The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Letters]

There should be a none of the above option and there should be PR so the representation is...well, proportional. But there isn't. But not voting doesn't mean no one will get in. It just means you have had no say. So there's no point in moaning about it because you didn't do the only thing you could have done to prevent them getting in.

[Niall_Quinn]

There should be a none of the above option and there should be PR so the representation is...well, proportional. But there isn't. But not voting doesn't mean no one will get in. It just means you have had no say. So there's no point in moaning about it because you didn't do the only thing you could have done to prevent them getting in.

Have you ignored my response to that fallacy so you can pose it all over again and imply it has substance this time around?

[Letters]

What's the purpose behind this compulsion you are so keen on? So you force everyone to vote and 15 odd million people go and tick a box or spoil a ballot or whatever

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

[Letters]

Have you ignored my response to that fallacy so you can pose it all over again and imply it has substance this time around?

I can't even work out what your argument is. Is it that no-one should vote?
If so then as that's clearly not going to happen I'm not sure it deserves much of a reply.

[Niall_Quinn]

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

So enforcement could be used to consolidate "the only thing" that can be done under the current system? Handy that. Why bother if it's the only thing that can be done anyway? In fact why bother with the whole election sham? All it achieves is a bill for the taxpayer and healthy revenues for advertising firms. When you force everyone to endorse a facet of the same system then the vote becomes a procedural exercise with no inherent purpose beyond continuity. At least there is a meaningful choice at present, those who endorse the system and those who refuse to endorse it.

I think the way you automatically dismiss the reasons why some people consciously choose (as in choice as in free will) not to engage in what they consider to be an illegitimate process is pretty heavy handed. It tallies with your other ideas on compulsion. One way is right, all other ways are wrong. Four legs good, two legs bettermandatory.

[Niall_Quinn]

I can't even work out what your argument is. Is it that no-one should vote?
If so then as that's clearly not going to happen I'm not sure it deserves much of a reply.

My argument is counter to your claim that anyone who fails to endorse a minority government relinquishes the right to an opinion on government. Clearly there is no tangible argument to support such a claim. It is an illogical and ill informed opinion at best.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

Another thing i totally disagree about PR....would i guess correctly that you voted Lib Dem in 2010 and gravely regret it now?.

I think Proportional Representation is an absolute farce, it does nothing but create weak governments....if people want a better system they should have gone for AV in the referendum (a system that is used in France and as far as i'm concerned the best electoral system there is as it guarantees that every elected official wins a majority of the vote), but the British people rejected it so the clamor for electoral reform is largely overstated anyway.

The majority i still maintain is not an apathy resulting from certain political realities, it's an intellectual malaise a coalition of ignorance and stupidity if you will rather than a antipathy towards Bourgeois Democracy.
If people care enough they will vote, this trendy form of abstention propagated by muppets like Russel Brand doesn't reflect the reality. NQ is someone I assume whose political beliefs would be catered for only by a complete restructuring of the entire system, and i don't see why he should be made to march down to his local church hall, infant school etc in order to demonstrate this by creatively spoiling his ballot paper in a way that no-one will actually care about.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another thing i totally disagree about PR....would i guess correctly that you voted Lib Dem in 2010 and gravely regret it now?.

I think Proportional Representation is an absolute farce, it does nothing but create weak governments....if people want a better system they should have gone for AV in the referendum (a system that is used in France and as far as i'm concerned the best electoral system there is as it guarantees that every elected official wins a majority of the vote), but the British people rejected it so the clamor for electoral reform is largely overstated anyway.

The majority i still maintain is not an apathy resulting from certain political realities, it's an intellectual malaise a coalition of ignorance and stupidity if you will rather than a antipathy towards Bourgeois Democracy.
If people care enough they will vote, this trendy form of abstention propagated by muppets like Russel Brand doesn't reflect the reality. NQ is someone I assume whose political beliefs would be catered for only by a complete restructuring of the entire system, and i don't see why he should be made to march down to his local church hall, infant school etc in order to demonstrate this by creatively spoiling his ballot paper in a way that no-one will actually care about.

My compliance might make some other people feel better though. So maybe there is merit in forcing me to do what they demand. Especially if it reinforces their notion of inclusive democracy. Seriously though...

I don't want a complete restructuring of the system as I'm in a tiny minority in that respect and it's so unrealistic to expect it to materialise in this phase of human evolution it's not worth expending thought on the idea, let alone action. What I want is unrestrained choice in all things. Choice with natural consequences of course. I believe I'm grown up and evolved enough to handle it. I'm happy to go and live away from everyone else if that makes them more comfortable or they are afraid I'd benefit from their roads or fire service or "free" education (really, people do make these arguments). But when I have left, don't chase me with a fucking poll tax demand.

But our leaders aren't advanced enough to comprehend liberty yet. Give them a few thousand years, maybe after the novelty of chasing bits of paper around and murdering the defenceless has worn off.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I would agree with your ideas if i thought many people would behave responsibly with unrestrained choice, and whilst i'm happy for people to have said choice if their choices only affect themselves it's when it adversely affects other people that i object.

[Letters]

My argument is counter to your claim that anyone who fails to endorse a minority government relinquishes the right to an opinion on government.

I've certainly never said that. You can have an opinion, sure.
But not voting is not a logical response either because whether you vote or not, someone will get in and that person (is supposed to) represent you in your area.