The Vote - A Poor Replacement For Democracy?

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

You're agreeing with me so. Our system is ideal for your proposal, go out and sell it to them, get enough of them to vote for you and you win, simples.

Or are you agreeing with me

Ye know well that single issues will get to rile people up to the point of wanting to tear the arms off Timmy Dooley at a hospital meeting - there's a lot of ferocity there that could be harnessed if you were of the right cast.

Besides that there are the existing vehicles of the Green Party and Sinn Fein, both of which would not be at all adverse to delivering a form of participation. Even if they were to begin writing it into their manifestos they'd be competing with the existing parties and like the green trend, the established parties might have to make some nod towards it.

And into the bargain there is a population becoming increasingly educated and opinionated and there's a good chance that some younger politicians will simply spontaneously demand it.

It certainly looks as though parliamentary democracy was originally designed to allow the literate/wealthy minority to be propelled to power by the illiterate majority. Now mass education is with us, it just doesnt make the same sense any more.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

You're agreeing with me so. Our system is ideal for your proposal, go out and sell it to them, get enough of them to vote for you and you win, simples.

Or are you agreeing with me

Ye know well that single issues will get to rile people up to the point of wanting to tear the arms off Timmy Dooley at a hospital meeting - there's a lot of ferocity there that could be harnessed if you were of the right cast.

Besides that there are the existing vehicles of the Green Party and Sinn Fein, both of which would not be at all adverse to delivering a form of participation. Even if they were to begin writing it into their manifestos they'd be competing with the existing parties and like the green trend, the established parties might have to make some nod towards it.

And into the bargain there is a population becoming increasingly educated and opinionated and there's a good chance that some younger politicians will simply spontaneously demand it.

I have no problem with anything the people decide is the system they want, whatever that may be, but I'm damned if I'll have it foisted on them by a group of intellectual fuck-wits who think Sean Castro is the answer to all their problems.

tonys wrote:

Hermes wrote:

tonys wrote:

Hermes wrote:

There are but two ways to change the system. If you're in a tiny minority.

Those who have centralised power for their exclusive use will not just give it away. That would be those who win the most votes and are democratically elected under our system.

The two ways are revolution and evolution. Winning the support of a substantial number of voters for your version of democracy is out of the question apparently, for the people, god love them, are not of sufficient intelligence to understand what would be good for them, it is therefore our bounden duty to lead them to the promised land even if it is against their expressed will. It's easy to win a dispute when you truncate the argument to remove the points being made. Keep up the great work.

Don't forget Tonys, that alleged mandate that you cherish so dearly, is not a product of the majority. Nor anything close to it. The majority in this country don't bother to vote That's just simply wrong, check the last or any general election, you know the ones I mean, the elections where we elect 165 TD's to choose and run a Government for 5 years. Which is why a single election
over the last forty years cannot be found where FF recieved a number of
votes greater than the number of people who didn't bother to vote.

and your beloved receives less than half of the rest. As the majority that don't vote increases (or if), your pseudo-democracy, which is in actuality a capitalist dictatorship, will be shown for the aberration that it most certainly is. Until a majority agrees with you what we have is a democracy, but keep it coming brother, we're getting there. It's got swfa to do with anyone agreeing with me, it's fact. And even if numbers were to come into the argument, the proper way to look at it, that is in a factual way, is to see that the majority do not agree with you or those whose propaganda you're spreading, you are representative of the smallest minority in the country. That of course does not fail to recognise that they are the minority who wield the power, though not the mandate.

Edit: now that I've demonstrated how confusing all this coloured quoting and truncating shite is, any chance you'd do it the right way, it's not that hard.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

You're agreeing with me so. Our system is ideal for your proposal, go out and sell it to them, get enough of them to vote for you and you win, simples.

Or are you agreeing with me

Ye know well that single issues will get to rile people up to the point of wanting to tear the arms off Timmy Dooley at a hospital meeting - there's a lot of ferocity there that could be harnessed if you were of the right cast.

Besides that there are the existing vehicles of the Green Party and Sinn Fein, both of which would not be at all adverse to delivering a form of participation. Even if they were to begin writing it into their manifestos they'd be competing with the existing parties and like the green trend, the established parties might have to make some nod towards it.

And into the bargain there is a population becoming increasingly educated and opinionated and there's a good chance that some younger politicians will simply spontaneously demand it.

I have no problem with anything the people decide is the system they want, whatever that may be, but I'm damned if I'll have it foisted on them by a group of intellectual fuck-wits who think Sean Castro is the answer to all their problems.

