Published on June 8, 2004 By O G San In International
The great Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, as well as being a writer of some renown, was also a Member of Parliament (MP) in the British House of Commons. Such was the tedious nature of his speeches that his fellow MPs took to calling him "Tea-Bell Burke". When the great man rose to speak, many others in the chamber took this as their cue to retire to the tea-room.

It's ironic that a man who in life was known to those around him as someone who would never use one word when ten would do, should be best known two centuries later for a snappy one-liner:

"All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

How about that for a soundbite? Many people who have never even heard the name Edmund Burke can rattle off this line. And rightly so. There is wisdom in Burke's words.

Elections for the European parliament will be held across the continent this week. With such a large number of countries, and such a wide spectrum of opinion, it's impossible to predict who will do better overall, the left or the right. But one thing is certain, across the European Union (EU), in old and new member states alike, the turnout will be pitiful. In many countries it is likely to be under 50%.

Many pundits ascribe low turnout as a sign of public disillusionment with the political process. This argument is a cop-out. These people aren't disillusioned, they're lazy and complacent. If people were truly disillusioned, truly angry, they would get down to the polling station and spoil their vote in protest. Imagine the impact if, rather than staying at home, the non-voting half of the European populace spoilt their ballots instead.

Vote-spoiling is preferable to not voting for two crucial reasons. Firstly, it clearly sends out the message "I am not happy with the options on offer." Not voting by contrast is open to any number of interpretations. It could mean "I'm not happy woth the options on offer" or it may mean "There's something good on the TV tonight." There's no way of knowing for sure.

Secondly, those who spoil their ballots show respect for democracy even as they display contempt for the political parties who particiapte in its operation. People have died, and continue to die, for the right to vote. Yet millions who have that right don't use it. How disrespectful.

Until the non-voters become vote-spoilers, I see no reason to listen to their views. But even if every non-voter were to go to the polling station and scribble on their ballot paper, they still wouldn't effect the outcome of the election itself.

This is where Burke's words ring true. There was an advert a few years ago in England which aimed to get poeple to vote. It was a picture of a urinal with the graffiti "piss on niggers" scrawled across it. The tagline said: "Use your vote, because you know he will."

That message is more relevant than ever today with therise of the fascist British National Party (BNP) in many parts of England. The party has won council seats across northern England in the last few years. While its support has gone up significantly, the party is still far from a major vote-winner.

But apathy has been its travelling companion. Low turnout in council elections (sometimes less than 30%) pushes down the threshold needed to win seats. A small, well-motivated party can prosper in such an environment. In a very real sense, those who stayed at home in these elections are just as responsible for the BNP's success as those who actually voted for the party. Not to act is to act.

At the start of this European campaign there was a lot of speculation that the BNP could win a seat in Strasbourg. This now seems less likely but my attitude is, better safe than sorry. I usually have no time for Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservatives, but it's hard to argue with his words on this issue:

"Imagine the shame if our great country were to send a member of the BNP to represent us in Europe".

To any British person reading this, my message to you is simple: please vote on Thursday. I find it helps to personalise. Let's imagine there is a BNP voter in your area, let's call him Jim. Jim hates the niggers, the Pakis, the wops, the ragheads, the Paddies and the asylum-seekers. Jim wants to send them all back.

Jim will be voting on Thursday. Will you?

Comments
on Jun 08, 2004
Well written and well thought out. I tend to agree though that many voters are just fed up with the political process and don't see their votes counting for much. Same problem in the US. They just don't see it doing any good.
on Jun 08, 2004
I totally agree, but my point is that the proper response is to spoil your ballot since this can not be interpreted as anything other than a protest against the political system. Staying at home could be a protest or it could just be laziness.
on Jun 08, 2004
Yes, I understand your point completely. Sadly, the very people who stay home instead of going to the polls won't see the point.
on Jun 08, 2004
Is "spoiling" a ballot a British thing? I've never heard of it before (US resident).
on Jun 08, 2004
Madine, I think the closest American version would be writing in Mickey Mouse or some such.
on Jun 08, 2004
I think a good deal of voter apathy in America comes from a couple of different facts.

