Especially after this election- lowest turnout since women got the vote- 1918, we see that something is terribly wrong in our system, and I understand the people who `vote nobody' to a point, and voting for a party that you feel in any way compromises your principles is terribly wrong. However,I think not having PR is a very important factor..some of those programmes being shown on channel four were quite interesting for mainstram media. Apathy is dangerous because you get extremists. Certainly the support for the British National Party, especially in Oldham is particularly distressing and a call for us to oppose such evil forces fiercely, and stand up for every person and their rights. Some of this can be explained by desperation in working class and extremely deprived areas of the country, increasingly isolated, as we witness the Americanisation of British politics without real choice between the main parties. Domestic issues were everywhere- the real issues were and continue to be invisible, while the politicans melt in corporate heat.

I thought `Love me I'm a liberal' was Phil Ochs?

ok, so having a vote is theoretically better than not. i'd rather live here than in somewhere where you can't. but isn't it a bit like being asked whether you'd like to be beaten to death with a baseball bat or given a lethal injection? either way you die. same with elections. there is no real choice: they all offer government. even the "socialist" alliance, who have no chance of ever getting in anyway, are just trying to get into power, so there isn't any point in voting whatsoever. nothing changes, only direct action will do that.

I guess this sort of dispute will never be solved because it lies in people's philosophical framework, but I think that ultimately, if we are dedicated to solving problems that desperately need solving people need to start doing positive things rather than being all negative and reactionary to the terrible status quo. People might bite my head off for this, but I don't think it helps people criticisng some parties like the Greens who are trying to offer an alternative- despite what anyone says, surely they're better than Blair? I agree with many anarchistic values, but I don't know..the system we're in doesn't empower individuals, especially without PR and maybe until some kind of revolution we should aim for the best. We don't want to lead- so the corporate brigade and their puppets will continue to do so. We need to inform others, try to appear as legitimate as possible-because our goals are- and not get too worked up about differences.
I know that many very compassionate and intelligent individuals will find their own path, and have different opinions on fundamental issues of our age, I don't want to compromise, I would just like to see this world and the way it works much improved, and we should unite in this, before the very things we despise end up killing us. Action is important, as is spreading the word- especially to the politically naive.

Voting is, and always has been a waste of time.
First of all, what control do we really have? We are born, and raised under a so-called 'democratic' system, but do we ever get the opportunity to vote to change the system? No! Electoralism doesn't extend that far, and every vote within that system ie. the capitalist system, is essentially a vote for that system.
Secondly, voting is not representative. For example, X is in a constituency of 20000 X's and votes for candidate Y. The contingencies henceforth are this. X has to hope that candidate Y is elected otherwise X's vote is a wasted vote. If X is lucky (and everyone who didn't vote Y unlucky) then X has to hope that Y in a parliament of 659 other Y's will endeavour to defend the rights of his constituents in the off-chance that X's Y even bothers to keep to his/her manifesto pledges. Y doesn't have to, of course, since Y cannot be recalled (under a bottom-up anarchist system that would be possible), so Y is free to become as corrupt as the other Y's, and sell out/reform/pick up his salary/ at the end of each month. All in all, if you are lucky (!) your vote mathematically is 1/20000 x 659 x 5 years.
Thirdly, the establishment has exploited fear of the far right as in Oldham NOT for the obvious reasons to make people concerned about racism (the problems in Oldham originated from a racist police force ie. representatives of the so-called establishment we are supposed to vote for and their collusion with the BNP against Asians), but as a means to get people to the ballot box in time. Not voting does not help the far right. The battle against fascism can only be won by direct action on the streets.
Fourthly, the argument that people fought and died for the vote. More people have died due to wars fought in the name of so-called democracy than ever did for the vote -a vote supported by Sylvia Pankhurst who later became anti-parlimentary communist although unfortunately even later, a close bed fellow of no less a luminary as Emperor Haile (mass murderer) Selassie!
Finally, regarding those countries denied the vote under autocratic regimes like Iraq. So are we to believe that the answer to a dictatorship is a bourgeois liberal democracy like the U. S. of A.? etc... The point is voting under our system is as pointless as a vote would be in Iraq. The struggle against the Saddam regime is NOT a struggle for the vote, but a life and death struggle against tyranny (both from inside and outside the country), and to speak of the vote in this context is to diminish the significance of this fact.