I doubt there was ever a political movement of any substance that didn't have its intellectuals, or that any party run mainly by intellectuals ever achieved much. What do you mean by "foisted on them"?

Hermes wrote:

Don't forget Tonys, that alleged mandate that you cherish so dearly, is not a product of the majority. Nor anything close to it. The majority in this country don't bother to vote That's just simply wrong, check the last or any general election, you know the ones I mean, the elections where we elect 165 TD's to choose and run a Government for 5 years. Which is why a single election
over the last forty years cannot be found where FF recieved a number of
votes greater than the number of people who didn't bother to vote. Why forty years, why not 42 years. In any event you are clearly wrong in saying the majority in this country don't vote, at the last time of asking 67% of the electorate voted leaving only 33% who didn't for one reason or another.

and your beloved receives less than half of the rest. As the majority that don't vote increases (or if), your pseudo-democracy, which is in actuality a capitalist dictatorship, will be shown for the aberration that it most certainly is. Until a majority agrees with you what we have is a democracy, but keep it coming brother, we're getting there. It's got swfa to do with anyone agreeing with me, it's fact. And even if numbers were to come into the argument, the proper way to look at it, that is in a factual way, is to see that the majority do not agree with you or those whose propaganda you're spreading, you are representative of the smallest minority in the country. That of course does not fail to recognise that they are the minority who wield the power, though not the mandate. A classic of you kind of thinking, the party that gets the greatest share of votes is the smallest minority, genius, turning black into white and don't use yellow, it's hard to read.

[/quote]

Edit: now that I've demonstrated how confusing all this coloured quoting and truncating shite is, any chance you'd do it the right way, it's not that hard.
For an anarchist you are strangely conformist in your habits and views[/quote]

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

You're agreeing with me so. Our system is ideal for your proposal, go out and sell it to them, get enough of them to vote for you and you win, simples.

Or are you agreeing with me

Ye know well that single issues will get to rile people up to the point of wanting to tear the arms off Timmy Dooley at a hospital meeting - there's a lot of ferocity there that could be harnessed if you were of the right cast.

Besides that there are the existing vehicles of the Green Party and Sinn Fein, both of which would not be at all adverse to delivering a form of participation. Even if they were to begin writing it into their manifestos they'd be competing with the existing parties and like the green trend, the established parties might have to make some nod towards it.

And into the bargain there is a population becoming increasingly educated and opinionated and there's a good chance that some younger politicians will simply spontaneously demand it.

I have no problem with anything the people decide is the system they want, whatever that may be, but I'm damned if I'll have it foisted on them by a group of intellectual fuck-wits who think Sean Castro is the answer to all their problems.

You'll be the first against the wall for calling me that you bastord.

Only messing tonys.

Every crowd with power have to have a head and no offence but FF often forget to use theirs you know, in fact it's the most annoying thing about them for me. Planners and engineers are often ignored to the detriment of localities, the environment, perhaps the economy. There's a controlling group of councillors in Ennis who are of the FF party and they refuse to take the advice of planners who tell them they shouldn't rezone a rake of land near a floodplain for commercial uses.

Do they not see that the economy is gone to bed for a year and maybe it would be a good idea to start trying to protect what's left of the Ennis environment? People have been known to drink their own sh1t via the water supply there lately ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

Only messing tonys.

Every crowd with power have to have a head and no offence but FF often forget to use theirs you know, in fact it's the most annoying thing about them for me. Planners and engineers are often ignored to the detriment of localities, the environment, perhaps the economy. There's a controlling group of councillors in Ennis who are of the FF party and they refuse to take the advice of planners who tell them they shouldn't rezone a rake of land near a floodplain for commercial uses.

Do they not see that the economy is gone to bed for a year and maybe it would be a good idea to start trying to protect what's left of the Ennis environment? People have been known to drink their own sh1t via the water supply there lately ...

So long as it's only their own they're drinking, I suppose it could be worse....

You've got to decide where you want the power to be, with local accountable politicians who won't always see things as you might or with planners & engineers who won't always see things as you might.

Poor old Timmy is getting it in the neck for thinking nationally and if he thinks locally, in a few years you or the Irish Times will be giving it to him in the neck over our lack of success with cancer treatments. No long term thinking or too much long term thinking, no grand plan or too parochial, we all want to have it all ways and the truth is we can't, it's as simple as that.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Only messing tonys.

Every crowd with power have to have a head and no offence but FF often forget to use theirs you know, in fact it's the most annoying thing about them for me. Planners and engineers are often ignored to the detriment of localities, the environment, perhaps the economy. There's a controlling group of councillors in Ennis who are of the FF party and they refuse to take the advice of planners who tell them they shouldn't rezone a rake of land near a floodplain for commercial uses.

Do they not see that the economy is gone to bed for a year and maybe it would be a good idea to start trying to protect what's left of the Ennis environment? People have been known to drink their own sh1t via the water supply there lately ...

So long as it's only their own they're drinking, I suppose it could be worse....

You've got to decide where you want the power to be, with local accountable politicians who won't always see things as you might or with planners & engineers who won't always see things as you might.

Poor old Timmy is getting it in the neck for thinking nationally and if he thinks locally, in a few years you or the Irish Times will be giving it to him in the neck over our lack of success with cancer treatments. No long term thinking or too much long term thinking, no grand plan or too parochial, we all want to have it all ways and the truth is we can't, it's as simple as that.

For the moment, for this life I'd be happy if we made regulations and stuck to them but we don't and it's often down to the elected who bypass them or flout them as we've seen disastrously with the banks. Even if Hurley had been heeded somewhat from the top windows of the central bank then perhaps there'd be less issues around now. Similarly for planners and other professionals.

But I know your point - people are often a pain in the hole basically - you are forever trying to get something done and then some fella comes along and goes on hunger strike in his own field and won't let the highway go through. Meanwhile his neighbour is busting everyone's bollix because he wants the road to be built because he's working in the private hospital in Galway and can get to it quicker from Ennis where he has to live because they are stuck there now with the kids going to school and the friends there and ....

I think the removal of the 24 hour A&E is the thing that's causing the most heartattacks and strokes down there at the moment - nobody doubts that cancer services should be moved to the centre of excellence in Limerick at all - nobody. It's just that there's no centre of excellence there and in fairness - can you see one being built there over the next few years ? Timmy Dooley and Pat Breen will be Taoiseach and Tánaiste before that happens.

tonys wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Don't forget Tonys, that alleged mandate that you cherish so dearly, is not a product of the majority. Nor anything close to it. The majority in this country don't bother to vote That's just simply wrong, check the last or any general election, you know the ones I mean, the elections where we elect 165 TD's to choose and run a Government for 5 years. Which is why a single election
over the last forty years cannot be found where FF recieved a number of
votes greater than the number of people who didn't bother to vote. Why forty years, why not 42 years. In any event you are clearly wrong in saying the majority in this country don't vote, at the last time of asking 67% of the electorate voted leaving only 33% who didn't for one reason or another.

and your beloved receives less than half of the rest. As the majority that don't vote increases (or if), your pseudo-democracy, which is in actuality a capitalist dictatorship, will be shown for the aberration that it most certainly is. Until a majority agrees with you what we have is a democracy, but keep it coming brother, we're getting there. It's got swfa to do with anyone agreeing with me, it's fact. And even if numbers were to come into the argument, the proper way to look at it, that is in a factual way, is to see that the majority do not agree with you or those whose propaganda you're spreading, you are representative of the smallest minority in the country. That of course does not fail to recognise that they are the minority who wield the power, though not the mandate. A classic of you kind of thinking, the party that gets the greatest share of votes is the smallest minority, genius, turning black into white and don't use yellow, it's hard to read.

Edit: now that I've demonstrated how confusing all this coloured quoting and truncating shite is, any chance you'd do it the right way, it's not that hard.
For an anarchist you are strangely conformist in your habits and views[/quote][/quote]

There's very little about me that's conformist. I'm just easy going. I like it if we can agree to speak the same language. If we can agree as to the meaning of words, so much the better. Make things as easy to read as possible, I'm all for that, and it's more for your benefit than mine. I'm a giving person too.

You're still not reading what I've written. I said that in the last forty years or so that there has been no election in which the votes that FF received, outnumbered the amount of people who didn't vote. You read it as the number of people who voted was smaller than the number of people who didn't vote. But that's okay, that's typical of the blind. The type of people who infest Irish politics, those who only hear and see what they want to hear and see. Your very attitude itself gives the answers that you or your ilk have yet to show any ability to produce.

And I chose 40, because I like the number and because before that, the thrill of having recovered our country was still a novelty to a degree, or at least it hadn't died like it has today. Was 40 not enough? Well sure go back as far as you will. Didn't that bastard Dev ignore the vote of our very first referendum and start a civil war? That didn't bode well for democracy did it? And sure, even before that, didn't he declare himself to be the head of the Republic, with hardly no vote needed at all? Democracy my arse. You're practicing the the philosophy of 'do as I say, not as I do.' And sure, I'll not be conforming to that. No, not at all.