The first is that the people we are given to vote on are in no way "peers". The process in the US simply does not allow people to get into a position to win that we can relate to and believe will act in our interest. The people who run are hand-picked by the very people we don't trust. The act tells us, if subliminally, that the rank-and-file US citizen cannot be trusted to make solid decisions about who can lead the nation. A good reason for defeatism and non-participation.

Second, those people we vote on rarely have a stable platform. The differences between the parties have now blurred so much that the most derisive issues have little to do with governing; abortion, gay marraige, etc., provoke debate, but in the end they don' t matter much to most people politically. Add to that, time and time again the candidates waffle, backtrack, and pretty much proclim from the rooftops that they will say what they need to to get elected. So not only can we not relate to them as people, we can't believe what they say.

Spoiling the ballot would be pointless here in the US. The fact that 40% of American's voted for Micky Mouse would probably never even get notice, and when it did it would only bring great scrutiny on the voting process. I find it very difficult to believe that people who get into power through a system would change that system. The only way the tactics of the political parties would change is if they felt that their ability to win were threatened. If they won with 10% of the vote I think they would be happy with winning.
on Jun 08, 2004
Interesting comment BakerStreet.

Spoiling your ballot means deliberately not casting a valid vote. Usually it means scrawling on your ballot paper or writing something like "you're all bastards" or something like that.

I said before that it can't be misinterpreted but I have to admit that that's not strictly true. Some people spoil their ballot accidentally, particularly elderly voters.

Nevertheless, I still believe it is a far better option than just sitting at home. At least spoilers participate in the democratic process. I totally sympathise with people who feel disillusioned with the political process but I don't sympathise with people who don't even bother to go to the polling station to make a protest.

This is sort of a side issue to the main thrust of my blog since neither non-voters or spoilers make it any more difficult for fascist parties to get elected. Most British people have a preference for one of the three main parties. They may not fully endorse their actions but still they prefer one over the others. It's important for these people to vote, even if they are unenthusiastic. A vote should be seen as a preference, not as a total endorsement of a party's position.
on Jun 08, 2004
I heard that they are exppecting a low turn out for the EU elections, this is sad.

Australia has copmpulsory voting. This maens that you have to at least turn up to the polling station on the day and get your name ticked off otherwise you are fined. Of course after you have had your name marked off you can do whatever you like. IOnvalid ballots, whether deliberately spoiled or otherwise are tallied as 'informal'. It is surprising, in a country that has close to 100% turn out for every election how low the percentage of informal votes are. To me this means that once forced to vote people actually put some consideration into it, surely this is no bad thing.

I wrote an article back in April arguing my support for compulsory voting in it I say:
On the question of how much government should interfere in our lives, I come down firmly on the side of when it is in the public interest. Take education, it is in the public interest for everyone to educate their children and, for this reason, it is compulsory. The election of our representatives is also very much in the public interest and, to this end, I am a firm believer in compulsory voting. Voting, like education, is not only a right but also a responsibility and, in these cases, people should be made to take their responsibilities seriously.

it had 83 readers but no comments, I am not sure what that says.
on Jun 09, 2004
fantastic blog, OG. personally, i do not believe that the inability of the poitical process to rouse the masses is the responsiblity of the electorate to rectify. however, as you rightly point out, this argument is on a lot less solid ground when such inaction allows such elements as the BNP to gain ground. again, fine work.
on Jun 20, 2004
There is nothing wrong with not voting in European elections. The reason people don`t vote is because these elections don`t matter. Your vote makes no difference. The EU is crap and the European Parliament is a fine waste of money. I think its good that people don`t vote in these elections because they know there pointless. If few people vote at westminister elections however this is bad for democracy as the government has little mandate. However the EU isn`t democratic and not voting shows people that it isn`t and means that it has no mandate to govern you. Or you could take the option I prefer and vote Ukip.
on Jun 22, 2004
Roger,

As I've already said, I think that the parliament sohuld have a good deal more power and the commission a good deal less. The EU is a group of democracies, right? Yet real power resides with an unelected commission.

Turnout has always been lower for the Euros than for Westminster. But look at the last two Westminster elections. In 1997 the turnout was 71% and people thought "71%? that's not much good". Then in 2001 it was all the way down to 59%!! What's it going to be next year? I fear less than 50% for the first time.