Vote or don’t vote: two NewsWire reporters argue the case.

KRISTINA KEOGH says:

DON’T VOTE.

Just don’t. Don’t let your voice be heard.

But don’t let me hear you complain. Ever.

If you don’t go out on Election Day – this Saturday in case you haven’t heard – then you cannot complain about the government that you weren’t a part of electing.

Democracy is all about getting involved in electing a Government that represents you, but 20 per cent of New Zealanders don’t bother voting on Election Day.

Voting in the American Presidential Election was highly publicised by many celebrities with the simple but effective message: “Don’t vote”.

If everyone in New Zealand just decided not to vote – “just because” what kind of country would we live in?

How would we decided who was going to govern our country?

It’s incredibly important and everyone over the age of 18 should take a little bit of time out of their day to vote.

The beauty of an election is that it gives you the right to choose for yourself and take an active role in the determining the future of New Zealand.

If you don’t vote, you stop yourself at the only time you’ve really got a voice to make a change.

You can complain all you want for the next three years, but if you haven’t taken part in the system, you’re gripes carry no weight.

I heard on the radio this morning, that people who vote are actually healthier and less stressed out than those who fail to show up at the polls.

Research shows they tend to feel more connected and less helpless, whatever the outcome of the election.

So if you want to feel healthy, get to your poll station and vote.

If you don’t know where to vote on Saturday: Click here.

Vote.

Just do it.

SANDRA DICKSON says:

ANARCHISTS have a slogan: “If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it.”

You don’t have to be an anarchist to identify problems with our political system. 

Representative democracy requires us to vote for one person to represent 45 – 55,000.  That representative then argues for our views to be considered in parliament, with other representatives. 

MMP mollifies this slightly, by using party votes to determine the percentage make-up of parliament, but the system relies on “consent of the governed” – we expect our representatives to do our will.

But how can one person represent 55,000 people’s views?  Only by accepting that the minority’s viewpoints will not be represented. 

Let’s say I vote for Stephen Franks this election – he’s been an MP before, he’s going to be a voice for stronger sentencing of criminals and protecting victims of crime.  National will build more prisons and lock up everyone who commits crime, keeping us all safe.

But my electorate mostly vote for Sue Kedgley from the Greens.  Instead of a hardline approach to crime, which is what I want, instead we’ve got some namby-pamby “treat the causes of crime rather than the consequences” stuff going on.  We’ll be helping people with their problems, rather than condemning them. 

And that’s not what I voted for – so why should I vote again?

It might be even worse.  Sue Kedgley might not get most of the votes – just the highest of the 14 candidates available at Wellington Central.  She might get into parliament when the majority of voters voted for other candidates.

The reality of our vote effecting the direction the government will take is minimal.  Many of us vote for parties in opposition, but even if we did vote for a party in government, our global market-place is run by multinationals – unless nations create economic conditions to maximise profits, big companies just ain’t going to come here.  I have no say over that, whether I vote or not.

And what about the fact we have two parties vying for leadership that are more similar than different?  Labour and Labour Lite, as they’ve been dubbed this election.  Parties for whom political principles seem to be a moveable feast of dead fish to swallow as they try to sit at the big table.

The final nail in the coffin of representative democracy is the fact we only get the chance to elect our representatives every three years.  What happens if the person we’ve voted for is representing us – but their government does something you cannot stomach? 

For some in New Zealand, removing legal protection for parents who want to smack their kids to teach them how to behave was one such moment. 

Or what about marching through the streets of London in 2003 with two million people – that’s right, half of New Zealand – to oppose going to war with Iraq?  Tony Blair invaded anyway, against the desires of the majority of British people, and now death tolls in Iraq alone are close to a million people.

There’s no denying a political argument for non-voting can be made, so I don’t buy the “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain” brigade.  But non-voting is only political when you put your problems with our current system into practise – and get political in other ways. 

Alternatives to representative democracy, anyone?