now voting is usually not effective but under some rare occasions it can be considered valuable by the voter. One of those situations is the capability to affect the outcome of an election which becomes more likely the more local an election gets.
But doesn’t non-voting also send a message to politicians at least as well as voting? Does it send a better more specific one (like “I’m not going to participate in this auction on stolen goods”)?
The whole discussion is a red herring. Pointless & useless.
Voting from voters is not constitutive. It does not create the state.
If no-one voted, the state would still be there. Futhermore, should the turn out ever get real low as to start losing justification and if they could get away with it - they’d make voting compulsory and subject to fines if you don’t. As they did in Australia.
really? In ausland voting is compulsory???
That it is. It is compulsory to vote, if you have enrolled. Solution is to avoid enrolling, but that is pretty much also compulsory.
An organisation called GetUp! (which is essentially a replica of Moveon.org), recently won two court cases.
One was that people can still enrol after the election has been called.
And two, that they can do so via online now.
Essentially, they want the young vote [which tends to vote labor [current government]? (left?)]
This overturned the previous govenrments [liberal party aka conservatives] ruling from John Howard (George Bushes bitch), which made it not allowed to enrol after the election was called (for the same reason given above).
Election is next weekend.