Thanks for this otherwise fine writing Grant, but forgive me, I must contest your assertion that 'Not voting is a valid complaint about social injustices.' For surely it's a desired outcome of the democratic political process for votes to matter; and for every voter to believe they can in some way contribute to the governance of any future polity. So in this context, not voting is counter-productive, self-defeating and simply ineffectual. Which would be by definition, clearly 'not valid.'
The only places I can see where it is an option to refuse to vote is in a forced one-party state, or a within a qualified franchise with only a 'poisoned chalice' option - like the referendums offered to brown people by the Apartheid state. In these cases, not voting is a valid protest.
This is not the situation in New Zealand. We have 17 parties contesting this election - so surely there is one that comes close to any voter's possible preferences.
It's a great privilege to have the vote - and so to take it up must surely be encouraged. I have seen first hand the great damage done to society when people are denied the vote. To choose not to use your vote is dangerous - for all of us.
I like to test policies to see where they might ultimately lead. So for the practise of not-voting - if it was widespread, then what? All I can see coming out of it is poor (or even worse) government; a range of social malaise effects (hurting primarily those who did not vote); and, possibly, revolution. Just one example: In the USA, those who chose not to vote were the majority in 2016. And they got Trump. And the insurrection. And... All not good.
V. amusing.
Thanks for this otherwise fine writing Grant, but forgive me, I must contest your assertion that 'Not voting is a valid complaint about social injustices.' For surely it's a desired outcome of the democratic political process for votes to matter; and for every voter to believe they can in some way contribute to the governance of any future polity. So in this context, not voting is counter-productive, self-defeating and simply ineffectual. Which would be by definition, clearly 'not valid.'
The only places I can see where it is an option to refuse to vote is in a forced one-party state, or a within a qualified franchise with only a 'poisoned chalice' option - like the referendums offered to brown people by the Apartheid state. In these cases, not voting is a valid protest.
This is not the situation in New Zealand. We have 17 parties contesting this election - so surely there is one that comes close to any voter's possible preferences.
It's a great privilege to have the vote - and so to take it up must surely be encouraged. I have seen first hand the great damage done to society when people are denied the vote. To choose not to use your vote is dangerous - for all of us.
I like to test policies to see where they might ultimately lead. So for the practise of not-voting - if it was widespread, then what? All I can see coming out of it is poor (or even worse) government; a range of social malaise effects (hurting primarily those who did not vote); and, possibly, revolution. Just one example: In the USA, those who chose not to vote were the majority in 2016. And they got Trump. And the insurrection. And... All not good.
Good points, Alex. I guess I should have added an irony-alert before that passage. All the same, I don't reveal whether or not I vote.