Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate"

That's not how a democracy works. Unless you're forcibly prevented from voting - or are denied the right to - that's not the case. It is not an illegitimate vote if you decide not to vote.

In the EU Parliament elections it's just people deciding not to vote. As you yourself said: "is a kind of a vote too".

Let me make a practical example: we are having a pizza party and we have a vote for what pizza to order, you say: "I don't care - you guys decide!". When the pizzas show up you may say: "Dang, you got the anchovies pizza - I don't like anchovies!", but not "Why did you guys get anchovies? I don't like anchovies, you shouldn't have ordered that pizza!". They seem closely related, but they are not.




No that is a wrong analogy. The correct analogy to not participating in the vote would be: I would say "there shouldn't be any pizza party vote, because the options all suck, and I do not want any pizza, everybody go home".

If more than 50% of people in the room say that, the pizza party vote is illegitimate.


Nope - that's not correct: saying "there shouldn't be any pizza party" is a vote! If more than 50% of the people invited at the party say: "We should actually get salad!" - then, guess what? You would get salad.

Being silent - not voting - is NOT the same as voting against something. Not even close.

If the real reason for why over 50% of the people don't vote was because they don't like any of the parties then they could join up and create an alternative. But this is not what happens.

In the real world when you don't vote you're doing two things:

1 - you're saying you don't care because you find all the options not to your liking;

2 - you're also saying you can't be bothered with creating one.

As long as none is preventing you with addressing the second part: you are making a deliberate choice to not engage in the democratic process. You understand the consequences of that (in)action and you accept them. In no way that invalidates the choices made by the people who engage in it.

Saying that you CHOOSING not participate in the process makes it invalid is an offence to the people who fought to give you that choice and to the people that - to this date - are not given that option.

I'll say this one last time: this defeatist attitude towards the democratic process is exactly what the political establishment and the lobbies who enrich them are counting on, and this is why I considered it one of the main issues with democracy today.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party [0] is doing more for the cause of democracy than people who decide that nothing is going to change, we are going to get anchovy pizza, so why bother with voting.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...

Edit: Fixed typo - twice


Wow those are some assumptions.

> Being silent - not voting - is NOT the same as voting against something.

I never said it always is. However not voting does not mean being silent. I explained this in my analogy where most of the people said not interested in the pizza.

Similarly people who are vocal about politics in their life, online, participate in political fights in workplace, whether individually or through unions, other creative activities and so on are already participating in democratic processes. They are already not silent. The fact that some of them do not participate in a given vote they don't like does not diminish that.

> then they could join up and create an alternative. But this is not what happens.

Of course it happens, in general. Maybe you mean that in your country it does not happen, or it does happen but not everybody who does not vote is involved in that. So what? There are other ways to participate in democratic processes which I mentioned above.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: