Anarchists and voting [Archive]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

13th July 2009, 05:49

I voted in the last election in my local area. Why? I was bored.

I'm still ultimately "undecided" on whether or not I should vote. From an individual perspective, it doesn't matter. However, I'm not sure if greater values make it a responsibility of mine. I'm leaning towards no.

There is a slim chance voting makes a difference. It hardly justifies voting simply based on this probability. There is a chance reforms can work. That doesn't justify voting, though. Political pressure outside of the ballot seems to be more useful at acquiring reforms.

Why vote? For some reason, beyond my understanding, the majority of the proletariat considers it an unchallengeable good. I am violating some self-evident law that voting is good whenever I don't vote. I suddenly lose credibility and am irrational.

Although voting does play into their irrationality somewhat, appeasing their unjust worries about "not voting being terrible," I find it is easier just to vote due to the peer pressure.

I constantly inform people of the uselessness of voting only for them to use lines like "if everyone didn't vote, where would we be" and other nonsensical "refutations." I just am tired of the nonsense. I can't complain supposedly.

Voting and reformism are a political dogma. Sometimes it's easier to convince people when you pretend to be a Catholic that Catholicism is wrong. Then they are under the illusion that you somehow "understand" their perspective.

I've struggled with voting, and still do. I doubt I'll vote in the next election because of uncertainty. Even if 10 people, myself included, want to vote, I don't know that I will. Voting doesn't legitimize something. If we vote whether to see a movie, fine. If we've voted twelve times and I've never got my way, I'll say no. This isn't right.

Voting is only a tool that's relatively limited in use and only gains you legitimacy in the eyes of morons (most people). This about sums it up:

1. We'll let a vote decide issues we don't give a damn about.
2. We'll let a vote decide issues we are too lazy to do anything about.
3. If an important enough issue comes up, who gives a shit what the result was?

I know liberals who will respect and abide by the leadership of their opposing party simply because the "democratic process" somehow legitimized them.

I don't understand politics. I have no fucking clue what all the nonsense is about. I try to understand it. I just can't wrap my head around some of the ideas I see floating around.

x359594

13th July 2009, 06:16

In matters that affect the community where I live, things like bus fares and bus routes, sales tax, charter schools, library hours, I vote. When it comes to candidates, voting changes little, and the higher up you go on the statist food chain, the more meaningless voting becomes.

yuon

13th July 2009, 08:20

I don't vote in most elections. Here, it is "compulsory" to vote, by not voting (and I don't even get my name marked off), I'm making more of a point then turning up and voting.

Of course, I don't think that voting is worth the time anyway. Whoever you vote for, a politician gets in. Voting only encourages them. If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Etc.

I'm against voting for strategic, tactical and ethical reasons. Which is to say, if I thought that my vote, as an individual would do some good, I might well vote. There's also the case where I might encourage others to vote if I thought it might do enough good.

Oh, and the best reason not to vote? The only person who can truly represent you is yourself, and you aren't standing for election are you. (You probably can't afford it, or you don't want to be associated with any of the political parties.)

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th July 2009, 12:11

Sometimes voting for a specific candidate has a short term benefit, and in such cases there is no reason why anarchists shouldn't vote...

Well actually I think there is.

If you say that reform or 'short term benefit' can be gained through parliament, through elections, through the state, then you are rejecting a basic tenet of anarchism.

If at the same time it was stressed that voting is not sufficient, and that they encourage voting only for the strategical benefit that it grants their revolutionary cause, it would have been 'ok'.

Again, in what concrete circumstances is voting of benefit strategically or to the revolutionary cause?

I am a Marxist and I don't believe participation in elections can ever be of benefit to the workers' movement and the victory of socialism, both as a matter of principle (Reform or Revolution) and tactic (participation in the electoral circus serves as a mystification which out weighs the possible benefits of participation without the intention of taking office or participating on the basis of revolutionary oppositionism).

I don't vote in most elections. Here, it is "compulsory" to vote, by not voting (and I don't even get my name marked off), I'm making more of a point then turning up and voting.

This seems silly. In Australia it is compulsory to vote in Federal and State elections. If you don't they slap you with a fine. It would be stupid to give yourself a fine when you can go and get your name marked off, vote normally or just 'donkey' vote and write some smart ass comment and give the counter a laugh.

The argument that not voting or 'donkey' voting 'makes a point' is silly. The individual possesses no power through the ballot box where he is atomised and impotent, deprived of class identity and the ability to struggle as a class liquidated.

h0m0revolutionary

13th July 2009, 12:29

Well actually I think there is.

If you say that reform or 'short term benefit' can be gained through parliament, through elections, through the state, then you are rejecting a basic tenet of anarchism.

I imagine you know anarchism better than to make such groundless and completely abstract assertions. Let me give you a shamelessly simple and reductionist argument, candidate A is going to privitise the local hospital, candidate B isn't. Any leftist, anarchist or otherwise would vote candidate B right?.

The difference, is that anarchists have no illusions with voting and wouldn't call for a mass vote for any particular candidate. We realise however than sometimes one canddiate over another offers ourselves as individuals as well as the wider working class, certain benefits. If an anarchist chooses to secure these benefits rather than abstaining that's perfectly fine, as long as that vote is done in full realisation that voting for one capitalist candidate over another does nothing but secure a friendlier form of the same rotten system.

Again, in what concrete circumstances is voting of benefit strategically or to the revolutionary cause?

I am a Marxist and I don't believe participation in elections can ever be of benefit to the workers' movement and the victory of socialism, both as a matter of principle (Reform or Revolution) and tactic (participation in the electoral circus serves as a mystification which out weighs the possible benefits of participation without the intention of taking office or participating on the basis of revolutionary oppositionism).

I agree, but you're ideology seems to have warped your view of reality here. There is no anarchist involvement in "the electoral circus" - as anarchists we do not call for a vote for someone, not based on their particular merits (because they clearly view standing for elections as something worthwhile) and not based on the dislike of an opposition candidate (this we would leave to the liberal anti-fascists). But if immediate, reformist gains can be made, then as long as the vote is made with no illusions that any elected canddiate in a bourgeois election can offer anything other than short-term gains for the class, I see no reason why we'd condemn anarchists as hypocrits if they engaged in voting (although personally i would not)

The individual possesses no power through the ballot box where he is atomised and impotent, deprived of class identity and the ability to struggle as a class liquidated.

agreed.

Dervish

13th July 2009, 13:26

Well actually I think there is.

If you say that reform or 'short term benefit' can be gained through parliament, through elections, through the state, then you are rejecting a basic tenet of anarchism.

I don't think I do. There's an important difference between reformism and supporting occasional reforms. Sometimes choosing the 'lesser of two evils' can grant a strategical advantage, and sometimes one candidate's ideas are so horrid compared to other candidates that I might vote against him and encourage others to do the same.

An example: currently the Right is very powerful in Israel (some members of parliament could justly be considered 'judeo-nazis') therefore voting for a leftist-reformist party and encouraging other to do so might be wiser than not voting. (though this example doesn't really show a 'strategical' benefit I still believe that it illustrates my point)

I do emphasize -- even when voting and encouraging other to vote has a strategical benefit it is very important to to stress that voting is not sufficient and can never be sufficient and that we encourage people to vote merely because of the benefit it gives to our revolutionary cause and as part of our revolutionary scheme.

Note: I actually believe that leftist reforms can (perhaps even usually) harm the revolutionary cause and the revolutionary movement, because they sometimes make them look irrelevant and strengthen the public's false belief in reformism.

Devrim

13th July 2009, 13:55

I imagine you know anarchism better than to make such groundless and completely abstract assertions. Let me give you a shamelessly simple and reductionist argument, candidate A is going to privitise the local hospital, candidate B isn't. Any leftist, anarchist or otherwise would vote candidate B right?.
Without getting in to the whole argument about privatisation, and sticking to the premise that individual local candidates are the ones who decide on the privatisation of hospitals, which I don't think is the case, there is still a problem with the way that this question is posed.

What is candidate B going to do?

We know that government can only manage the crisis. If B is not going to make cuts in health care the same cuts will have to come from elsewhere, anywhere from education, to meals on wheels for old people, but the budget must be balanced and cuts must be made.

Devrim

otter

13th July 2009, 15:07

If were talking bout political voting. I think it's more a case of voting for the least worst candidate, the one that's going to support your cause the most or at least object to it the least. Not voting just means that there's one more right wing fascist vote that isn't cancelled out by your vote for the green party :D

Stranger Than Paradise

13th July 2009, 16:14

Voting in bourgeois elections to assign ourselves rulers would be a betrayal of my beliefs. Therefore I never intend to vote in them.

x359594

13th July 2009, 16:21

Voting in bourgeois elections to assign ourselves rulers would be a betrayal of my beliefs. Therefore I never intend to vote in them.

That makes sense, of course. But what about voting to lower bus fares, for longer library hours, or to keep the city from dumping toxic waste in the neighborhood where your kids go to school? These are actual issues put to a vote where I live.

Stranger Than Paradise

13th July 2009, 16:30

That makes sense, of course. But what about voting to lower bus fares, for longer library hours, or to keep the city from dumping toxic waste in the neighborhood where your kids go to school? These are actual issues put to a vote where I live.

I am undecided, it is a dilemma which I don't have an answer to. It is more justifiable on single issue votes where the outcome could directly improve the community for working people.

Pogue

13th July 2009, 16:58

Kyrite

13th July 2009, 17:40

I used my vote in the UK to keep the amounts of seats avaliable to the BNP as low as possible. I voted for the green party as it was the best was to reduce the amounts of facists in the EU.

Forward Union

13th July 2009, 17:43

Are there any anarchists here that vote?
Do you think it is necessarily contradictory for an anarchist to vote?

Some Anarchists elevate it to some sort of moral law. But the reality is, simply, that it does absolutely nothing. Vote if you want but there are better things to do, normally something funny on TV.

I don't care if you vote, it your time you're wasting.

I think it can be useful to vote in referendums and other organisations like Unions etc and think Anarchists should actively participate in these elections when useful to do so. Though there are clear limits to this and it's not going to create any real change in and of itself.

Black Sheep

13th July 2009, 20:23

I think OP's question is about
-Should anarchists take part in bourgeoisie institutions, struggling from within (as well as from outside), or should they abstain from them as a symbolic act, in order to encourage others to do the same, and organize themselves on a local level.

After all the latter would 'lead', or pave the way for the type of society anarchists fiht for.
And also, all capitalist institutions are based,and are a part of a highly centralized model of society.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

14th July 2009, 00:55

Let me give you a shamelessly simple and reductionist argument, candidate A is going to privitise the local hospital, candidate B isn't. Any leftist, anarchist or otherwise would vote candidate B right?.

Yes, I'm sure any leftist would vote and call for the vote of Canditdate B.

Anarchists and left communists on the other hand would not.

The difference, is that anarchists have no illusions with voting and wouldn't call for a mass vote for any particular candidate. We realise however than sometimes one canddiate over another offers ourselves as individuals as well as the wider working class, certain benefits.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. I think the believe that a particular candidate or party can offer benefits for the working class is an illusion.

There is no anarchist involvement in "the electoral circus" - as anarchists we do not call for a vote for someone, not based on their particular merits (because they clearly view standing for elections as something worthwhile) and not based on the dislike of an opposition candidate (this we would leave to the liberal anti-fascists).

These might not be things you do or agree with, but I think it is quite clear (even in this thread) that there are individual anarchists and anarchist organisations which do.

Of course you might argue that these people cease to be anarchists, but the anarchist movement, at least in the way we are talking, consists of more than homorevolutionary.

But if immediate, reformist gains can be made, then as long as the vote is made with no illusions that any elected canddiate in a bourgeois election can offer anything other than short-term gains for the class

Again, this raises the questions, in what concrete circumstances can 'immediate, reformist gains' be made through elections?

