More
8

Often time in the US, we tell people that it's important to go out and vote - that you should exercise your civic duty, or repay society, or it's important to exercise it since so many have fought and died for your right to vote.

Sometimes these people who otherwise wouldn't vote say something like "Well, I don't really know anything; I don't know about the candidates, or the issues, or their policies." And sometimes despite this people say, "Well it doesn't matter that you don't know anything; you should go vote anyway."

I've always felt like that was a mistake, and so I'm happy to see Norm also (implicitly) advocating that stance. You shouldn't vote if you're not at least somewhat informed. Because what if you vote for something awful? By yourself, you're not likely to do anything like that, but if many people ignorantly vote that same way, then it's certainly possible. Perhaps someone in the UK might argue that's what happened with Brexit this year.

So, I wanted to share it.
Often time in the US, we tell people that it's important to go out and vote - that you should exercise your civic duty, or repay society, or it's important to exercise it since so many have fought and died for your right to vote. Sometimes these people who otherwise wouldn't vote say something like "Well, I don't really know anything; I don't know about the candidates, or the issues, or their policies." And sometimes despite this people say, "Well it doesn't matter that you don't know anything; you should go vote anyway." I've always felt like that was a mistake, and so I'm happy to see Norm also (implicitly) advocating that stance. You _shouldn't_ vote if you're not at least somewhat informed. Because what if you vote for something awful? By yourself, you're not likely to do anything like that, but if many people ignorantly vote that same way, then it's certainly possible. Perhaps someone in the UK might argue that's what happened with Brexit this year. So, I wanted to share it.

6 comments

[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

I didn't vote in the UK referendum for this reason. There was so much obvious misinformation on both sides of the campaign that was parroted by the media, I couldn't base my decision on anything.

There are a lot of people who voted one way or the other based on certain promises or factors that were not the most important thing regarding staying in or leaving the EU. I hope the referendum is blocked by Parliament if the supreme court rules that it was unlawful, because the government is already doing things it said it wouldn't if we left the EU. All the money that was supposed to be going towards the NHS is not going to go to the NHS, for example.

The US election also has a lot of similarities to our referendum. Both the referendum campaigns and the election campaigns had nothing to do with any of the issues voters were supposed to be factoring into their decision.
[–] TheRedArmy [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I wonder if I can get a British perspective - here in the US, I (and I'm sure many others) feel a very strong disconnect between the common citizen and the "ruling class". Congress' approval rating routinely dips to the 30's or even 20's, depending on the situation. Do you think there is a similar disconnect in the UK, where there is a kind of "break" between what the common citizens vote for and want, and what actually gets done in Parliament?
[–] PMYA 3 points (+3|-0)

This might be pretty complicated to explain. In the UK, our class system has been very divided for hundreds of years. In the US, the attitude has been geared towards thinking that anybody can pull themselves up to a higher class. I think it's an important difference because it does change the way people view the government.

Take our Conservative party and the US Republican party for example. Both of them are right wing parties with policies that are not too dissimilar from each other. But their voters are different. In the UK, Conservative voters are basically all members of the middle and upper class. Working class voters have generally voted for Labour, a slightly left leaning party, for decades. In the US, this is not so black and white. There are a lot of poor and rich Republican voters, and there are a lot of poor and rich Democrats.

The anger at the government in the UK is mostly directed at the executive government (the PM and their cabinet) rather than Parliament. I think people in the UK generally feel that MP's are trying to represent our interests most of the time. This is probably due to the way our elections work, and the fact that there is so much transparency in Parliament.

Everything that happens in Parliament is televised. All debates between members of the ruling party and the opposition are televised. This happens every day. So when something is going wrong, we know exactly why it is going wrong and who is to blame.

Having said this, Parliament sometimes goes and does something that really pisses everyone off, such as approving an invasion of Iraq whilst hundreds of thousands of people are protesting outside in the street.

The current feeling amongst the working class in this country is they have nobody that represents them. The Labour party is more left leaning than ever, and is fracturing because their current leader (who I actually like a lot) is a socialist. The Conservatives are doing things to the NHS and are not listening to what people want regarding immigration, which has prompted a campaign by the Conservatives based around the Brexit vote to "Make Britain work for everyone", and is completely see through.

As a result, parties like UKIP are slowly gaining traction, not because anyone thinks they will represent their best interests, but because nobody else is.

tl;dr shit is fucked mate
[–] TheRedArmy [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

tl;dr shit is fucked mate

You don't say? :P My state had David Duke - a former Grand Wizard of the KKK - get 7% of the vote for one of our congressional Senate seats. So, I understand perfectly.

Everything that happens in Parliament is televised. All debates between members of the ruling party and the opposition are televised. This happens every day. So when something is going wrong, we know exactly why it is going wrong and who is to blame.

See, this is interesting because we also have this in the US - CSPAN broadcasts what is going on on the congressional floor at all times. From Wikipedia -

The network televises U.S. political events, particularly live and "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the U.S. Congress as well as occasional proceedings of the Canadian, Australian and British Parliaments including the weekly Prime Minister's Questions, and major events worldwide. Its coverage of political and policy events is unedited, thereby providing viewers (or listeners) with unfiltered information about politics and government. Non-political coverage includes historical programming, programs dedicated to non-fiction books, and interview programs with noteworthy individuals associated with public policy. C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization, funded by a 6¢ per subscriber affiliate fee paid by its cable and satellite affiliates, and does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it ever solicit donations or pledges. The network operates independently, and neither the cable industry nor Congress has control of the content of its programming.

So I don't rate that as a major difference. But do people over there actually "consult the tape" and see what's what? Or do most people get their information from a news source? I think that might be one of the major differences.

This might be pretty complicated to explain. In the UK, our class system has been very divided for hundreds of years. In the US, the attitude has been geared towards thinking that anybody can pull themselves up to a higher class. I think it's an important difference because it does change the way people view the government.

I actually haven't considered this angle. Is there very little or virtually no social mobility in your society? Do you not think that it's generally possible for someone from a lower class to ascend to wealth? J.K. Rowling is someone who struggled with poverty before her first novel was released, for instance. Is she kind of one of these "one in a million" type people, and no one thinks it's likely or common for themselves?

Thinking about it now, I'm not sure what the prevailing thought about this is here, even. I personally feel I could become wealthy, assuming I am able to make the most of opportunities that come my way, although it's obviously not a given. Social mobility here is on a downward turn, and has been at least since the 70's. In the 19th century though, it was actually very high.

As for the UKIP bit, that sounds reminiscent of Donald Trump here. I think many common-man Republicans were extremely sick of their party leaders, and basically rebelled by voting Trump in the primary. And many blue-collar Democrats also rebelled by voting for Trump after voting Obama twice.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by 08495c768707