Counterstrike

Graham, of the Ambit Gambit, condemns the call from the Green Left Weekly to engage in "better organised and more determined protest movements". He claims that such a reaction would "most likely help Howard, or Costello, to another victory".

His logic?

Voters by and large know what they are getting when they vote for someone ... They know that when you vote for a politician ... You vote for them on the basis of a package ... you take that package because it is better than the other package. (Or more probably less worse.)

This argument assumes that voters are well-informed, educated, politically savvy, and able to weigh up the best interests of the nation against their own selfish desires. Unfortunately most do not fit all of those characteristics and few can claim to hold more than one.

The media and the pollies are well aware of the reality and they use it to their own advantage every election and many times inbetween. Most voters have rarely, if ever, watched or read a substantive political analysis of any major issue relevant to an impending election. Most would rather flick the remote to watch some less-than-real soap drama or the footy.

Of one thing though, Graham is accurate.

Voters don't take kindly to some "revolutionary" smarty pants coming along and telling them they were too stupid to exercise their vote wisely. They also don't appreciate it when they are told that their neighbours didn't exercise their vote wisely so that even if they didn't agree with how they exercised that vote, they will get in behind it if it is challenged.

I have raised this fact in a previous posting here in condemnation of Andrew Bartlett's blame of voters. It was interesting to read in the West Australian that the Greens' new Senator, Rachel Seiwart, has also come out slamming voters for getting it wrong. Not a great way to say thank you, nor to ensure your return in 6 years time.




[+/-] show/hide this post