Voting in referendums?

if i vote on anything i vote on referendums and only if they make sense. especially state or other local city/town wide ones.

sometimes this is really stupid stuff, sometimes it is like give more money to schools or the zoo, or things like your sister wants to vote for.

also didn't WSM do a campaign around a referendum once?

In Ireland there's currently a government "expert group" who are supposed to shortly report on abortion legislation. There are three possibilities - legislation, a referendum and regulation. In my opinion a referendum would be passing the buck by the government, so quite likely to happen. If that were the case I would definitely vote in it (if I'm in the country at the time).

Not just referendums, elections too. Surely different political parties offer substantive differences on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. (basically issues that don't have much of an economic consideration involved). So it makes sense to vote for the one that will be most 'progressive' or whatever you want to call it on these issues.

Sarcasm? I hope so.

No actually.. Why doesn't it make sense?

Anarchists often make too much of a fuss about voting in elections or referenda. The point is, it hardly matters if you vote or not - as long as you don't expect it to lead to a better society. We want to build working class power to a point where we're able to abolish capital and the state, and voting vs boycotting elections is about as important as whether you're vegan, or buy fair trade coffee, etc, i.e. while one is arguably marginally preferable it is also utterly irrelevant to our task.

(So I agree with the OP and Mons, but I don't think this has got anything to do with libertarian communist politics.)

Voting in a referendum would still be "blasphemy" because the government still have all the control over it, its really no different to elections except its only on issue, so actually your saying even less/have less power. This is because the government control the wording, when it is, but most importantly of all, no matter what the referendum says, they can do what they want anyway, they are not constitutionally bound to do so, at all. Governments call referendum's when they know they can win them.

Yeah, of course voting isn't that big a deal and it's no problem whether you vote or not. But the idea that it makes no difference is crazy. I reckon most people who vote in elections vote knowing it makes very little difference, sensibly so. I think it does have something to do with libertarian communist politics, because I value gay rights, feminism, etc. and think they're pretty big parts of libertarian communist politics and so would want to vote for something that pushes society more in that direction.
I don't think we should call for or a particular vote or anything, but making a principle out of not voting, and calling it 'blasphemy' - even tongue-in-cheek - is more a reflection of some of the negative aspects of activist culture than practical politics.

In quite a lot of countries, referenda can initiated by ordinary citizens, if they get enough signatures. For example in Switzerland the number of signatures is so low that they have referenda all the time (over 550 since 1848 - http://www.swissvotes.ch/db/votes/listing).

While the outcome of a vote will make a difference in that it will have concrete implications for people lives, it's an illusion to think that it has the capacity to push society in the kind of direction we favour. Take referenda on gay marriage or, say, abortion. Clearly they affect people's lives in significant ways, so I'd definitely vote in those. However it's just as obvious that in the absence of powerful working class movements, all kinds of reactionaries, bigots and religious nuts are much better able to mobilise voters. So if you actually want to push society in the direction we favour on these issues, we need wider movements to fight for these things, and we can get them, we need not worry about whether that will be through referenda or shady backroom deals between politicians.

I would consider voting in a referendum on an issue that mattered that had a concrete outcome. Not likely to have one any time soon though.

Vote Labour, but organise to fight!

I think voting in referenda, or even encouraging votes in a particular way in a referendum can be worthwhile, depending on the referendum.

However, voting in elections is pointless, and encouraging votes in a particular way in elections I think is completely counter-productive for communists.

In terms of referenda, similar to union elections, I wouldn't vote in anything that was around changing things institutionally (so the AV referendum for example, or votes on changes in union rulebooks). But if it's around something practical I think it's okay: for example if there were a referendum on reintroduction of the death penalty, for example, or in unions a vote on strike action.

I don't think that anarchists or libertarian communists are obliged to believe that voting, even in general elections, has no effect. It's an observable emprical fact that the nature of our struggle is often different under the different shades of liberalism on offer in parliment. Depending on your particular analysis of the situation voting for centre "left" candidate in order to widen the cage, not voting at all to reduce turnout, or even voting for an openly conservative candidate so as to intensify conditions of struggle* can be sensibly defended within a libertarian communist framework. The point is not to get hung up on voting or not voting, the point is that whatever your position on voting, its miniscule importance is dwarfed by the importance of organising.

*couldn't bring myself to do this personally but I know a handful of people who do.

Unless I'm missing it nobody's explained what the difference is between voting in a referendum and an election, if both are about social issues. Why would you vote in a referendum to stop, for example, the abortion limit being reduced, but not in an election to do the same thing? Steven. you say it would be 'counter-productive' to encourage voting a certain way? If that's cos you think it would be encouraging illusions in relying on politicians, then that mirrors the logic of Trots' transitional demands. Both say 'people wouldn't understand the full nuances of our position so we'll make it cruder for them' in a horribly detached, condescending way.

Antonio, you give three options and say they can all be sensibly defended. I think two of them can only be defended - as a conscious political act - in the context of an activism that shoots itself in the foot. Reducing turnout, and trying to worsen working class conditions, have either negligible or a negative effect (tho not voting out of laziness as I have done is fine). I think libertarian communists should be practical and vote to improve conditions of the working class. Like I said, that's not to make some principle out of voting. Also I think most people who vote think this way tbh (except with their own worries, politics, etc. as the driving force determining which way they vote).

no1, yeah I agree with your second paragraph. But surely voting still makes sense! Because it "will have concrete implications for people lives" as you say.

But yeah, obviously organising is overwhelmingly more useful, and whether you vote or not is not a big deal and doesn't make that much difference.

Well if you want the normal distinction, a referendum is a single vote on a particular issue while a parliamentary one can be seen as a tacit supporting of a particular avatar of representative democracy and certainly is taken in that way by politicians on a regular basis - ("okay you didn't vote for me to sell off Royal Mail but you did vote for me after I told you I liked gay people, and I want to sell off Royal Mail").

If you like your theory a bit tougher, voting in either can be seen as an effective endorsement of the practice of government as it stands - though of course in practice a tiny mandate has never stopped a government from being formed before or indeed a Bill from being passed.

Personally, I don't vote for governments, and will only vote in a referendum if I don't reckon it's a stitch-up (this comes down to a bunch of stuff, format of the question being pretty important, likelihood that if the decision goes the "wrong" way they won't just try again, etc).

What Rob Ray said.

I'd add that politicians have a habit of campaigning on certain hot button topics, particularly abortion in the US, which they know will get people out voting one way or the other. How often do governments really tweak abortion laws, one way or the other, anyway? It's almost as if politicians want you to just vote for them, so they can sneak through all the legislation they'd rather not talk about in public...

Also, to point out the obvious: whether you personally vote or not makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome of an election. How often does a general election or a referendum come down to a single vote? Organizing a campaign to persuade other people to vote, could have an impact, although, generally, the winner will be the person with the most money. Maybe there is some value in this, but probably only at a local level, e.g. campaigning against the BNP*, which would probably be best solved persuading people not to vote for the BNP by raising awareness of just how shitty the BNP really are, rather than persuading people to vote for some other party.

Also, in the UK Alternative Vote referendum, my postal vote arrived, I filled out my details on envelope A, tore the form in two, placed it inside envelope A, then placed envelope A inside envelope B, then posted the envelope B into my bin. True story! Result: Anarchy 1, Bourgeois Democracy 0!

* For non-UKians: A fascist party, run by racist bellends, that mostly campaigns against immigration and muslims.

Rob, I'm still not clear what practical problem you have with voting. So you are worried that it will be taken "as a tacit supporting of a particular avatar of representative democracy and certainly is taken in that way by politicians on a regular basis" and "voting in either can be seen as an effective endorsement of the practice of government as it stands". Well, so what?

The worry could be that it will be taken that way by other working class people, is that it? Cos I think like I said that would be using the condescending logic of Trots' transitional demands imagining most people wouldn't be able to comprehend voting while knowing it doesn't really do anything much, and we have to organise to create more genuine change. So I don't think we should worry about that.

Or the worry could be that politicians will take it as an endorsement. But again, so what? Like you say, they'll do what they want anyway. Unless you think a strategy for undermining government, an actual political strategy, is to not vote, so you reduce voter turnout and undermine governments mandate? If not then I really don''t see what the problem with voting is.

And voting demonstrably does make a difference, and politicians overwhelmingly do what their manifestos say (excepting the Lib Dems' broken promises which don't really count in my eyes, the last time a party in the UK failed to deliver on all its manifesto pledges was when Labour didn't have a referendum on PR after their 1997 manifesto) so you can tell what the differences will be.

Principles should come from what works. I'm worried this not voting principle doesn't. Whereas not voting does nothing positive, voting might have some tiny positive effect. Like I keep saying tho, obviously it's not a big deal and I didn't vote in either the 2 times I've been able to purely out of laziness.

i think that whne people vote they belive they have done something to change things, like with signing pertions, and this makes them less likely to actual take action them selves, because they already have. i think if someone says elections are not an effectie way to change things and then goes and votes anyway people will interprit this as them not really beliving what they said about their objections, basicaly people voting helps renforce the idea that voting works.

I'd see voting in the political process as being a form of alienation*, much like commodities are to capitalist economic activity. It allows people to participate in the democratic process, without actually participating. Paradoxically, the Suffragettes, say, were more political while campaigning for the vote, than they were when casting their votes in elections.

Also, votes carry zero information, other than you happened to put an X on a form by a candidates name. It doesn't necessarily imply any support for the candidate, their party, or all or any of their manifesto pledges. Many people vote Labour, for instance, to keep the Tories out, even when Labour policies are pretty close to Tory ones (at least the ones that count).

* ETA: I mean general, or local elections, here. i.e. voting for candidates/parties, rather than on specific, individual issues.

What do people think about voting for police commissioners?

There's an interesting mix standing for Sussex police commissioner, the last guy looks pretty amusing -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19557207
http://www.sosparty.co.uk/

True, but some anarchists think that by not voting they have done something to change things - isn't that just as problematic?

I've never voted, never will. Referendums, elections, whatever voting will never achieve our aims. I'd discourage people from voting, I think the perceived increased legitimacy of governments through increased voter turn out is a bit of a crap argument as there are so few of, even if we all voted in a block fuck all would be influenced.

I problem with voting is simple and this thread is a perfect example. We end up getting caught up in shite debates about who's the 'least bad' option, and after all the disagreeing and agonising we come out of the polling station and absolutely nothing is impacted. well done. ignore elections, go to the pub and organise ffs.

It depends a lot on the wording of what is being voted on but a referendum vote is the process by which a decision is actually reached on an issue. Here in Ireland for instance whether or not divorce would be legal, whether or not it would be legal for pregnant women to leave the country (1992 I kid you not), whether or not children born to non-citizens would automatically become citizens.

Voting for a candidate/party however works on a different premise. That after this person/party is elected you hope that they will make the sort of decisions you'd like.

If its that simple (and it isn't always) referenda are a form of direct democracy, parliamentary elections a form of representative democracy. Generally anarchists are for the first and not for the second.

Well done, that's made my top three of most idiotic things I've ever read on the internet. If it wasn't so heart-brakingly believable I'd be offended.

no1 hit the nail on the head.

in general I'd say I agree with this.

Of course, there could be some exceptions like the AV referendum I mentioned above, which was basically a referendum decision on representative democracy - and so therefore falls into the second category Andrew mentions.

I don't reckon the penultimate guy will get any votes - he looks like a paedo

radicalgraffiti and omen,

It's like you're saying you don't believe people have enough intelligence to vote while knowing it won't do hardly anything. That's condescending and as bad as the Trots' transitional demands, which libcom's rightly criticise for these exact same reasons. It's also setting up a divide between communists and the rest of the working class. If you voted, you'd know full well that real change comes from taking action yourself. But you say other people wouldn't understand that.
I find this particularly dodgy and wrong,

How stupid do you think 'people' are, seriously??

AndrewF, I pretty much agree with your divide between referendums voting on actual policy, whereas elections you vote for a group of politiicans you'll hope will do what they say. But overwhelmingly - contrary to what most anarchists and other people say - politicians do act on their manifestos! So you have a very good idea of what policies you are voting in. So that divide doesn't totally hold.

well if any one actual thinks that they're stupid

if some one says "i don't believe you can change things by voting for a different leader" then they go and vote anyway i would not believe what they said, they on some level still believe it matters which candidate gets elected.

bullshit