You don't like the word "no" do you? At least not when you're not using it.

Hermes wrote:

You're still not reading what I've written. I said that in the last forty years or so that there has been no election in which the votes that FF received, outnumbered the amount of people who didn't vote. You read it as the number of people who voted was smaller than the number of people who didn't vote. But that's okay, that's typical of the blind. The type of people who infest Irish politics, those who only hear and see what they want to hear and see. Your very attitude itself gives the answers that you or your ilk have yet to show any ability to produce..

I read exactly what you wrote, you should try it yourself. In my first reply I answered the claim you made, "the majority in this country don't bother to vote", clearly wrong, in my second reply I repeated my answer to your first claim as above and ignored your attempt to shift your ground. As it happens you are wrong here too, in 1977, 32 years ago, FF got 50.6% of the votes cast or over 38% of the total electorate, turnout in that election was 76% with only 24% not bothering to vote. You had better bring that up at the next anarchist collective as another truism gone west, you wouldn't want anyone else making a fool of themselves. We won't mention at all the fact that you have no grounds for making a claim on the people who don't vote, no grounds whatsoever.

I know the actual figures don't matter to you, you'd still want to bring about undemocratic change even with 1% support, but even so if you're going to make statistical claims do try to get them right.

tonys wrote:

Hermes wrote:

You're still not reading what I've written. I said that in the last forty years or so that there has been no election in which the votes that FF received, outnumbered the amount of people who didn't vote. You read it as the number of people who voted was smaller than the number of people who didn't vote. But that's okay, that's typical of the blind. The type of people who infest Irish politics, those who only hear and see what they want to hear and see. Your very attitude itself gives the answers that you or your ilk have yet to show any ability to produce..

I read exactly what you wrote, you should try it yourself. In my first reply I answered the claim you made, "the majority in this country don't bother to vote", clearly wrong, in my second reply I repeated my answer to your first claim as above and ignored your attempt to shift your ground. As it happens you are wrong here too, in 1977, 32 years ago, FF got 50.6% of the votes cast or over 38% of the total electorate, turnout in that election was 76% with only 24% not bothering to vote. You had better bring that up at the next anarchist collective as another truism gone west, you wouldn't want anyone else making a fool of themselves. We won't mention at all the fact that you have no grounds for making a claim on the people who don't vote, no grounds whatsoever.

I know the actual figures don't matter to you, you'd still want to bring about undemocratic change even with 1% support, but even so if you're going to make statistical claims do try to get them right.

And yet again you show your propensity to mine quotes and remove them from their context. Here's what I said:

Hermes wrote:

Don't forget Tonys, that alleged mandate that you cherish so dearly, is not a product of the majority. Nor anything close to it. The majority in this country don't bother to vote and your beloved receives less than half of the rest. As the majority that don't vote increases (or if), your pseudo-democracy, which is in actuality a capitalist dictatorship, will be shown for the aberration that it most certainly is.

As can be clearly seen the majority I'm speaking of is the majority vote. FF often chirp on about receiving the majority vote in this country. Those who don't vote practically always outweigh this majority vote and they are the majority. You said that you answered this and then repeated it a second time. The first time, I had been a little vague but the second time I spelled out exactly what I was referring to.

Okay so I was wrong about 1977. I was wrong. I was wrong.

Hey the world hasn't opened up and swallowed me... Go figure...

The fact still remains that the majority vote in this country does not support FF. (And now allow me to put my mistake and your finding into context.) And whilst this has not always been the case, it most certainly is the case now and has been the case for decades.

I have made no claim whatsoever about people who don't vote, other than to say that they haven't voted. Surely you're not disputing this?

There is nothing whatsoever undemocratic about wanting the will of the Irish people adhered to and I challenge you to substantiate your claim that there is.

On top of that I have made no claim on the part of anarchists that Ireland be turned into an anarchist collective, at gunpoint if necessary. That's your imagination running overtime. I'm more than happy to merely demand that democracy be practiced. Any improvement will be welcomed. If we were ever to get to the position politically, where I'd like to be, well that'd be brilliant. But I haven't demanded that. I've no right to demand it as there's been no definite indication by the people of this country that that is where they want to be. So stop moving the goalposts on that.

I note too that you have nothing to say in answer to my points about the founder of FF. Unlike myself who'd never attempt to force my political will on another, Dev was quite willing to attempt to force his, at gunpoint. I'm referring to the civil war. You've heard of that I presume. Ireland's dirty little historical secret. The malformed child that we keep locked up in the basement for fear that an examination in the sunlight might show our country for what it truly is, politically speaking. A capitalist dictatorship. It's the will of the rich (most of them not even from Ireland) who constitute the will that FF bend over to satisfy.

Don't worry Hermes, over on the ISEQ thread we've ascertained that the recession is over. Get yourself three credit cards and max yourself out!

johnfás wrote:

Don't worry Hermes, over on the ISEQ thread we've ascertained that the recession is over. Get yourself three credit cards and max yourself out!

I just joined in with the partying over there. I think I might have broken the fridge. My bad.

Hermes wrote:

Okay so I was wrong about 1977. I was wrong. I was wrong.

Nothing wrong with being wrong, it happens all the time. It's being wrong and being a snippy little git at the same time that makes you out to be an eejit.

Hopefully you'll know better next time.

tonys wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Okay so I was wrong about 1977. I was wrong. I was wrong.

Nothing wrong with being wrong, it happens all the time. It's being wrong and being a snippy little git at the same time that makes you out to be an eejit.

Hopefully you'll know better next time.

I've no issues about admitting to it when I get something wrong. And there's nothing snippy or eejit like about pointing out that you are only capable of dealing with the mistakes that others make. You've yet to deal with anything else that I've said. By all means, show me where I'm wrong and tell me why. But until you do that, get off the high horse. It's a Shetland pony. And your condescending claptrap would be funny if it weren't so patently and obviously ridiculous.

Scientific and administrative and business advances mean that the business of running a Government is so complex that a certain amount of outsourcing and supremacy of the expert is required.

Our Constitution is the democratic mechanism by which we agreed to this outsourcing through parliamentary democracy. Beyond that there is another massive layer of expertise in academia, in business and the civil and public service that we have outsourced to.

We have democratically decided that rule by plebiscite is not only impractical but also undesirable. The value of your vote is therefore severely limited. However, that is what we have signed up to.

If there is no alternative party or movement which you can follow to allow you to choose pure democracy then you are probably swimming against the democratic tide.


One last thing, we seem to have outsourced too much by allowing our civil service to be stripped of expertise. Now, not only must the politicians seek expert advice, but that advice is likely to be biased as expertise has left the civil service and has become behoven to industry.

Quote :

One last thing, we seem to have outsourced too much by allowing our civil service to be stripped of expertise. Now, not only must the politicians seek expert advice, but that advice is likely to be biased as expertise has left the civil service and has become behoven to industry.

Good point. I've done work as an insider and an outsider. Good work done inside contributes to the organisational culture in a way that consultant's work very rarely does. A consultant can't have the same commitment as he/she has to move on to the next job, and will rarely be around for implementation.

Hermes wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Whose will is it that we have a crap educational system, a crap health service and a crap infrastrcture?

The hospital in Ennis is getting scaled down now and is the source of some headaches for our local FF TD Timmy Dooley who was apparently attacked at a recent hospital meeting. I heard him getting a right good telling-off by in incensed nurse (among other people) at a meeting last night and it was an interesting moment as to whether it was the democratic will of the people at that forum last night or a mob.... As the Mayor of Clare, Madelaine Taylor-Quinn FG said, herself and Anna Pryor SF at the last GE promised that if successful after running they would have fought in the Dáil for the hospital to the point of resigning the whip if the hospital got downgraded.

A bit academic now as herself and Anna Pryor didn't get elected but she made the point that the people then voted Timmy and FF who made no such promises so they in effect gave the mandate to Timmy and FF to do what they wanted with the hospital - so they should shut up now.

I think she has a point besides saying I told you so; wWe don't hold our politicians to account and we forget promises and we don't prioritise or anything. We probably can't given the system we have where we can't vote for issues or even systems.

That's the catch 22. The most democratic your vote can get within the current system, if you don't feel a candidate supports your view or is representative of you, is to vote vote for the candidate that least offends you. You'll be told that this is an act of voting against your least favourite candidate. And then, sure as Sunday follows Saturday, when the elected candidate absolutely fails to represent you, you yourself must take the blame and the politician who only ever acts and who only knows how to act in self interest or in the interest of the Party, is considered to have done his allegedly democratic duty.

This type of hucksterism is something we might expect a child to fall for. You know, "heads you win, tails I lose." It's my belief that we are programmed to this type of behaviour from an early age. We are instilled with the fallacy that it is our patriotic or democratic duty to vote.

