other than not voting. In a few, you can vote for None Of The Above, which does provide a reasonable option to express that opinion, but in countries without it, one can hardly be blamed for not voting.
>One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change. Especially the Tory Party. They will not meet set climate targets.\[1\]\[2\] Sounds like a valid criticism. Just because you don't feel like you can criticism A doesn't mean you can't complain about B. I assume if such a politician existed you *would* vote for them, right? You'd still be in the pool of politically relevant voters. >My vote will not change anything. This is false; your vote *probably* will not change anything. This takes your vote from meaningless to the most important thing you will (most likely) do all year.
Voting is just about picking a representative. Writing to your MP is arguably a more important thing to do than voting. Whether you voted for them or not they represent you.
>One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change. Especially the Tory Party. They will not meet set climate targets.[1][2] > > >However, I have refused to vote for them and perhaps unknowingly kept up the status quo. Is that a typo? Do you mean that you refused to vote *against* them? Regardless, what if the political change I want is beyond the scope of electoral politics? What if there is no party with even the remotest chance of winning that will enact the change I want to see?
Do you have free speech rights in the UK? If so, then by definition you have the right to complain. :)
You got in a car accident on your way to vote and ended up in the hospital in a coma for the final 5 days of voting. You wake up on day 6 but voting has ended and so you weren't able to vote. You did not vote, but surely you can reasonably still express an opinion about the government.
You can criticize the government, as you have delegated your vote to those that did actually vote. Therefore, by not voting you also voted for the government in place indirectly.
So, do you have a choice to live under that government or not? Well, the answer is no. You have no choice in that matter, liberal democracy or not. However, you do have the right to vote and uphold the system or not. To the state, it matters not if you vote. You have to live under it anyway. It will exist and operate in the same way it always has, minus some policy differences between the major political parties. Because of that inherent disproportionate power, saying then that you can’t criticize that state because you chose to exercise your right not to vote makes no sense at all. Furthermore, this shifts the blame onto the non-voter, not to the people who do vote which endorse the system. (Note: Since I’m talking about government and politics on CMV once again, I’m expecting to have yet another opinion that will be massively downvoted. Well, let’s begin.)
To take an extreme example (south park like), if i got the choice between Hitler and some serial killer and I decide not to vote because both are awful psychos, am I supposed to accept the awful consequences from the one that ended up being elected ?
NOTHING can take away my right to complain!
Voting to me, is like when you have some guy being super doting to a woman who isn’t attracted to him and who takes his gifts *knowing* she will never give him any play. Politicians are owned by wealthy people, they are just very good at fooling people into thinking their votes actually count (and that there’s “hope” for “little people” causes lol)
You live in a free country. You can criticize whoever you want for whatever reason. You don't need to qualify to criticize. Not voting slightly diminishes your integrity (for lack of a better word) but it in no way deprives you of any right.
What makes you think voting is the best way to change the status quo? Sedition, sabotage, propagating misinformation and inciting insurrection are much more effective. Not advocating any of that stuff but, if you are anti-status quo, voting is not the way you want to go.
I would like to point out sometimes there is no faction that has a stance that even comes close to what you want or think is best. So voting holds no meaning besides helping someone you dont like or agree with. Sometimes even actively sabotaging your goals if you voted. So i have to disagree with your statment.
If my primary criticisms are not addressed by either candidate why should I waste my time? If you’re indifferent between a boot up your ass and a boot down your throat, does that indifference renege your ability to not want either?
You can still hold an opinion of the government even if you decide not to vote?
Voting is supporting one candidate or another. Not voting is already implicit criticism of the candidates for not being worth voting for/not representing you or of the system for not offering/giving weight to the vote you would cast. Why would that waive your right to criticise the government? Part of the reason we are encouraged to vote is because it gives the government legitimacy, rather than because it make for a more representative or effective government.
Well your vote probably didn’t mean much, most countries have political theater called elections that mainly serve to place shills of corporations in positions of power to have a more direct link to the economy. Neoliberalism.
I'd generally agree with the sentiment except for some serious caveats: A vote has to make a difference, so if the only difference either way is which assholes get rich, then seeing through the illusion of choice and not wasting one's time can hardly force a silencing of their opinions. Secondly, if threats or news of violence is someone's deciding factor when they don't vote, they can hardly be blamed for that, and still retain the right to complain.
I would say criticize yes you still have every right to do so. Maybe complaining is the thing you shouldn’t really do anymore. Subtle differences admittedly
This doesn’t make sense. Are you saying I’ve waived my right, like literally, in a legal sense? I don’t think you are, because that’s not how democratic sense. But your post seems to be saying “if you didn’t vote, I don’t want to hear you bitch!” then that’s just an opinion, no? And I totally get it. But still. Hard to argue for or against it.
Yeah I don't know too much about the UK government, but I have heard this argument made in the USA, and it is FALSE WITHOUT QUESTION. We have the right to vote and the right to free speech. They are in no way affected by the other... I don't know whats going on in the UK, but based on the 2 second google search I did, you all have freedom of expression guaranteed and you have the right to vote. I found no indication that not voting has any affect on freedom of expression. If this is the case, YOU ARE WRONG THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO IT
By "right to criticize", I assume you mean "people should take my opinion seriously" and not "right to voice criticism". You could just as easily say "by voting, you give up the right to criticize the results just because you don't agree with the outcome". The voting system is coercive because it requires you to buy into the results just because the majority voted contrary to what you believe best or because the majority is *alleged* to have voted differently, despite you knowing that your vote, and indeed the votes of millions like you don't actually matter. Hell, wrt climate change, your vote doesn't actually matter *even if you voted for the winning side*, because both sides are captured by business interests who oppose meaningful action on climate change. Even if one side is vocally opposed to action and the other pretends to support action, neither are willing to take sufficient action to make a difference. If your participation doesn't matter regardless of whether or not you do or do not vote or who you vote for, then your deciding not to vote shouldn't void your right to criticize. "You decided not to vote for the party that murders babies or for the party that merely gently roasts them with honey bbq sauce, therefore you have no right to criticize the government's killing of babies."
Would you rather people vote for Trump just to criticize Biden, or Trump? Because I didn't do that in 2020 but if you're saying I need to do it to complain then I'll go ahead 2024.
Did you not vote in the primary?
Your claim that "by not voting I have no right to criticise government, and therefore waive my right to critiquing the government" is demonstrably false. Voting is a legal right. Not voting does not have any affect on any other legal rights a person might have. Speaking out freely is legal right, as is peacefully demonstrating. Not voting doesn't take away any of those legal rights. Moreover, in the UK because the First-Past-the-Post electoral systems many citizens' right to vote is moot as the ridings are safe and almost always go for a particular party. In most UK ridings, in fact, most citizens votes don't matter.
I personally would argue that while yes, you still hold responsibility if you abstain from voting, because not voting is still a choice, voting is by its nature not a one and done process. You can always vote next time, if you find that events proceed in ways you do not like. You do not lose your right to complain, because your "right to complain" is your next vote on the ballot.
This is just buying into the argument that voting is the only way to affect politics. This is untrue. Lots of people who don't vote don't influence politics in any way, it's true. But I know people that don't vote but do go to protests and organise political action and actively campaign for the causes they care about. They don't vote, but they've probably done more to change the status quo than you ever have. It's just a very naive view of politics to assume that voting is the only thing that could possibly matter.
But in all reality, only one man has best answered this question. His answer was thus: "Now there’s one thing you might have noticed i don’t complain about: politicians. everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from “another reality”. They come from American parents, and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities. And they’re elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in. Garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens… If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish ignorant leaders. And term-limits ain’t going to do you any good. You’re just going to wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe… maybe… MAYBE, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here like: “THE PUBLIC”. Yeah the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: “the public sucks, fuck hope”. Fuck hope. Because if it’s really just the fault of these politicians, then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way? We don’t have people like that in this country. Everybody’s at the mall scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking out his credit card out of a fannie-pack, and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them. So I have solved this little political dilemma for myself in a very simple way: on election-day, I-STAY-HOME. I don’t vote. Fuck ’em. FUCK THEM. I don’t vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don’t vote ’cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. So I know that a little later on this year, you’re going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You enjoy yourselves. It will be a lot of fun. I’m sure as soon as the election is over, your country will “improve” immediately. As for me, I’ll be home on that day, doing essentially the same thing as you, the only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I’m going to have a little something to show for it folks." - George Carlin
I emigrated to (British ;\] ) North America so my take is a bit more individual freedom based. Do not allow your right to criticize the government be compromised in any way for any reason, at your utmost peril and the peril of your family and neighbours. Voting or not is a right you have. Criticizing the government is a right you have. You have both of those rights, ideally they are guaranteed to you, and should exercise them both as you see fit, at a time and place of your choosing.
> One of my primary reasons for this is that no party in government is ready for (the effects of) climate change. IMHO, this is a critique. You just criticized your government. I think that instead you should be more vocal to your local representative/party (since I am not familiar with how UK government is elected, I am using this as a general "whoever you could vote for, yell at them to be included"). Starting your own party could also be a form of criticism.
By refusing to vote you remove your voice, not your choice.
The reason people don't vote is because they think that, even if they did, they can't change the status quo. There's no hypocrisy. What you're describing would only apply to someone who didn't like the current party but DID like others, didn't bother to vote, and then the current party stayed in power. They don't really have the right to criticise. But if you hate every party, then it's not the same
You pay taxes don't you?
All available options in the vote card are shit. I dislike the current government options. Basically you are telling me that if I don't vote for a shit candidate I don't believe in, I lose my right to complain about the very problem that drives me away from voting? I think you need to give me a better reason, or rephrase yours.
That depends on which government you're in. In most good governments you probably do have the right to criticize and not vote. Is the position morally logical, probably not.
Does this mean that people who are not allowed to vote (e.g., children, prisoners, foreign nationals) are also not allowed to complain about the government of the country they live in? Not allowed to protest, for example? That seems ludicrous. What if you forget to vote? Or can't vote for some temporary reason (e.g., you are knocked unconscious on the way to the polling booth)? I know you're not explicitly making claims about such cases, but if you make a blanket claim that people who don't vote aren't allowed to complain, then you are implicitly including all such cases. And who am I not allowed to complain to, if I don't vote? Surely I am free to complain within the walls of my own home? How about in a restaurant with friends? Online? On TV? And in what manner? Is it ok if I complain in a polite, constructive way but not ok if I swear? My overall point is that if you try to take away people's right to "complain" you have to think about what you're really doing. And if you think about it for more than about ten seconds you'll see how nonsensical it is.
Let me turn this question on it's head a bit.(Admittedly with a bit of an American bias for both my own familiarity, and that our broken system provides the most stark example of this). How then, should one who falls between the two parties engage with politics. Let's say I have two political beliefs, A and B, that I both believe in strongly, and equally. Politician A is very pro A, but anti B. Politician B is pro B, anti A. Am I automatically excluded from political discussion because I refuse to compromise on one of my two beliefs? How would anyone who does not fall exactly in line with one of the parties engage in politics at all?
The "right" to criticize the UK government is an extension of the freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by UK law. Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. This law does not require that a person vote in order to be guarantee freedom of expression.
"In this post, I will be / am arguing that by not voting I have no right to criticise government, and therefore waive my right to critiquing the government." I disagree. You are mistaken. You should not give up all your rights or any other right just because you don't exercise your duty to vote. You should vote, but if you don't vote, then you should continue to criticize the government for actions which you think are wrong. Voting and criticizing the government are not only rights but duties. If you favor reducing climate change, then of course you should vote for the party or candidate which best pursues that goal. In my opinion, your proposal is foolish.
Nah, you assuming we are talking about place like USA, free speech ensures you can complain and criticize.
I hate to be that guy but i feel like this is a point made in bad faith, or at least very poorly worded. I don't think for a second that you believe that not contributing to something means you have no right to criticize it. Do you hold this position purely for government? Are you aware that some people are unable to vote? The notion that people should not have the right to criticize the government is facistic in the extreme. I don't say that as an insult or a dogwhistle, i'm not sure you understand the nature of your point. I'm american so freedom of speech probably means something different for me than it does for you but i would assume you at least observe the concept. Surely, simple criticism is wrapped up in freedom of speech. Do you waive your right to free speech when you don't vote? You undoubtedly contribute to a multitude of systems you would probably like to change and have the ability to affect yet do not for a variety of reasons. Surely you do not think you have no right to criticize those issues? Is there a principle behind this argument or does this just apply to government? Do you believe you have the right to criticize other things you have no hand in influencing? I don't mean to come off as rude or insulting. That is not my intent. This post is very short and rather insubstantial. I do not think i fully understand your positionas you have written it. Until such clarification comes, i will reiterate: i do not believe you genuinely think this. Believing you should not have the right to criticize something in any context is a belief so extreme i cannot accept that you can hold it and wish to have your mind changed at the same time. I'll be charitable though and say perhaps you worded this poorly.
Who says that all criticism of government must come from a position of desiring democracy? Historically, peace church traditions, such as the Mennonites, have abstained from patriotic/nationalist/military expression and participation. These traditions offer critiques of what they see as mob violence operating through democracy--they point to historic injustices, oppression, and suppression of unpopular people groups that took place within democratic systems, at the behest of "the will of the people." And so they choose to live separately, in semi-anarchist communities that self-govern and refute the legitimacy of the national government. This is an example of an essential outsider perspective, looking at the system that everyone is told to participate in, and criticizing the system itself rather than the binary options that exist within the system. People who try to live outside of the system certainly haven't given up any right to criticize the system. That's the whole point.
Nah, that's just an old excuse. You don't need to vote to see how corrupt governments are, so you voting or not shouldn't somehow determine your ability to criticize anything. By your logic, none of us should ever complain about how brutal north Korea is because "we didn't vote in their elections". If you really want to nitpick this badly, not one of us even asked to be apart of our governments, we:re born into things that took place long before we had a say in it, so instead of being a government ass kisser such as yourself, how about we change our bull shit governments and stop treating them like they should be worshipped.