[ohrus]

I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent?

If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).

[sparkie]

Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place.

> If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not.

You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box.

Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"

[polshaw]

You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS!

You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer.

You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.

[ohrus]

Sure, I'll admit it was not a well thought out analogy. Regardless, we have the right to complain either way.

Consent or not, we are all governed. There's no opting out of that.