There's an important difference between reformism and supporting occasional reforms.

Agreed.

Sometimes choosing the 'lesser of two evils' can grant a strategical advantage, and sometimes one candidate's ideas are so horrid compared to other candidates that I might vote against him and encourage others to do the same.

So far, since we agree that social transformation can only be accomplished through revolution and the smashing of the state, we have talking about participation in bourgeois elections insofar as it serves the aims of the movement strategically, tactically, etc.

What strategic advantage can be gained by voting for the 'lesser of two evils'? Even if voting against a particular candidate (what is in reality voting for another candidate) did have the effect of encouraging others to also do so (which it doesn't, in and of itself), why would this be desirable? The only outcome I can see is dragging the working class onto the terrain of the bourgeoisie, atomising and liquidating it's power through the ballot box and fuel the democratic mystification.

gorillafuck

14th July 2009, 01:40

I used my vote in the UK to keep the amounts of seats avaliable to the BNP as low as possible. I voted for the green party as it was the best was to reduce the amounts of facists in the EU.
Do you think your vote for the green party actually made there be less fascists in the EU?:confused:

Killfacer

14th July 2009, 02:11

For me what pogue said is correct.

To add, i don't really care if it adheres to correct anarchist doctrine or not. If there's a toss up between a middle left and a far right candidate i know who's getting my vote.

yuon

14th July 2009, 10:58

This seems silly. In Australia it is compulsory to vote in Federal and State elections. If you don't they slap you with a fine. It would be stupid to give yourself a fine when you can go and get your name marked off, vote normally or just 'donkey' vote and write some smart ass comment and give the counter a laugh.

The argument that not voting or 'donkey' voting 'makes a point' is silly. The individual possesses no power through the ballot box where he is atomised and impotent, deprived of class identity and the ability to struggle as a class liquidated.
I'm making a point to friends and family, it's a bigger point "risking" a fine, than just voting the down the list, or scribbling on the paper.

Oh, and how many times have you "not voted" (in a "compulsory" election), I've never been asked to pay a fine after I've explained why my reasons are "reasonable and satisfactory" (or whatever the wording is).

Some Anarchists elevate it to some sort of moral law. But the reality is, simply, that it does absolutely nothing. Vote if you want but there are better things to do, normally something funny on TV.

I don't care if you vote, it your time you're wasting.

I think it can be useful to vote in referendums and other organisations like Unions etc and think Anarchists should actively participate in these elections when useful to do so. Though there are clear limits to this and it's not going to create any real change in and of itself.
Indeed. There is normally something better to do, such as explaining why none of the parties are going to help out the individual voting.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

14th July 2009, 11:41

I'm making a point to friends and family, it's a bigger point "risking" a fine, than just voting the down the list, or scribbling on the paper.

I think this idea is still confused. "Making a point" is not a meaning political activity. The only way any point can really be made is through the class struggle.

Yes, to be most effective in their efforts, revolutionaries aught to act in consistence with their propaganda, that is, if you oppose bourgeois parliament and the electoral circus you can not consistently participate in them.

However, we shouldn't fetishise this or try to elevate it's significance. If you a real risk of a fine or (as in some locations and political circumstances) reprisal attacks there really isn't an issue with having your name marked off, spoiling your ballot or even voting. Of course, as you note, this may not be a situation that you or I face on any real level, but the general rule stands.

Devrim

15th July 2009, 07:13

It honestly don't change fuck all but I would find it hard to abstain say in an area when there was a close race between some left candidate and a fascist BNP MP/councillor, so i'm a bit of a hypocrit

The way that this type of thread about anarchists and voting traditionally workers is that anarchists make apologies for their support for parlimentary democracy whilst left communists argue foe abstentionism.
Devrim

Clear Air Turbulence

15th July 2009, 08:41

I used my vote in the UK to keep the amounts of seats avaliable to the BNP as low as possible. I voted for the green party as it was the best was to reduce the amounts of facists in the EU.

This is what I did as well. Unfrotunatly I live in Yorkshire.

mel

15th July 2009, 20:50

I think this idea is still confused. "Making a point" is not a meaning political activity. The only way any point can really be made is through the class struggle.

Yes, to be most effective in their efforts, revolutionaries aught to act in consistence with their propaganda, that is, if you oppose bourgeois parliament and the electoral circus you can not consistently participate in them.

However, we shouldn't fetishise this or try to elevate it's significance. If you a real risk of a fine or (as in some locations and political circumstances) reprisal attacks there really isn't an issue with having your name marked off, spoiling your ballot or even voting. Of course, as you note, this may not be a situation that you or I face on any real level, but the general rule stands.

I'm not entirely sure your position is completely consistent on this issue. You claim that voting "drag[s] the working class onto the terrain of the bourgeoisie, atomising and liquidating it's power through the ballot box and fuel the democratic mystification."

If the purely symbolic gesture of voting has that much of an effect, then why isn't abstentation politically meaningful? And if abstentation isn't politically meaningful then why advocate for it at all? If abstentation is politically meaningful, even in the negative (in that it does not drag the working class onto the terrain of the bourgeoisie) then why would you not advocate for it in circumstances where there is actually some material risk, which I imagine would at least allow one to open up the door for conversation (who did you vote for? I didn't vote, etc. etc. etc.). The material risk shows a level of commitment to the ideological reasons for why you abstained.

If voting ultimately does not particularly matter either way, and voting does not "drag the working class onto the terrain of the bourgeoisie" to a significant enough degree to make abstention politically meaningful as a gesture, then I see no good reason, if you have nothing better to do, not to go ahead and vote for whichever person is least like a fascist, or most lenient on working class organization, or who professes support for a meaningful short-term reform. Even if they don't come through (and most wouldn't, to be sure), if voting isn't politically meaningful either way, it can't hurt to try unless voting is a major inconvenience.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

16th July 2009, 04:57

Unfortunately I lost my original reply because of a time-out. This is my attempt to re-type the main points in less detail and length.

The individual act of voting in an election does not have the effect of "dragging the working class onto the terrain of the bourgeoisie, atomising and liquidating it's power through the ballot box and fuel the democratic mystification". This is the effect of the electoral circus and why democracy is such a useful tool for the bourgeoisie.

I didn't say abstention is not politically meaning. I said we can't fetishise abstention. Abstention is not a political meaningful activity in and of itself, contrary to those who assert that abstention challenges the system or 'sends a message' to the ruling class.

What is essential is the line that revolutionaries and revolutionary political organisations uphold and agitate on the basis of. What is important is agitating against capitalist elections and the democratic mystification as opposed to the individual act of voting. If you are in danger of incurring a fine or having suffering reprisal attacks, there is no good reason to be a martyr when you can go and get your name marked off (abstention none the less), spoiling your ballot or even numbering the boxes like your meant to. Unless the act of abstention is carried out alongside agitation it's political significance is nullified. In-so-far as they are able, in order that revolutionaries are consistent with their propaganda, they ought not vote.

Ismail

16th July 2009, 16:28

I do think that in the event of, say, a far-right (in the actual sense, e.g. fascist) candidate emerges as a viable option, anarchists would vote against said candidate.

As Arthur H. Landis says in Spain: The Unfinished Revolution:

Salvador de Madariaga, a Spanish historian of the stripe of Churchill, wrote of the [1931] elections that: “The workers affiliated to the U.G.T. voted for their men. But the Anarcho-Syndicalists voted for the middle-class liberals. There were two reasons for this: the first, the unbridgeable enmity which separates Socialists and Syndicalists, due to their rival bid for the leadership of the working classes; and the second, that as the Anarchists always preached contempt for suffrage, they had no political machinery of their own; so that when it coming to voting—which they did this time to help oust the Monarchy—they preferred to vote for the middle-class Republican [as opposed to] the orthodox and dogmatic tenets of the Socialists.”

[.....]

José Antonio had been introduced to the political methods of the oligarchy during his electioneering, about which he later wrote an unfinished novel in English, entitled The Anarcho-Carranzists. It had to do with the Marques de Soto Hermosa, the oligarchy's political boss in Andalucía. José was fascinated to discover that the Marques paid off many Anarchist leaders in his district to keep their followers from the polls on election day. Consequently he guaranteed a comfortable Right majority over Left-wing candidates.Then on the 1933 election:

An additional cause for the disastrous losses of the Azaña Republicans was a complete Anarchist abstention from the polls. In 1931 they had chose to vote—“to help pull Alfonso down.” In 1933 they demanded that their members not vote at all, and organized an hysterical campaign of No Votad! backed by all their resources and propaganda.

D. Abad de Santillán, a member of the executive of the F.A.I. writes in his work, Por Qué Perdimos la Guerra, that: “A violent anti-electoral campaign was unleashed throughout the country by our organizations (F.A.I. and C.N.T.) whose original intent—at Figols at the end of 1931, and in other parts of Spain in January of 1933—was to stand solidly in the path of the Republic. Naturally this abstention gave the power to the conservatives; the monarchists, the military and the church; all enemies of 'legitimate' Spain, whose principal base was that of an historical continuity of peasants and workers of Iberian race and spirit. The Republicans had not profited by their lessons, not understood that the revolutionary workers of Spain were the only authentic progressive power. And without them, no régime could be established more-or-less-liberal; and no one could govern them in the name of reaction.”

The contradiction here is easily seen that in 1931, despite their so-called “puritan principles,” the Anarchists had thought nothing of supporting the parties of the very men they now decried as their enemies, while simultaneously refusing to accept any responsibility for the results of their act. With this in mind their equally hard-nosed attitude toward the Socialists who had supported the Azaña government, would then seem but an extension of their own opportunism.

In 1933, their policy of No Votad! quite obviously was the hammer that shattered the Party of Azaña's Left Republicans: the difference in the strength of Azaña's Party in 1931 as opposed to 1933, being, possibly, the Anarchist vote!In hindsight, it should be obvious that not mobilizing against the Rightists (y'know, feudal remnants, fascists, general military reactionaries, etc.) was a bad move.

LeninKobaMao

16th July 2009, 16:39

Well here in Australia if you don't vote you cop a hefty fine so you don't have much choice so it's bad for anarchists but because i'm a communist I care about my vote.

mel

16th July 2009, 17:50

When it comes to the question of "choosing the lesser evil" between centrists/liberals versus conservatives/fascists, the debatable point is the liberal myth that a leftist form of capitalism is somehow better than a rightist form of capitalism. In reality this does not stand up to scrutiny. Though I doubt any serious anarchist would actually vote for Obama, take for example Obama vs McCain. While many leftists like Chomsky perpetuated the myth that Obama is somehow better for "the poor" than McCain, it turns out that apart from the rhetoric of "hope and change", there was no real substance to such claims about being better for the poor at all.

The democrats so far have lowered interest rates on educational lones, in spite of the crumbling economy, and are at least entertaining in rhetoric the idea of single-payer healtchare. Are you honestly claiming that it is not better for workers to have free access to healthcare than to go without any insurance? While the democrats will most likely fail to deliver on the healthcare, and it's too early to be sure, broad sweeps about how there is no difference between the bourgeois parties is counterproductive at the very least. Leftists should be focused on providing for the basic needs of the workers as a foundation for their actualization as individuals and as a class, and one of those needs is healthcare, another is food and shelter. While I don't think that voting is the right way to go about pushing for most of these sorts of reforms (radical working class organization will be able to push for most work-hours and wage reforms), if there is a chance at getting a meaningful reform delivered through the bourgeois machinery why not?

When it comes to "local elections" like voting for local amenities like public libraries etc, there was a recent "anarchist", Murray Bookchin, who wanted to create an anarchist society by voting in local, municipal elections alone. Its obvious that he failed miserably.