There are but two ways to change the system. Those who have centralised power for their exclusive use will not just give it away. The two ways are revolution and evolution. Revolution comes about by proceeding as we are now. A government still based on cronyism and self-interest that will not give an inch in the face of catastrophe. It's the way of bloodshed. Evolution on the other hand is the peaceful way and may lead to a stable and representative government or even something resembling and approaching a full democracy. Evolution is achieved by rejecting the propaganda and witholding your vote until you can vote for someone who represents you. It is not your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to only vote for someone or some idea that actually represents you.

There is also counterrevolution, invasion, subversion and military coup. There's been plenty of that in the last half century. I don't agree that revolution is necessarily the "way of bloodshed". Revolution has often taken place to bring a war to an end - 1918-1918 was an upsurge of mutiny and revolution. General strikes, passive resistance and self-defence are often at the centre of revolution as well as armed seizure of power. The historians who like to paint revolution as bloodthirsty often see predatory wars and colonialism that kills millions of people as normal and allowable.

What can be achieved by withholding a vote? Some people do it because they support the party that is going to win, other people vote as a protest, even though they don't believe it will make much difference.
Under what circumstances can you envisage a 95% abstention? Would it make any difference?

Would you mind if Government removed our right to vote?

cactus flower wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Whose will is it that we have a crap educational system, a crap health service and a crap infrastrcture?

The hospital in Ennis is getting scaled down now and is the source of some headaches for our local FF TD Timmy Dooley who was apparently attacked at a recent hospital meeting. I heard him getting a right good telling-off by in incensed nurse (among other people) at a meeting last night and it was an interesting moment as to whether it was the democratic will of the people at that forum last night or a mob.... As the Mayor of Clare, Madelaine Taylor-Quinn FG said, herself and Anna Pryor SF at the last GE promised that if successful after running they would have fought in the Dáil for the hospital to the point of resigning the whip if the hospital got downgraded.

A bit academic now as herself and Anna Pryor didn't get elected but she made the point that the people then voted Timmy and FF who made no such promises so they in effect gave the mandate to Timmy and FF to do what they wanted with the hospital - so they should shut up now.

I think she has a point besides saying I told you so; wWe don't hold our politicians to account and we forget promises and we don't prioritise or anything. We probably can't given the system we have where we can't vote for issues or even systems.

That's the catch 22. The most democratic your vote can get within the current system, if you don't feel a candidate supports your view or is representative of you, is to vote vote for the candidate that least offends you. You'll be told that this is an act of voting against your least favourite candidate. And then, sure as Sunday follows Saturday, when the elected candidate absolutely fails to represent you, you yourself must take the blame and the politician who only ever acts and who only knows how to act in self interest or in the interest of the Party, is considered to have done his allegedly democratic duty.

This type of hucksterism is something we might expect a child to fall for. You know, "heads you win, tails I lose." It's my belief that we are programmed to this type of behaviour from an early age. We are instilled with the fallacy that it is our patriotic or democratic duty to vote.

There are but two ways to change the system. Those who have centralised power for their exclusive use will not just give it away. The two ways are revolution and evolution. Revolution comes about by proceeding as we are now. A government still based on cronyism and self-interest that will not give an inch in the face of catastrophe. It's the way of bloodshed. Evolution on the other hand is the peaceful way and may lead to a stable and representative government or even something resembling and approaching a full democracy. Evolution is achieved by rejecting the propaganda and witholding your vote until you can vote for someone who represents you. It is not your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to only vote for someone or some idea that actually represents you.

There is also counterrevolution, invasion, subversion and military coup. There's been plenty of that in the last half century. I don't agree that revolution is necessarily the "way of bloodshed". Revolution has often taken place to bring a war to an end - 1918-1918 was an upsurge of mutiny and revolution. General strikes, passive resistance and self-defence are often at the centre of revolution as well as armed seizure of power. The historians who like to paint revolution as bloodthirsty often see predatory wars and colonialism that kills millions of people as normal and allowable.

What can be achieved by withholding a vote? Some people do it because they support the party that is going to win, other people vote as a protest, even though they don't believe it will make much difference.
Under what circumstances can you envisage a 95% abstention? Would it make any difference?

Would you mind if Government removed our right to vote?

I don't want to get too bogged down in talking about a revolution - the powers that be dislike me enough as it is.

I'm talking about changing the system and for the better. Subversion and invasion would only tend to change the government and allow for a minimum of change to the system. A military coup would result in one of two things (provided it didn't facilitate an invasion) it would set up a dictatorship or it would merely change the government. A counterrevolution is not practical as there was no revolution for it to counter. And whilst you're very correct about revolution bringing war to an end, it would not be the case here and there would be lots of blood spilled imo.

Strikes, passive resistance and indeed non violent direct action, without resorting to bloodshed, would have more in common with the evolution approach as opposed to the revolution approach. These things do hinder the enemy during a revolution but tend to take from the efficacy of the revolution itself. If they were out spilling blood, it would have the same effect as having the strikes etc. and would bolster the efficacy of the bloody revolution itself.

The evolution method is basically ignoring the government until they go away.

The withholding of the vote is central to this idea. The vote, as powerless as it is in our hands presently, is the root of the government's power. As long as you vote, and whether you offer protest via spoiling your vote, it makes no difference whatsoever, you legitimise the system nonetheless. Now me explaining that and me convincing the whole of the population to practice it are two completely different subjects. This is theory whilst doing the leg work would be the practical. The practical is worthless until the theory is instilled. There is a bit of overlap, that's true. My point being that I don't need anyone to come in here and tell me that my idea has no support. They'd be speaking to the converted. Converted or not mind you, does not take from the strength (or weakness) of the argument itself.

Trying to predict when a 95% abstention would be possible is not an easy thing. I'd be happy with a 75% abstention and would reckon that no government could be elected. This is guesswork on my part, I've never done the maths. You'd have to work out quotas for each jurisdiction and then calculate, using statistical probabilities, what percentage of folks would have to decline in order that nobody could make the quota, regardless as to vote transfers. At what point could I see this being a possibility? The quick answer is not yet. FF haven't pissed people off enough yet. The next general election will see FF removed and some other bunch of oxygen wasters take over. Maybe two or three general elections time? But therein lies the difficulty.

It took an Orange parade in Dublin to give pissed off kids an excuse to riot. Practically none of them were politically inclined. In other words, they were only looking for an excuse. Now look at what's happening. Everyone's getting pissed off. I honestly doubt that the peace will hold long enough to see another two or three elections.

You asked me if I'd mind if the government outlawed voting. Yes I would. I'd personally put a bullet in the head of the first one of them that did it.

Revolution won't work. Power cannot be preserved by lack of organisation or fragmentation of command. Therefore any new system will become centralised again. Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the one coin in this regard.

Evolution will only be towards more effective systems or, if things go wrong, unsustainable over-population leading to systems breakdown. You might get your wish for anarchy if things go wrong or you might get a very authoritarian regime. Either way, it won't be pretty.

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Whose will is it that we have a crap educational system, a crap health service and a crap infrastrcture?

The hospital in Ennis is getting scaled down now and is the source of some headaches for our local FF TD Timmy Dooley who was apparently attacked at a recent hospital meeting. I heard him getting a right good telling-off by in incensed nurse (among other people) at a meeting last night and it was an interesting moment as to whether it was the democratic will of the people at that forum last night or a mob.... As the Mayor of Clare, Madelaine Taylor-Quinn FG said, herself and Anna Pryor SF at the last GE promised that if successful after running they would have fought in the Dáil for the hospital to the point of resigning the whip if the hospital got downgraded.

A bit academic now as herself and Anna Pryor didn't get elected but she made the point that the people then voted Timmy and FF who made no such promises so they in effect gave the mandate to Timmy and FF to do what they wanted with the hospital - so they should shut up now.

I think she has a point besides saying I told you so; wWe don't hold our politicians to account and we forget promises and we don't prioritise or anything. We probably can't given the system we have where we can't vote for issues or even systems.

That's the catch 22. The most democratic your vote can get within the current system, if you don't feel a candidate supports your view or is representative of you, is to vote vote for the candidate that least offends you. You'll be told that this is an act of voting against your least favourite candidate. And then, sure as Sunday follows Saturday, when the elected candidate absolutely fails to represent you, you yourself must take the blame and the politician who only ever acts and who only knows how to act in self interest or in the interest of the Party, is considered to have done his allegedly democratic duty.

This type of hucksterism is something we might expect a child to fall for. You know, "heads you win, tails I lose." It's my belief that we are programmed to this type of behaviour from an early age. We are instilled with the fallacy that it is our patriotic or democratic duty to vote.

There are but two ways to change the system. Those who have centralised power for their exclusive use will not just give it away. The two ways are revolution and evolution. Revolution comes about by proceeding as we are now. A government still based on cronyism and self-interest that will not give an inch in the face of catastrophe. It's the way of bloodshed. Evolution on the other hand is the peaceful way and may lead to a stable and representative government or even something resembling and approaching a full democracy. Evolution is achieved by rejecting the propaganda and witholding your vote until you can vote for someone who represents you. It is not your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to only vote for someone or some idea that actually represents you.

