Apathy, in my mind, is a dangerous thing. It means that views in society get misrepresented in elections and means that in the (unlikely) event of a referendum on anything, people are easily swayed by the best propagandists, instead of having an informed opinion of their own. A politically apathetic nation could much easily become a dictatorship, and is effectively becomes one anyway. However, I'm not one to shove it down people's throats (too much), but I like people who can at least understand Steve Bell cartoons. [/shameless advertising of the Guardian]

As for what to do about it. Compulsory voting? Is that the way to go? Or maybe just making it easier to vote - online or by text message perhaps. Or an overhaul of the whole democratic system? Failing that, we could just sod the whole thing and surrender our souls to Tony Blair... or not.

Anyway... Debate away, or be so apathetic that you can't even be arsed to debate apathy

What kills me is people that complain about something, and when you try to ask them how much they know about it, they go "Well, I don't care. I just want it fixed."

Occasionally I get made fun of for paying attention to political stuff. Sure, I can't vote, but I want to know what's going on in my world. Sadly, most kids around here don't have any idea about anything...especially the war.

this one is hilarious

The issue with every mass of people, even in a political party devoted to change, is a lack of will to participate. This is true of any large group, hence why democracy is a miserable failure.Would do absolutely nothing. People wouldn't have the will just because they are forced to.Too many flaws in text messaging like repeat voting.

Demagogues will always become the ones in power in any society. Groups shift towards oligarchy and/or autocracy. Such facts are unavoidable. The technical innability for a large mass to efficiently gather and conduct business in addition to natural human tendencis of the masses to not care render democracy a system too flawed to serve its purpose of government.

Hence why I like to say, democracy is a battle between who can scream the loudest and who can pay the most.

Political apathy worries me. Extremists always vote, so when those whose politics are more mainstream neglect to do so, fringe groups become over-represented. Don't take my word for it - remember Le Pen?

Voting should be mandatory. I'm a libertarian, but the only way to assure the continued existance of our rights is to infringe on the minor one of not having to vote.

Then again, I live in Australia, we have to vote, and we have a pretty conservative government. Fight the power, man.

I'm sort of for compulsory voting myself (provided that the right to spoil your ballot paper still exists). It would certainly stop people simply staying at home because they can't be arsed to go to the polling station. I'm aware that compulsory voting wouldn't cure political apathy, and that it would merely force those with uninformed opinions to vote.

As for apathy itself, I believe this could be largely helped by better education about such things, from an earlier age than at the moment (in my school, there weren't 'compulsory' lessons concerning politics and how our system works until General Studies in Year 13, lessons which were complete crap anyway so everyone skipped them). It should be coupled with RE (which also needs an overhaul) and be far more relevant and engaging than at present. Teachers need to lose the taboo attitude towards politics that many of them have.

The whole British political system needs an overhaul anyway. Proportional representation for instance. At the moment, having one MP for a constituency means that the majority in that constituency get their man in office. But if that same majority is present in every other constituency, there is no opportunity for the minority (which could still be quite sizeable) to have a say. Political opinion is not something wholly determined by geographical location.

Look at it (hypothetically) this way: There is a far higher proportion of Green Party voters in the population than there are Green Party MPs in the House of Commons. This is because they are distributed across the country and not centred in a few constituencies. Therefore, they don't get represented in the Commons fairly. However, with proportional representation, if 5% voted Green, there'd be 5% of Commons seats occupied by Green MPs.

As the world gets smaller, politics becomes less and less a local thing. Parliament decides things that affect the whole country, and so having regional representatives in the form of MPs makes no sense.

Imo political apathy can be a good thing. Without trying to sound like a snob or an elitist, I think that most people who are too lazy to get out and vote are also politically ignorant. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those people would rather vote for someone with lots of charisma and groovy catch-phrases.

Ah, but in the end, you realise that no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot polish a turd. =D

PS As an anarcho-capitalist, I'm quite dismayed by the prospect of being slapped with a fine only because I didn't get out to vote. The State loves compulsory voting because it can thus gain more legitimacy.

Daedalus: You make a good point about electoral reform, that under the current FPTP system minority parties are underrepresented. However, under pure proportional representation (20% of the vote = 20% of the seats), smaller parties have far too much power, because larger parties need to ally with them to form coalitions. I personally am in favour of the Alternative Vote System, but that's a topic for another thread.

Well, being an anarcho-socialist I can sympathise with you ugabuga, but unfortunately without drastic militant action we remain living in liberal democracies. And unless we are willing to use force of arms to change the world, we are going to have to be happy with a democratic means of political change. Democracy without mandatory voting is not true democracy because it is not the will of all teh people =D

On the other hand, if we were to renounce democracy the anarchist theory is a little limited. Ideally, in an anarchist society the right to not vote would be sustainable... indeed it would be impossible to enforce such laws. But as long as The State exists we need to be forced into taking measures to protect ourselves against it, lest it gain too much power... lest that power fall into the wrong hands. The Masses may be swayed by fancy talk and flashing lights, but their opinion is no less valid. It may be Wrong, but it is still valid. If the masses willingly submit to bondage to the state, there is little we or anybody else can or should do about it. After all, it's the will of The People.

Good points there, Juice...

If you'll allow me to go a bit off topic, freedom can be achieved without having to lock and load your M1 Garand. =D One can take part in something similar to the Free State Project, form/join a milita, or move to sparsely populated areas...Atm, most the situation in most countries is one where its too late to change things but too early to start shooting up the pigs...

But woudln't you agree that when a person chooses to stay at home and watch Oprah instead of voting, he/she is voluntarily surrendering her right to vote? The country is still a democracy, but not everyone wishes to make the most out of their democratic rights (?). Its like a suspect who's just been arrested. In the US, the cops would read out his "Miranda Rights" (eg the right to remain silent). The suspect is guaranteed these rights...whether he chooses to remain silent or not is a different matter...


Quite right...Can't think of anything to throw against that one =D


But what if The Masses are the ones most in favour of granting The State more power? That's my main reason for stating that political apathy may be a good thing. People who are apathetic are more likely to buy into Statist propaganda. I think its safe to say that most info and 'news' out there originates from The State and its Corporate bedfellows. Alternative news is harder to find and is thus much less likely to gain the attention of the political apathetic. The War on Iraq, imo, gained much popularity among 'right-wing' extremists and a good portion of 'The Masses'...That's why I'm not all too excited by the idea of forcing these people to vote =\

So Juice, what are you? Anarcho-socialist or libertarian? Can't be both, one defies the other.

As for compulsory voting. Putting power in the hands of the unwilling will not force them to make educated descisions. They could just pick the name at the top of the ballot. It is not an option, it is a reactionary mistake.

I don't really feel that the apathetic masses are completely blank ugabuga, most are simply frustrated with the state of the political system in their country, and by extension, bleeding heart liberals.

The left are the ones trying to mobilise the masses, because most of them would vote left. The masses are traditionally left leaning, because they are the proletariat, and the left wing parties are taking care of the worker's rights, rather than the employer's rights. Granted, it's not as simple anymore, but the general idea stands even if the turn of the century marxist theories are a little outdated.



EDIT: Actually, an anarcho-socialist is by definition a libertarian, your understanding of the anarcho-socialist theory might be a little rusty. Alot of people associate it with state runned socialism, which is all together another thing.

That was a pretty big (and maybe inaccurate) generalisation I made. =(


That's what bothers me. Leftism is good when The State is not in the equation. The Masses and politically apathetic will tend to vote left mainly because leftist parties offer more goodies such as minimum wage and welfare (breads and circuses). We are then left with:

Forcing the apathetic to vote --> swing to the Left --> more power to the State.

Imo, the little political participation that ought to take place ought to concentrate on weakening the State and seeing to it that society is as minarchistic as possible. The values that the politically apathetic have probably go against this. (?)

Sorry Juice but I can't let that fly. Libertarianism accepts the idea of a government, anarchy does not. A true libertarian believes in a laissez-faire economy, socialism is inherently the opposite, government controlled or otherwise.If you were leader of Juiceonia, and the masses wanted to ally themselves with country A, and even though you told them an alliance of such would lead to their destruction and they still wanted to ally with country A, would you do it knowing the state would die, or would you go against the will of the people to save them from certain death?American politics and European politics until recently have been very different. In America the liberal democrats have become the party of the minorities and the intellectuals. They lost the blue collar workers a while ago. The blue collar are now mainly conservative republicans, while not proletarians per se, and while still the small number of proletarians is still on the left, the more traditional working class poor have always been more right wing. Such is true with the blue collar workers in America and the peasantry of Europe until the modern era.

Ack, being attacked on all sides tonight.

Ok. Firstly...



In essence, the only thing the word libertarian means is someone who believes in the rights of man, that is, that one can do anything one wants as long as it doesn't harm somebody else. This philosophy is the motor of the anarchist theory. Libertarianism is essentially a social idea, the economics are left up to the individual. Whilst such organisations as the American Libertarian Union (I think they're still calling themselves that) might be capitalist and stateist through and through, they don't have a monopoly on the word libertarian.

Simply speaking, any anarchist believes in the social theories behind libertarianism. The economic side is unrelated. Plainly it has nothing to do with the social aspect of a philosophy. Just because libertarians have been associated with free marketing capitalists does not mean that I can't mix my own brand of socialism into the deal.

On the other hand, I am primarily an anarchist, socialist or capitalist, I think they could both work, just that socialism would work better. So I can still be a libertarian. In fact, I could be a facist as well if I thought that a facist society would be a good way for things to be, but I'm not. My point is, I can have whatever mix of social and economic beliefs I want, even if they did contradict each other. i mean, who is to say that they have to happen at the same time?


... Elg... I mean uga buga... I'm giving up. We believe the same thing, and we've discussed this before. The only reason I'm posting is to protect my honour. Me thinks I went too hard on Sir Maxerpopple once or twice and he's looking for a good scrap. Plainly put, I'm not.

From dictionary.com--Libertarian--
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.

Now socialism is not a minimalist concept. While some libertarians do believe in some socialist ideas like minimm wage, etc., they do not believe in liberal progressive socialist conducts.

The difference between anarchy and libertarianism is that the former sees political governnment unacceptable, whereas the latter sees it as a necessary evil. Hence why they are contradictory. The social ideas of freedom are the same, this is true, but the two philosophies reach different conclusions about freedom and government.

Whereas anarchy can be capitalist or socialist(like Bakunin), libertarianism really can't be, as it believes in minimal government and socialism requires government involvement. Granted socialists can be libertarian leaning, meaning they favor less government involvement to more, but they are not true libertarians in the normal sense of the term.Nope, just stating my side of the case. I don't like to hold grudges on a forum of anonymous exchange of ideas, if I do it is with good reason.

*remembers a long and heated debate about meta-physics*

Honestly, it is my opinion that you'd argue the time of day if we lived in the same country. Put plainly:





On the other hand, you say that socialism requires state involvement, yet you conceed that anarchy can be both capitalist or socialist. This is a glaring contradiction, seeing as there is no state in an anarchist society.

Minimising the role of the state to nothing is the logical conclusion of the libertarian, many don't go that far, many do. Every anarchist is a libertarian, I am an anarchist. It is simple as that, they are the same, one term refers to the broader group that includes anarchists of all forms, the other refers to anarchists only. I am an anarcho-socialist, an accepted extreme left form of anarchy, also recognised as a libertarian group. You dictionary definition only strengthens my point, I believe in the maximising of individual rights and the minimalization of the role of the state... to 0.

I mean, for Christ sakes, you can't defeat my views so you try to say that I hold contradicting ones, when mine are little different from any other anarcho-socialist. Are you attacking the entire philosophy? If so we'd better start a new thread and you'd better start bringing out the big guns because I will not sit here and argue semantics with you when even your own arguements support my own. As has happened before, I can't seem to dislodge you from the idea that I am wrong, at all costs, even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Erm.... what was the actual topic again? Oh yeah, voting apathy. Basically I feel that u can't jst make voting compulsary - what self-respecting UK/US govt would do that? No - the point is you need to tackle the root cause of it; people need to become politically aware, they need to be able to get involved in local government alot more, be educated at school or otherwise about the political processes, be encouraged to read (broadsheet) papers & watch the news - naturally this should happen as people's incomes rise, but at the moment it seems this is not happening

Yep, simple things, too. I watch CNN every morning and read Time magazine as well as look at stuff online. I want to and it's enjoyable for me to know what's going on, but it wouldn't hurt to watch 1/2 hour of the news a day, would it? Small steps, small steps.

Libertarianism is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. Libertarians hold that government is and always will be necessary, just it is best to make it minimalist. This is the mainstream libertarian idea, that government is a necessary evil. You disagree, hence anarchism is your idealogy.

However if you mean to make the libert-leaning idealogies a group, which I now believe you are doing, and then call it all under the banner of libetarian, that is fine. The social theories are the same, the economic theories can be, the only difference is a minor rift in political theories. Perhaps what you mean is to make the political diamond type of idea, liberty vs. authority in various sectors? If so, fine. They are now a group. However the libertarian party and the mainstream idealogy of libertarianism states government as necessary. Therefore, yes, you are in the liberty-leaning group. However libertarianism is not a conglomerate of differing political theories, it is only one.

I can't say I'm THE most informed person on the planet, but I try to get my facts straight as much as possible and pay attention to what's going on... If I didn't, I would probably far too confused and possibly upset that I didn't understand anything. I remember back when 9/11 happened in the city, I was walking home with my mum since all the public transportation was screwed up, listening to blaring fire engines constantly, and seeing the smoke rising from downtown. My mum muttered something under her breath about Osama Bin Laden, and since I'd never heard of him, I asked quite innocently who he was. Foolish, naive me... And I got sucked in -- I wanted to know everything that was happening. Which really isn't a bad thing, when you think about it. I'm just glad I started learning back then -- trying to understand it all now without the proper background information could get really complicated. @_@;

Ideally speaking, I would love to see the whole country more well-informed about the war and other political issues (etc.) concerning it because I know there are some 40-year-olds I wouldn't trust with a vote but I would trust certain 13-year-olds with one. Disappointing to say the least, but true. Knowledge allows you to make an informed decision, and without the correct facts, I don't know how people can possibly make one. Voting shouldn't be compulsory, but it should be recommended if people are educated enough to make a justified decision... Just make more people aware, I guess... There's not much more you can do than that... Unless you forced people to watch the news and read the newspaper constantly, which would be really strange to say the least, and not even possible for some... o_O

Juice and Maxerpopple, that's not the topic. Take it into PMs or make a new thread, but this isn't the place for it.

I think political apathy is hugely damaging. It particularly annoyes me when people complain about the system but don't actually vote - how do you they think that anything's going to change unless they make the effort?

BTW - they make it extremely easy to vote in this county (UK) - you can vote by post so I really don't see that anyone has any excuse not to. They prompt you and all you have to do is make your vote, pop it in the pre - paid envelope provided and send it away.

I suppose finding a post box would be too much to ask, though....

In the United States, if you watch the news for 1/2 hour, you won't be enlightened on too much more than which major celebrity is being charged with some random crime, or what new scandal is occuring in the world of professional sports.

Of course, every once in awhile there are special interviews on. But people seem to care most about who has a better television presence. Or who puts out the most sensational commmercials. That's how Kennedy was elected. That's why Arnold Schwarzennegar is the governor of California.

The media in the U.S. is hopelessly worthless right now. Of course, this is only a reflection of the values of the American culture. And which is why I learn more about what's going on in the U.S./the world from listening to people on this website than from any division of the American media.

[Oh, one more thing: since most Americans care more about Britney Spears than the 2004 election, and since President Bush has arbitrarily decided that the United States is above the decisions of the international community, and since (at least from what I gather from the opinions on this site) the international community does actually care who the next President is... we should let the international community have a say in the election of the next U.S. President. At this point, I would probably trust anyone but Americans to elect the next American President .]

Eek...that's a bit too generalized. Yes, the media focuses a lot on celebrities and sports, but most channels do keep up to date with current events.



Most Americans? I'm sure there are far too many, but "most" is too strong of a word there. Especially considering the amount of people who do care about the election. Yes, President Bush has gone against major decisions of the international community, but let the international community have a say?! No, no, no! The international community would be an overbearing force on the election - plus, by our laws the American people vote for their president, and only the American people. It's our country, after all. If we get stuck with a bad president, our fault, but it's who we choose to lead OUR country. You wouldn't trust Americans? Well, too bad, you're going to have to.

I apologize if I was a bit brash in my "generalizations." Perhaps it's just my section of the country that needs a mass reevaluation of its values.

A couple months ago, I was taking a class in economics and my teacher made reference to Bush's initial request to Congress for $87 Billion for reconstruction of Iraq (a major major political issue at the time). I was horrified to learn that the overwhelming majority of the class had never even heard of this. Nor did they understand how it could potentially be devastating to the economy.

These are the future generations of American voters.



I wasn't being entirely serious about this. I realize it is not practically applicable. But I speak from my frustration. It will take a painfully long amount of time to undo the mindset of the American public. And I am afraid of what else will happen in the meantime.

Political apathy is one of those things that I really can't stand. I had a friends (now ex-friend) once who told me that he doesn't care about politics and he'll never vote. I found that pretty shocking, particularly since he's from a country that only recently became a democracy. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case with most people in my generation.

Apathy seems most common among young people, which also bothers me: as a general rule, young people are more likely to be liberal, radical and in favour of change, so when we don't care at all guess who does? All the votes are coming from older, more conservative people, and as a result more conservative governments get elected. What's worse, though, is that even people who do vote seem to be completely ignorant about politics - they'll vote for whoever has the best TV campaign, or whoever they think looks like a nice person. That's pretty scary, if you ask me.

Yes, Dad's voting for Bush again, says something about Kerry being an ultra-liberal. He isn't. I don't like discussing politics with my dad though, it tends to veer off course and end with us just disagreeing. I don't know how well informed he is vs. how well informed I am. He's conservative and Republican, I take after Mom who was a Democrat...not sure if she was very liberal. In the car with my friend and her dad, we were talking a bit. I said I was liberal-ish and her dad says "Isn't everyone when they're young?" I intend to keep my stance... Actually, a friend of mine got pissed at me for being involved in reading about politics Yes, I snapped at him. I'd be accused of "knowing too much stuff". "What? Well, I watch the news and read Time magazine..." "You read Time? That's sad. My *parents* read Time."

Sad? SAD?! That was the youth of America speaking! Our destiny is to fall! I must flee the country ASAP! Who has more well-informed people?! Bah.

Be careful, or this might happen...

I think that's inevitable...

Then your dad needs to know more about Kerry, you're right, he isn't, he is a moderate.I don't think you have anything to worry about.