Local elections can have an enormous effect on the day-to-day lives of working class individuals. I once worked with a grassroots, labor-oriented sect of a state democratic party in the united states, and another organization which did research into the backroom dealings of some major party officials, found that they were stealing millions in taxpayer dollars that were supposed to go to funding social programs. A few of the officials have since been indicted on federal charges and the social programs refunded, which has allowed those organizations to continue working to feed, clothe, and house people who otherwise would have had to do without. Many who weren't indicted and removed from office have been replaced as a result of these peoples efforts, and the local elections which saw them ousted from positions of power.

The great thing about local politics is that ultimately the issues are much more immediately in the sphere of interest of the working class, and that it is actually possible in elections for local and county officials to get a genuinely labor-oriented candidate with a voice to make immediate changes which benefit real people. Sure, it's a long way from socialism, but to suggest that people OUGHT to forgo voting completely even when their votes can have immediate short term consequences to better their own lives is ridiculous, and part of the reason many socialists aren't taken seriously. Obviously, voting is not sufficient for working class organization or for generating substantive, sweeping, social changes, but local elections have immediate consequences for the lives of people living in communities. The presidential elections are a load of horse shit, purely symbolic and almost entirely meaningless. Likewise for elections for the people in the senate and house of representatives (at least for the most part, though electing a left-leaning congress will generally lead to a more serious consideration of social welfare programs which are essential for meeting some of the needs of the poor while we remain in a capitalist society), but local elections are often (but not necessarily) a great, bottom-up way of creating change in a community.

16th July 2009, 18:47

1. Its a $50 fine.

We're not all rich bourgeoisie idiot pieces of shit like you.

2. You don't have to vote, merely get ticked off at the registrar.

I don't know the situation, but I guess what Niccolo Rossi said makes sense. Although you all may be ignoring the fact that in some places they actually force you to choose a candidate, or the registrars act like ****s and force you to not spoil your ballot.

3. You're not a communist.

Neither are you.

16th July 2009, 19:16

Clearly a lot of pent up rage here.

My point was that the person called it a 'hefty fine.' Which is a joke, considering you can get way higher fines from speeding or from other petty regulations.

It's still a high-priced fine for a working person in Australia by any standard.

But how fucking pathetic of you to think that you have to be a rich bourgeoisie to pay a $50.

I think you do to just flick it off your shoulder and say "no it doesn't matter" which it looked like you were doing, if you didn't want people to perceive it like that maybe you should have indicated.

How utterly disconnected from the real world you are. Once in a while you should remove your head from your ass so you can look at the reality. But considering how much of an ugly fuck you are, that mightn't be good advice.

I blasted off into jupiter once last year, I came back down but it feels like I'm really still there.

You should shutup when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You first go to the registrar, they tick your name off, you go to a booth. You don't even need to go to the booth, you can walk out, or you can do what I did and draw a smiley face on it or vote for Karl Marx.

That's not how it works here (in fact I've seen several things go on; parents forcing their children to vote one way or another, funnily enough racists standing outside the polls in the 90s scaring people away from voting.. and yes I have seen returning officers tell people to redo their ballot because they spoiled it) but without that information, do you expect me to magically know what goes on? In some places in the world, armed gangs go around forcing people to vote for 'them', it's not always some easy thing like you seem to be making out.

In no place in Australia do they force you to choose a candidate. In no place do they force you to not spoil your ballet (they wouldn't even know if you had spolied it or not).

You clearly know what they do in every polling booth in every town in Australia, did you know that sometimes people break the rules?

So once again you liberal kid, shut up when you clearly and obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. Otherwise you will embarrass yourself like you just have. Coming from some virgin-anarcho-liberal kid these means fuck little to me.

Coming from someone with such a brilliant namet on the other hand, your words definitely scare me into submission. I wish my name was awesome like yours then I'd feel qualified to call even Johnny Depp a virgin. :cool:

Ismail

16th July 2009, 19:29

SinistraComunista is like a Left-Communist/Trotskyist version of Intelligitimate. Lots of insults, there.

Ismail

16th July 2009, 19:40

Oh LOL. Don't get all upset because I didn't want to give you my MSN/AIM and called you a Stalinoid.I've been called an imperialist reactionary Trotskyist before. Does that count?

16th July 2009, 20:01

As opposed to your pented up sexual frustration? That's okay baby, I'm sure you'll find someone, someday. :)

Internet rage probably has something to do with pent up sexual frustration actually.

About two and a half hour’s wage. Certainly not excessive for any working person in Australia. An unjustified pain in the ass, yes. But claiming that ‘omgz the proletariaz is sufferingz from hugez finez’ is just a joke and flies in the face of actual hardship.

Actual hardship that you would know nothing about no doubt.

And maybe you should go around wearing a t-shirt with the slogan ‘I’m a fucking moron’ on it. But I’m sure people already guess that by glancing at your face.

Actually I wear an anarcho-murder t-shirt which advocates stabbing people in the face all day, also I go out all night just to attack people who don't like Bakunin.

You’re rather shit at this insulting business, aren’t you? Come back to me when you get better at it. Thanx bby.

Apologies for not having your XXL sized pile of internet rage.

Wow, how do you manage to get out of your door with a head that big? I was addressing someone who lives in AUSTRALIA.

Then in the next post you attacked me for not knowing about it, that was what I was addressing.

Hence it had absolutely no relevance to YOU.

Did you realise that forums are meant for responding to other posts as well as voicing opinions, if no one ever responded to a post not addressed to them, the forum would be significantly emptier. I'm glad you think of your responses as being so important that they deserve responses only from people you approve of.

I’m sure there have been abuses. But by the very method it is set up they are extremely limited – as well as the registrars been people who have volunteered for it.

I think that even further than that, the pressure society places on people to vote is a strong factor too. There are a number of factors involved with voting including protest votes against the main parties, the fascists etc, but yeah I think that the potential for abuse by volunteers or paid electoral officers is underrated myself. In all countries.

Everyone knows that you don’t have to vote for a party.

Just like everyone knows the police are not to be trusted?

No idea what my name has to do with anything. But now that you bring it up, does LS stand for loser shithead? Guess so.

Well I just thought your name was so beautiful to look at, completely unnecessary but wonderful to look at. My name is definitely something along the lines of what all anarchists do, evil things that destroy and underrate the entire left (Liberate the Seychelles for example). :thumbup1:

Pogue

16th July 2009, 20:01

As opposed to your pented up sexual frustration? That's okay baby, I'm sure you'll find someone, someday. :) About two and a half hour’s wage. Certainly not excessive for any working person in Australia. An unjustified pain in the ass, yes. But claiming that ‘omgz the proletariaz is sufferingz from hugez finez’ is just a joke and flies in the face of actual hardship. And maybe you should go around wearing a t-shirt with the slogan ‘I’m a fucking moron’ on it. But I’m sure people already guess that by glancing at your face. You’re rather shit at this insulting business, aren’t you? Come back to me when you get better at it. Thanx bby. Wow, how do you manage to get out of your door with a head that big? I was addressing someone who lives in AUSTRALIA. Hence it had absolutely no relevance to YOU. I am writing this in big words so you might UNDERSTAND. You only made it relevant to you by butting in and voicing your liberal outrage. I couldn’t care less what you know about Australia, but when you comment on the voting system I HERE I would expect you to at least know how it works. And likewise, when I comment on AUSTRALIA, I am not making a blanket comment on the rest of the world. This should be so clear to you that I’m wondering if you’re high or not. Personally, I just think you're stupid. I’m sure there have been abuses. But by the very method it is set up they are extremely limited – as well as the registrars been people who have volunteered for it. Everyone knows that you don’t have to vote for a party. The voting paper is anonymous, hence they have no way of proving you didn’t vote or if you did vote. Better luck next time on forming an argument. No idea what my name has to do with anything. But now that you bring it up, does LS stand for loser shithead? Guess so.

fucking hell, you're a right horrible **** aren't you?