Why dont you deliberately spoil your vote instead?
I have only done it once myself but spoiling my vote by writing "all useless turds" on my ballot paper, said alot more than giving the impression I was to lazy to go and vote (it also felt good)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Parliament Elections 2014 |OT| The Undemocratic EU is Actually Elected
- Thread starter anonymous_abc
- Start date
- Status
Why dont you deliberately spoil your vote instead?
I have only done it once myself but spoiling my vote by writing "all useless turds" on my ballot paper, said alot more than giving the impression I was to lazy to go and vote (it also felt good)
Nicktendo86
Member
The question of whether Labour allowed large amounts of immigration to prop up support is interesting. They certainly seem to have lost a bit of their typical white working class vote which has gone to UKIP, whether that is a long term trend or not we will see. Personally, I think they knew what they were doing which is why they were so relaxed about it.
As for the EU/Euro, I would like to see the Euro go to be honest but the EU to remain as it was originally presented to us, as a trading bloc. There is very little appetite for a United State of Europe which is the only way for the current setup to work, something has to give.
As for the EU/Euro, I would like to see the Euro go to be honest but the EU to remain as it was originally presented to us, as a trading bloc. There is very little appetite for a United State of Europe which is the only way for the current setup to work, something has to give.
CyclopsRock
Member
Because the idea that "they're all useless turds" is distinct from "I don't like the institution". Please forgive the analogy, I'm not saying that the EU are evil dictators, but it's the difference between disliking Saddam because he was a dictator vs disliking Sadam because you didn't think he was a very good dictator. The members running for parliament may well all be great, but if you're not a fan of the institution to begin with, spoiling your ballot sends the wrong message.
Frankfurter
Member
I'm kind of confused that you mention the BVerfG as an obstacle to european integration. Afaik the only thing that the BVerfG has issues with is that the German government pretty much tried to ignore/bypass certain participation rights of the Bundestag (23 GG).
MisterFalcon
Member
And you may have missed after 10 years the Greek economy needed to be bailed out with hundreds of billions instead of the prosperity the Euro was supposed to bring.
anonymous_abc
Member
But you must realise this is not how your abstention is counted or considered.
It's a conundrum I have no idea what you could possibly do to get your point across, apart from forming your own party for the GE in the UK.
What you write on the ballot is down to how you feel about it. When I wrote "turds" on my ballot was because the candidates were exactly that. In your case it could be as simple as "I do not support the institution"
I just cant see how staying at home helps, as the only thing that says is "I am too stupid/lazy" to vote, when clearly you are not.
CyclopsRock
Member
Just FYI, I did vote; I'm talking in hypothetical here about how spoiling a ballot suggests you don't like any of the candidates, and abstaining suggests you don't support the institution. Writing something isn't useful either - no one reads it, no one notes it, no one cares. As for how abstention is considered, it's not a technical thing - I'm just saying that a low voter turnout raises real questions about the validity of the mandate that the European Parliament has over a given country, and this is - whilst anaemic and pretty ineffectual - is still the best hope that those who don't like the European Parliament have to send their message. Spoiling your ballot just sends the message of "we're not producing candidates that this person wants to vote for", which is a different thing. Not voting because you're lazy or don't care isn't the same as not voting because of a definable, arguable opposition to its existence but they both have the same effects of stripping the mandate that the EUP has, and stripping the local governments of a mandate to concede greater powers to it. Whether they choose to ignore that is another matter, but disagreeing with the nature of the European Parliament is not a position that has a lot of effective avenues to raise the grievance - can you name a better one than abstention?
anonymous_abc
Member
Absolutely, which is something entirely different to what you originally posted.
QuicheFontaine
Member
This was my quandry as I set out on page 2 / 3 of this thread. I'm pretty happy with my abstention, since voting at all (even for a Eurosceptic party) still feels like I'm engaging with an institution I dislike, and therefore giving it some measure of legitimacy. Not voting is simply not recognising it. And I don't have "voted for UKIP" on my conscience.
As others have said though, it's not clear to pollsters whether a particular abstention is due to anti-EU sentiment or simple apathy. Well, in my case it's a little of column A and a little of column B (which are both subsets of a larger column titled "Left applying for postal vote too late").
An abstention though only ever tells a politician that you are not interested in politics, nothing more.
As for the people that voted UKIP, I can understand why. I do agree with alot of their general policies they hold, I am just not convinced as to their reasoning for them (hence why I didn't vote for them).
However, tossing a UKIP member into Brussels is like tossing in a grenade. It wont bring the building down but it will make the people inside scramble.
As to voting UKIP in the council elections, that really didn't make any sense why anyone would do that other than saying "Up Yours"
CyclopsRock
Member
So... what is the best way? If it isn't to vote UKIP, or to Abstain?
Incidentally, I don't think it matters what an abstention "tells" a politician - they have no idea if you abstained as a political objection, because you're lazy, because you feel disenfranchised by the process, because you felt ill and couldn't make it, because you didn't get your postal ballot sorted in time (AHEM) etc. But it doesn't need to. I think the virtue of the approach I'm suggesting is that the mandate of the parliament goes down for every percentage of the electorate that don't turn up. At 100% it has a full mandate. At 0%, it has no mandate at all. The scale isn't linear, and it's not like there are built in "triggers" that react to particularly low turn outs (As we saw in Slovakia, much of the EU appears to just look away and carry on) but it starts raising questions, and I think that's about the best we can hope for. There is no easy way to turn the train around (and it was obviously designed that way - no one designs an institution that they expect people to leave) which leaves people who oppose the EU parliament with basically no options.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I think a more accurate way to put it is that it tells a politician that a person is not engaged in the political process at hand. Incidentally, I don't think anyone is really not interested in politics, or at least I don't see how you could be since it affects basically everything in life.
Of course, my little abstention is basically of no consequence. However, if very large numbers of people abstain (see Slovakia) then politicians will take notice. They may ask "Why are people abstaining? Because they don't like the candidates? Because they don't like the system?". But at least they will be asking the questions. Politicians derive their legitimacy from votes, and winning an election in which only, say, 10% of the population votes leaves you in a pretty untenable position, in my opinion.
Mt Heart Attack
Member
As for whether people in Europe oppose or favour the idea of a more integrated union going forward, I found this (extremely comprehensive) poll from 2012 that compares the views of people from the four largest EU countries (UK, Germany, France and Italy, plus Norway, Sweden and Denmark) on numerous topics and, most importantly, on the process of European integration.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...isis - Cross-Country Report_06-Mar-2012_F.pdf
Turns out that some 35% of Germans and French, and 60% of Italians, would support the creation of a fully integrated United States of Europe, with a further 20% in all three countries who's indifferent on the matter. Not really a tiny minority, if I may say so. The difference with the UK is staggering of course, with only a meagre 10% sharing the same view. I honestly have no idea what the UK is even doing in the EU anymore, there's clearly a strong popular sentiment against it and they're opting out of everything anyway (Euro, Schengen), the way I see it they should just leave at this point really.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...isis - Cross-Country Report_06-Mar-2012_F.pdf
Turns out that some 35% of Germans and French, and 60% of Italians, would support the creation of a fully integrated United States of Europe, with a further 20% in all three countries who's indifferent on the matter. Not really a tiny minority, if I may say so. The difference with the UK is staggering of course, with only a meagre 10% sharing the same view. I honestly have no idea what the UK is even doing in the EU anymore, there's clearly a strong popular sentiment against it and they're opting out of everything anyway (Euro, Schengen), the way I see it they should just leave at this point really.
anonymous_abc
Member
Thanks for that, my evening is saved!
QuicheFontaine
Member
One of the few things both Europsceptics and Europhiles seem to agree on in the UK is that we should have a referendum to decide whether we're truly in or out (funnily enough because boths sides think they would win!), and that the current situation does no-one any favours.
If we were to have a referendum though, I would appreciate it if the question was phrased with some indication that, were we to remain in, we would eventually become part of a United States of Europe, since that is apparently the endgame.
Honestly yes, it sounds like you should have voted UKIP for the EU only. It would say you don't like the EU, while not voting for them in local or general elections tells UKIP that their other policies are just not on.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
anonymous_abc
Member
10 points for Grifindor!
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not anti-EU though, I like the free trade and the free movement of people, and the EU Parliament is a great forum for supranational cooperation on things that require supranational cooperation, my problem is that I feel that the EU Parliament is legislating on things that are better legislated in domestic legislatures because the wider an electorate sits, the more disenfranchised people you end up with. Of course, everyone thinks that legislation should be passed as the most local legislature as is appropriate, it's just our definition of "appropriate" seems to be the point of contention! So it's not the EU I have a problem with, which is why I don't want to vote UKIP, it's the nature of the parliament as a legislative body and the degree of power it has. It's (one of) the reason(s) I'll be voting Tory in 2015 - because I think a referendum is 100% necessary, and that it should occur after we have secured reform in the EU on these issues.
Also, fuck CAP.
Sorry, misread your political views there and I totally agree (well nearly)
The only thing I dont agree with is free movement. In theory its all good but in practice, its just taking a huge toll.
Our schools are in turmoil, our NHS is a mess, housing is a nightmare and we have a bank account where even Wonga would tell us to fuck off. A 200k net migration is just not sustainable. There has to be limits.
The Tories probably do have the best package when it comes to the EU. I just dont think its possible. France and others will veto any renegotiation. That within 10 years of the EU constitution cockup will be too much for the UK voters, leading to our subsequent withdrawal
Not sure if this is worth a new thread or not:
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/eu-elections-overheat-burning-catalonian-debate/
Looks like pro-independence parties did very well in Catalonia again. It's getting harder and harder to see how Madrid can justify their position.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/eu-elections-overheat-burning-catalonian-debate/
Looks like pro-independence parties did very well in Catalonia again. It's getting harder and harder to see how Madrid can justify their position.
The worst thing about this whole UKIP business is the fact that they've forced me to agree with something Tony Blair said
Tony Blair's problems have never really been in relation to what he's said, rather what he *does*.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Leaving aside the "racist" part, how exactly is UKIP a political failure? I thought they just received the largest share of the vote in that there European election?
People define political success in different ways, clearly, this guy doesn't base his definition of political success on popular support.
SecretMoblin
Member
whoa, this is fascinating
don't mess with a people's language, man
I wonder if there's any potential for debate about devolved powers or if the point of no return has already been passed and it's either full independence or the status quo with a lot of internal resentment
Sonik
Member
You guys focus a lot on the fact that UKIP is xenophobic and don't focus enough on a more practical problem. Farage is a Thatcherite and could put the final nail in UK's society and economy by continuing that phycho's plans. It's one more reason why EU's incompetence and destructive policies are bad for its countries on so many levels. You think UK eurosceptics are all Thatcherites too?
QuicheFontaine
Member
So by what definition is UKIP a political failure? Just reading through the wikipedia page, it looks like the party has gone from strength to strength since Sked resigned as leader.
I'm not sure if we're at the point of no return yet, but the whole crisis has been so poorly managed by Madrid that I wouldn't be surprised if it had.
A few years ago I'd suspect Catalonians would have been happy with some more devolved powers. Today? I suspect that too many people regard Madrid as being only interested in leaching their tax revenue.
CyclopsRock
Member
I guess you could argue that it hasn't actually achieved any of its goals. It's just won the first nationwide election in the UK in 100 years that wasn't won by the Tories or Labour, but that hasn't yet manifested itself into any change and it's possible it won't.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Not to mention a European election isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. They can't enact change from there. It is only publicity for them. They need to be winning seats at general elections. Even the Greens managed one.
QuicheFontaine
Member
But I think it's done as well as it could realistically be expected to for such a relatively new party. It takes time to get off the ground and build momentum. Going from nothing to winning a nationwide election in twenty years is no mean feat. Sure, this may merely represent the high-water mark but I'm sure that's been said before...
I agree, and that's quite possibly why they got so many votes (people believe they can't do too much damage in the EP)! However, I think people pointing to their lack of MPs will need to come up with something new by this time next year. Given our FPTP system I believe parties need to reach a certain 'critical mass' to achieve success in the Generals, since people see voting for small parties as 'throwing their vote away'. With the publicity that this election has given them (and the media attention), we might well see that translate to seats in Westminster next year.
SporeCrawler
Member
man, cameron is saying that EU is evil because it is not democratic yet he will not back the candidate of the party that got the most votes?
The hyperbole from the left never ceases to amaze me.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Definitely. Although I think they'll squeeze one or two seats at best. Just a hunch, but FPTP will screw them. They will be complaining a lot about that post-election.
I have zero idea what he is saying. I mean... Farage is obviously a Thatcherite, but I think the 'left' has a problem with everyone being neo-liberals (to varying extents), which everyone can agree is a problem.
If by seats you mean one or two, then I agree. Unless the major parties do something to win some actual popular support (Labour, this means running on a platform that consists of more than "we're not the Tories"), ukip may swing a couple of marginal seats
I'll still be spoiling my ballot though as I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country and my vote is worthless
SporeCrawler
Member
I strongly disagree. the european idea comes from a speciality from the european continent. there are so many cultures and ethnicies living cramped in a relatively small territory. also the region did have a very fast development after the middle ages. at the same time no power has ever had complete suzereignity over the region. this meant that a lot of very strong autonomous regional powers could manifest themselves in very well organized nations.
yet since there never was a ultimate power that ruled all of europe (there were times of supremacy for the franconian, the spain, the french and the english but it was never a hegemony like in china) there never was a guarantee for peace until the powers realized after WWII that it is time to give up certain powers in order to prevent war.
if you think about it after rome (which could be seen as a sort of hegemony) the frank empire did not last very long and the europeans tried a lot to limit war. however they never did succeed in doing so. Ill give you a few examples
1. Translatio Imperii: So west rome was gone and there was no suzereign over the european powers meaning that there was constant fear of war. The consequence was to act as if rome never was gone. The franconian emperor charles magne was just named emperor and the church said the roman empire translated into him. Why? Because the bible speaks of four empires and the roman is the last one. After the fourth one is gone the world would end. Since the world didnt end the franconian must be rome right? In truth this was a way to create a universal power that would prevent further war from happening. Obviously the emperor as a peace keeper didnt work since the regional powers established themselves into sovereign states (treaty of westphalia).
2. Christianity: You may disagree but christianity was a dominant pan-european force for thousands of years. The pope was not only a religious leader but a political power as well. This is especially shown with the edict inter caetera divinae from 1493 where he divides the world into portuguese and spain territory (which is pretty much why brazil people speak portuguese while the rest speaks spain). he also could excommunicate regional lords if he wanted to and that would make the lord pretty much powerless (See Walk to canossa 1077). Anyways this also did not work out due to the reformation.
3. Colonialization and Amity Lines: So after columbus found america and spain, portugal, england and netherlands fought over territory and gold in those regions there was a concept of amity lines which meant that after a certain line is crossed the european territory ended and any war outside of that line would not be considered a european conflict. This concept did work as long as colonialization worked. It was only a fighting of european fights outside of european territory though and ultimately failed
4. Balance of Powers: So this was a concept between prussia, austria, france, england and russia. They basically tried to intervene in weaker countries whenever they thought intervening there would help maintaining the balance. Ultimately that failed too since starting with world war 1 and especially in world war 2 the wars were no longer "cabinet wars" where a pack of soldiers would fight on a open field but were wars where the whole society would be mobilized and industrialized weaponry would eradicate whole cities.
I think the european union is attempt No. 5 to try to prevent a inner european war which was very dangerous the last time (WWII) around.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. As a pure guess, maybe 2-5? Can't see it being any more than that.
This video from the Sweden Democrats' youth section is fucking scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-lAGj_dlQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-lAGj_dlQ
Sonik
Member
No hyperbole. Thatcher and her fans were always a fucking cancer to UK's society.
SecretMoblin
Member
Scary.
The guy speaking Spanish is really awful at it and the last thing he says is grammatically incorrect.
You are doing it again.
CyclopsRock
Member
It was the stated goal of the British (and English) Foreign Office - for about 400 years - to ensure that no one power in the European continent gained too much power. Almost everything that England/The UK did after about 1600 makes sense in this context.
Whilst I agree that "peace" was a form of goal, the EU was never going to deliver peace - it's the intra-national trading that delivers peace, however that trade is formed. As any Civ player knows, war becomes costly not just because tanks are expensive, but because it cuts off ones ability to trade with their neighbours! So in that sense, the EU's main contribution here is through the free movement of people and free trade, for it's that which stops wars, not the European Parliament legislating on banking reform.
Sickboy007
Member
So the UKIP might ally themselves with the Italian 5 Star Movement.
A party helmed by a self-professed Thatcherite and a movement whose leader and voters chanted at their rallies the name of the late head of the Italian Communist Party, together at last.
A party helmed by a self-professed Thatcherite and a movement whose leader and voters chanted at their rallies the name of the late head of the Italian Communist Party, together at last.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
They deserve each other.
QuicheFontaine
Member
International, surely?
- Status