There is also counterrevolution, invasion, subversion and military coup. There's been plenty of that in the last half century. I don't agree that revolution is necessarily the "way of bloodshed". Revolution has often taken place to bring a war to an end - 1918-1918 was an upsurge of mutiny and revolution. General strikes, passive resistance and self-defence are often at the centre of revolution as well as armed seizure of power. The historians who like to paint revolution as bloodthirsty often see predatory wars and colonialism that kills millions of people as normal and allowable.

What can be achieved by withholding a vote? Some people do it because they support the party that is going to win, other people vote as a protest, even though they don't believe it will make much difference.
Under what circumstances can you envisage a 95% abstention? Would it make any difference?

Would you mind if Government removed our right to vote?

I don't want to get too bogged down in talking about a revolution - the powers that be dislike me enough as it is.

I'm talking about changing the system and for the better. Subversion and invasion would only tend to change the government and allow for a minimum of change to the system. A military coup would result in one of two things (provided it didn't facilitate an invasion) it would set up a dictatorship or it would merely change the government. A counterrevolution is not practical as there was no revolution for it to counter. And whilst you're very correct about revolution bringing war to an end, it would not be the case here and there would be lots of blood spilled imo.

Strikes, passive resistance and indeed non violent direct action, without resorting to bloodshed, would have more in common with the evolution approach as opposed to the revolution approach. These things do hinder the enemy during a revolution but tend to take from the efficacy of the revolution itself. If they were out spilling blood, it would have the same effect as having the strikes etc. and would bolster the efficacy of the bloody revolution itself.

The evolution method is basically ignoring the government until they go away.

The withholding of the vote is central to this idea. The vote, as powerless as it is in our hands presently, is the root of the government's power. As long as you vote, and whether you offer protest via spoiling your vote, it makes no difference whatsoever, you legitimise the system nonetheless. Now me explaining that and me convincing the whole of the population to practice it are two completely different subjects. This is theory whilst doing the leg work would be the practical. The practical is worthless until the theory is instilled. There is a bit of overlap, that's true. My point being that I don't need anyone to come in here and tell me that my idea has no support. They'd be speaking to the converted. Converted or not mind you, does not take from the strength (or weakness) of the argument itself.

Trying to predict when a 95% abstention would be possible is not an easy thing. I'd be happy with a 75% abstention and would reckon that no government could be elected. This is guesswork on my part, I've never done the maths. You'd have to work out quotas for each jurisdiction and then calculate, using statistical probabilities, what percentage of folks would have to decline in order that nobody could make the quota, regardless as to vote transfers. At what point could I see this being a possibility? The quick answer is not yet. FF haven't pissed people off enough yet. The next general election will see FF removed and some other bunch of oxygen wasters take over. Maybe two or three general elections time? But therein lies the difficulty.

It took an Orange parade in Dublin to give pissed off kids an excuse to riot. Practically none of them were politically inclined. In other words, they were only looking for an excuse. Now look at what's happening. Everyone's getting pissed off. I honestly doubt that the peace will hold long enough to see another two or three elections.

You asked me if I'd mind if the government outlawed voting. Yes I would. I'd personally put a bullet in the head of the first one of them that did it.

I'm talking in general historical terms here, not specifically about the present situation. I don't think we have the same meaning when we say revolution. I am talking about a change in power from one class to another. I mentioned counterrevolution and coups as they are examples of how regimes sometimes get changed in a non democratic way. They are the opposite of revolution. Change of power either way is rarely peaceful, but neither is it usually as bloody as the wars between nation states in which millions are killed.

Governments dress themselves up as peace loving and entirely democratic, but can you name me a democracy that didn't come out of armed conflict ? In Britain, the "cradle of democracy" they chopped the king's head off in front of his own palace. Likewise in France. Those revolutions brought about "western democracy". Western democracy has fought wars over colonies and resources and has used force to keep colonial people in check. Our high standard of living has depended to a large extent on resources expropriated very cheaply from colonies that were grabbed by force.

I don't think abstention is any more effective that vote spoiling. The responsible thing to do is to vote for the best of the bad job, whilst having no illusions that you will have to do more than vote to achieve any deep going social change.

If a person who did away with the vote was assassinated, is seems likely to me that his/her deputy, quite likely an even bigger bastard, would take over.