I'LL wager a few of my hard earned English pounds that come May 4, politicians and commentators alike will be chewing the fat pretty loudly about the absurdly low turnouts.
When you compare our collective apathy with the recent scenes in Africa where people are quite happy to queue up to vote, it's pretty shameful.
Hang on though, how about looking at it another way. How about if I said that the apathetic 80-off per cent have actually been pretty democratic in their decision not to vote because either they felt disengaged from the whole process or, frankly, couldn't give a monkeys?
Surely both those actions are as equally democratic as those people who conscientiously turn out come rain, sleet or shine every first Thursday in May to make their mark.
It would be undemocratic if they didn't have the right to vote in the first place, but having actually secured that right then it is their own business what they choose to do with it.
Say for instance whether you're a staunch Lib Dem supporter living in West Lancs and there's no candidate standing in your ward. What do you do? Vote for a party you disagree with?
For an election to be totally democratic for the voter, they should surely have a choice of a candidate from every political party registered as such which has never happened yet and never will.
So when you hear people commenting on turnout, it's worth asking yourself whether turn outs of 20/30 per cent are harming the democratic process, or are actually conciously making a pretty big and damning statement about it...
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »