snapsaplenty replied to your post “Russell Brand is very much a power-to-the-people person. He fights for...”
Yeah but to be fair though he also does a lot of stupid shit and whilst I enjoy his Trews series telling half the country that not voting is a revolution has had bad repercussions and you can't claim to 'lead' said revolution and be that reckless
That's the thing though, he's never said that he wants to lead a revolution. In fact he's adamantly said he thinks he's not up for the job, and it should be left to people with better ideas. Also, he's never said "do not vote". He says that if you don't think the people on the ballot paper are worth voting for, then don't vote for them. I have no idea where you're from, but for the sake of this conversation, and so I can explain why that mentality is actually a good thing, I'll assume you're not from UK. If you are from the UK, I apologise for the assumption. But anyway. In England, we have a system where the country is divided up into constituent areas. Each constituency has an elected MP that we (the people who live in that constituency) vote for. When all the votes are cast, they add up what parties won what constituencies. The party who won the most constituencies has their leader sworn in as Primeminister. There are 650 constituencies in the UK, which means a party has to get 326 to be in control. However, parties do not have MP candidates in every single one of those constituencies. For example, TUSC have only like 120 candidates, for example. This is where what Russell Brand has said comes into it. Let's say you're a leftie. You're very much about Green Party and TUSC. In fact, let's say those are the only two parties you agree with, and you really don't want any other party to be in power. So you go down to the voting station, you get your ballot paper, and you look at the list and the list reads: -Conservative -Labour -UKIP -Liberal Democrat -British National Party -Independant -Independant In other words, Green and TUSC don't have a candidate in your area. What Russell Brand is saying is, if something like this happens, if the only people on the ballot paper are parties you do not believe are worth your vote, you shouldn't vote. And it's a real possibility. If that situation occurs, you shouldn't go "oh, I'll pick labour, they're better than the others, even if I don't like them", because then what you're doing is you're voting for a party you don't agree with and telling them it's okay to make decisions on your behalf. You are actively encouraging a party you don't like and don't agree with. Which is what Russell Brand is telling people not to do. He's said that if there's a party you think is worth your vote, a party you agree with, then you should vote for them. But if they're not on the ballot, or you don't agree with any party, then you shouldn't vote. Because all you're doing is perpetuating a system you don't even want in the first place. Also, there's the issue of the futility of voting. Let's condense and simplify UK politics. Say there are 5 consituencies. London, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, and Birmingham. Say those 5 are the only constituencies in the country. Let's say London and Leeds each have 1000 people living in each. Manchester, Newcastle, and Birmingham each have 100 people living there. Let's say there are 2 political parties, Labour and Conservative. It gets to election time. Every single person in London and Leeds votes for Labour. Every single person in Manchester, Newcastle, and Birmingham votes for Conservatives. Labour have 2000 votes, Conservatives have 300. Conservatives will still get into power, because they've won 3 constituencies where Labour only has 2. Even though that was a very condensed version, that could still happen. A majority of people in this country could vote for a single party, but that party still not get into power, because of how our political system works. This is another thing that Russell Brand tries to bring to light, that, sometimes, voting really is futile.
