Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
Abstaining from voting is a useful way of sending a message to the political parties that they're failing the public. Of course, this only works if its joined by a significant number of other woiuld-be voters. Obviously, the cost is that in the short term a party will be elected with a minimum of votes but, at least hopefully, it will open up the door to those who want to meet the needs of voters that have chosen to withdraw from the process.
Unfortunately, something like that has been going on in the UK's inner cities for a few years now, largely in response to what has been perceived to be a reluctance by the mainstream political parties to openly address issues of race and immigration. Consequently, there has been a massive rise in far-right parties in these areas targeting the disenfranchised white population.
|
rest the far right parties, substitude them with far left parties and you're talking about mexico. except that the left here are pretty good at contradicting themselves and causing anger with the people.
the point of abstinence, the way i have thought about it, is that, should it be counted, would make an election null so that none of the candidates and their proposition get a place in the government and that new campaigns and candidates are thought about to get the people what they want, making a "survival of the fittest" scenario. the downside, of course, is that if no one comes up with something that speaks to the people, then the governing entity might eternize itself through this process and, of course, it would still be an election of the masses.