murraybiscuit
Executive Member
the argument put forward around a vote having no purpose seems to be based on a few main premises:
1. you can predict with a reasonable amount of certainty the outcome of the election
2. or, the parties with the highest chances of winning generally don't differ much in terms of policy
3. federal power is everything and local authority is meaningless
this may be the case in countries which are culturally homogenous or have an overwhelming majority population group with a similar socio-economic status,
but, how about countries emerging from totalitarianism, which haven't yet set a precedent for popular rulership?
or countries which have a fairly even ethnic split or which are evenly fragmented?
is voting still meaningless in these contexts?
even if the majority of the country determines your macro policies, surely your vote has influence in your ward and at a local level?
forgive me if i'm misunderstanding the argument.
1. you can predict with a reasonable amount of certainty the outcome of the election
2. or, the parties with the highest chances of winning generally don't differ much in terms of policy
3. federal power is everything and local authority is meaningless
this may be the case in countries which are culturally homogenous or have an overwhelming majority population group with a similar socio-economic status,
but, how about countries emerging from totalitarianism, which haven't yet set a precedent for popular rulership?
or countries which have a fairly even ethnic split or which are evenly fragmented?
is voting still meaningless in these contexts?
even if the majority of the country determines your macro policies, surely your vote has influence in your ward and at a local level?
forgive me if i'm misunderstanding the argument.
Last edited: