Hey Moonie,
while I totally respect your decision not to vote, as is your right, I feel that your arguments are wrong. I've never been shy about letting people know when I think they're wrong and I'm not going to start now, even really good friends are mistaken from time to time and debate is a good thing, freedom of expression and all that.
I hear you on the meritocracy! OMFG this would so rock. You're right, even retards (close minded fuckers, as oppose to people with actual mental retardation, I'm not really sure about them) get to vote, but if intelligent people don't vote because of this they merely give the 'tards a higher weighting in the polls. Just because other people are going to screw up doesn't mean people who know what they are doing shouldn't take a stand on the issues.
You argue that our country's democracy is broken because "we do not have a strong enough opposition to contest the ruling party in any meaningful way." you go on to say that "We never will have a strong enough opposition, for the same reason that the ANC can do what it likes to its voters and will not lose - because people support their party because it's their party." See this is not a valid reason not to vote. You are never going to change the number of votes the ruling party receive, but if you don't vote because they have a majority you actually strengthen that majority. Voter Turn out in yesterday's election was a little above 47%, I'll give you odds that most of the people who blindly vote for a party based solely on loyalty did actually vote. Now early reports suggest that the ruling party have received about 70% of the vote. If we estimate that approx 10% of the population feel the same way you do, what would have happened if they had voted? Well nationally 32.9% of eligible voters would still have voted for the ruling party but in this scenario 24.1% would have voted for opposition parties, this leaves the ruling party with only a 57.7% majority. If the same numbers are applied to Gauteng, where voter turn out was only 27% the results would have changed to only a 51.1% majority. That's how not voting because you think one party is too strong affects the results.
You mention splitting of the opposition and that even if the opposition were totally unified it wouldn't make a difference because the ruling party would hold such a high percentage of the vote. Currently they do have enough of a majority to simply change the constitution if they wanted to, even if the opposition was added into one party their votes still would be ineffective. Your statements are absolutely true, but isn't that an argument for voting, not against it? I mean logically it doesn't make sense to say "The opposition isn't strong enough so there's no point in my voting for them". If this isn't what you meant then what did you mean?
Floor crossing is a completely different issue. This law is broken, but it doesn't negate the importance of voting. If you don't agree with this law then vote for a party that promises to change it, just bear in mind that for that you need to wait for national elections to do that.
I mentioned major struggles that happened all over the world because people wanted the right to self determination (one struggle which I failed to mention is the Suffragist movement which fights for the rights of women to vote). I didn't mention these struggles in some kind of stupid, sentimental attempt to make you feel guilty about the people who have sacrificed so that you could vote. I pointed out that all these struggles started because people wanted the right to self determination, because they realised that it was important enough to fight for. Now that everybody in this country has the right to Self Determination you may exercise that right by not voting, this may be because you don't like the system, or even as you say "there is no candidate I feel is worth supporting", but know that by choosing not to participate you are letting someone else choose for you. By not supporting anyone you are in fact supporting the majority view. This is not altogether a bad thing, if you think the people voting are going to make good decisions, but we've already discussed how most of the people voting are morons. I mentioned an obligation to vote, well that obligation is only to yourself and the people you care about. If you feel that not voting has the same effect your lives as voting then this obligation is meaningless, but sometimes you really do have to just vote for the lesser evil.
So in conclusion you say our system is broken, I agree. However I feel that the part that is broken is that intelligent people who do know what the issues are and are bright enough to vote don't. Floor Crossing is allowed in the law, it's wrong, but not a valid reason not to vote. Corruption is rife in our country, it's wrong, but not a valid reason not to vote. There are only two ways to make a difference in these and the multitude of other issues facing our country. One is to make your voice heard and cast you vote for the party that will do things the way you want, or at least against the party that does things the way you don't want. The second is open revolution, but I've got a better idea.
Let's you and me start our own party. We can stand for the abolition of democracy and the introduction of meritocracy. We can promise that if we win a majority we will give only the deserving the right to vote, we can promise that services will be provided on a who pays for them basis and that we will immediately start research into giving you the power to explode heads (of course I'll have to pilfer funds from that one to run a side project to ensure that I have immunity to having my head exploded). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only thing wrong with totalitarianism is that I’m not in charge!
I know it's not likely that we'd win, but we'd only need about 53000 votes to get us each a seat in parliament on the gravy train. From there on out it's the cushy life for us, if we're lucky we may even be paid huge sums of money to cross the floor to a party that needs to swell its ranks.
;)
schpat
PS: To comment about Khutsong. The situation in Khutsong is exactly what I’m talking about. Here 29000 were registered to vote. How many did? 232, with 12 spoilt ballots! Who won? The Ruling Party. That means that 29000 unhappy people allowed 220 make the decision for them and put the party they were upset with into power. How exactly did boycotting help them? Well people know they are upset. So what? There aren’t going to be re-elections and the Ruling Party is still in control of the area despite 29000 people not wanting it. What should they have done? They should have voted for candidates that would have looked after them better than the last lot did. Instead the same people who abandoned them are in power again. I would really not be surprised if the whole “boycott the vote” movement was not started to ensure that people who felt strongly about the issues would not vote at all. Here is proof that people don’t care about the people that boycotted. And a follow up on the latest news about who won.
while I totally respect your decision not to vote, as is your right, I feel that your arguments are wrong. I've never been shy about letting people know when I think they're wrong and I'm not going to start now, even really good friends are mistaken from time to time and debate is a good thing, freedom of expression and all that.
I hear you on the meritocracy! OMFG this would so rock. You're right, even retards (close minded fuckers, as oppose to people with actual mental retardation, I'm not really sure about them) get to vote, but if intelligent people don't vote because of this they merely give the 'tards a higher weighting in the polls. Just because other people are going to screw up doesn't mean people who know what they are doing shouldn't take a stand on the issues.
You argue that our country's democracy is broken because "we do not have a strong enough opposition to contest the ruling party in any meaningful way." you go on to say that "We never will have a strong enough opposition, for the same reason that the ANC can do what it likes to its voters and will not lose - because people support their party because it's their party." See this is not a valid reason not to vote. You are never going to change the number of votes the ruling party receive, but if you don't vote because they have a majority you actually strengthen that majority. Voter Turn out in yesterday's election was a little above 47%, I'll give you odds that most of the people who blindly vote for a party based solely on loyalty did actually vote. Now early reports suggest that the ruling party have received about 70% of the vote. If we estimate that approx 10% of the population feel the same way you do, what would have happened if they had voted? Well nationally 32.9% of eligible voters would still have voted for the ruling party but in this scenario 24.1% would have voted for opposition parties, this leaves the ruling party with only a 57.7% majority. If the same numbers are applied to Gauteng, where voter turn out was only 27% the results would have changed to only a 51.1% majority. That's how not voting because you think one party is too strong affects the results.
You mention splitting of the opposition and that even if the opposition were totally unified it wouldn't make a difference because the ruling party would hold such a high percentage of the vote. Currently they do have enough of a majority to simply change the constitution if they wanted to, even if the opposition was added into one party their votes still would be ineffective. Your statements are absolutely true, but isn't that an argument for voting, not against it? I mean logically it doesn't make sense to say "The opposition isn't strong enough so there's no point in my voting for them". If this isn't what you meant then what did you mean?
Floor crossing is a completely different issue. This law is broken, but it doesn't negate the importance of voting. If you don't agree with this law then vote for a party that promises to change it, just bear in mind that for that you need to wait for national elections to do that.
I mentioned major struggles that happened all over the world because people wanted the right to self determination (one struggle which I failed to mention is the Suffragist movement which fights for the rights of women to vote). I didn't mention these struggles in some kind of stupid, sentimental attempt to make you feel guilty about the people who have sacrificed so that you could vote. I pointed out that all these struggles started because people wanted the right to self determination, because they realised that it was important enough to fight for. Now that everybody in this country has the right to Self Determination you may exercise that right by not voting, this may be because you don't like the system, or even as you say "there is no candidate I feel is worth supporting", but know that by choosing not to participate you are letting someone else choose for you. By not supporting anyone you are in fact supporting the majority view. This is not altogether a bad thing, if you think the people voting are going to make good decisions, but we've already discussed how most of the people voting are morons. I mentioned an obligation to vote, well that obligation is only to yourself and the people you care about. If you feel that not voting has the same effect your lives as voting then this obligation is meaningless, but sometimes you really do have to just vote for the lesser evil.
So in conclusion you say our system is broken, I agree. However I feel that the part that is broken is that intelligent people who do know what the issues are and are bright enough to vote don't. Floor Crossing is allowed in the law, it's wrong, but not a valid reason not to vote. Corruption is rife in our country, it's wrong, but not a valid reason not to vote. There are only two ways to make a difference in these and the multitude of other issues facing our country. One is to make your voice heard and cast you vote for the party that will do things the way you want, or at least against the party that does things the way you don't want. The second is open revolution, but I've got a better idea.
Let's you and me start our own party. We can stand for the abolition of democracy and the introduction of meritocracy. We can promise that if we win a majority we will give only the deserving the right to vote, we can promise that services will be provided on a who pays for them basis and that we will immediately start research into giving you the power to explode heads (of course I'll have to pilfer funds from that one to run a side project to ensure that I have immunity to having my head exploded). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only thing wrong with totalitarianism is that I’m not in charge!
I know it's not likely that we'd win, but we'd only need about 53000 votes to get us each a seat in parliament on the gravy train. From there on out it's the cushy life for us, if we're lucky we may even be paid huge sums of money to cross the floor to a party that needs to swell its ranks.
;)
schpat
PS: To comment about Khutsong. The situation in Khutsong is exactly what I’m talking about. Here 29000 were registered to vote. How many did? 232, with 12 spoilt ballots! Who won? The Ruling Party. That means that 29000 unhappy people allowed 220 make the decision for them and put the party they were upset with into power. How exactly did boycotting help them? Well people know they are upset. So what? There aren’t going to be re-elections and the Ruling Party is still in control of the area despite 29000 people not wanting it. What should they have done? They should have voted for candidates that would have looked after them better than the last lot did. Instead the same people who abandoned them are in power again. I would really not be surprised if the whole “boycott the vote” movement was not started to ensure that people who felt strongly about the issues would not vote at all. Here is proof that people don’t care about the people that boycotted. And a follow up on the latest news about who won.
2 comments:
dammit - i still want that on video. could you guys carry on anyway? you don't want to cause a paradox, now do you?
and i go for open revolution. hell, nobody in south africa would really pay much attention, we could just call it a revolution and start killing people and taking over their houses. installing sentry towers and... wait, the infrastructures all in place - in jhb at least. we'll start with jhb, then move into pretoria with some caspers and tanks.
WHO'S WITH ME?!?!
Nah Moonie,
I'd use the iron stovedoor defense and hurt your hand!
Wana try me?
Post a Comment