On 21/04/2021 22:24, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:39:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

What "better" system do you propose?

One that allows for people to formally express their apathy for the
status quo for one.

I'm not sure what you mean by apathy? Please explain.

You therefore imply you were apathetic to the Brexit referendum, yet
have consistently whinged about the outcome. You don't make any logical
sense.

I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Stand for election then :-)

And why would I do that! I appreciate in your world of black and
white, that would be the only other option. ;-)

If you want to make a real protest, then stand for being a councillor.
You are even allowed to vote for yourself.

See, like (I suspect) the majority, I *really* don't know enough about
it (at any level) to make a truly informed decision and until
something happens that means I need to learn more, I'll keep my head
in the sand, just like most people do re animal cruelty and
exploitation etc.

Sounds like laziness and consequential firefighting to me. The point of
democracy is to empower the people. Obviously democracy is wasted on the
likes of those who actively propose to spoil their paper who are too
idle or too thick to research the issues at hand.

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

When you mention logic and religion in the same sentence you really have
lost the plot.