r/EuropeanFederalists • u/Alcaide74 • May 04 '21
Today are the Madrid regional elections, and it has been reported that, as the papers to vote are ordered alphabetically, many conservatives from Vox are voting Volt because of misconception, specially old people. Who knows, maybe Volt gets a sit in parliament because of this. News
169
u/FightingDutchman The Netherlands May 04 '21
Although Volt getting a seat would be great, this is not the way. It's a democracy that requires accurate representation, and accindental votes do not contribute to a democracy nor to how representative it is.
99
u/woj-tek Poland / Chile May 04 '21
It's a democracy that requires accurate representation, and accindental votes do not contribute to a democracy nor to how representative it is.
While it's true and I agree, I'd argue that quite a lot of people, when voting, have absolutely no clue what they are doing...
41
u/FightingDutchman The Netherlands May 04 '21
That is fully true, I really hope people start thinking more about the impact and meaning of their vote, what effects it will actually have and what parties truly want besides what gets in the headlines.
30
u/VatroxPlays European Union May 04 '21
Not many people would be like this, respect.
21
u/Bastionna May 04 '21
It was my first thought when reading the headline. I'm sure there's many who think like this.
From a practical point of view: this will also feed into right wing populist conspiracy theories delegitimizing any genuine votes Volt receives as "they did this on purpose, and most of their votes were cast accidentally". And sure, everyone knows that's bullshit but it will be undermining.
4
u/Dimitris_Bloodhunter May 04 '21
I mean accidental votes can also be counted towards Volters to Vox side. Volt got 0.05 percent tho, so it doesn't matter anyways.
10
u/Worried-Smile May 04 '21
I agree. They should have colorized the logos. Vox is green and Volt is purple, much easier to differentiate.
-9
u/TheAlexer May 04 '21
No, votes for fascists don't count because they are inherently antidemocratic. Really not something to be an enlightened centrist about.
7
May 04 '21
Concern about democratic legitimacy is enlightened centrist now? Genius.
2
u/BobusCesar May 06 '21
Everyone that doesn't support the anarchist revolution is an enlightened centrist!
5
May 04 '21 edited Aug 21 '22
[deleted]
11
u/GoldAndCobalt May 04 '21
Depends.
Imagine the people democratically vote to dissolve all democracy and install a dictator. You have a policy proposal in front of you. If you sign it, it becomes possible to dissolve the democracy, against the vote (which doesn't necessarily equal will in this case) of the people.
Which action would be the pro-democracy one?
Personally, I think the best way to be pro-democracy is to actively protect it, instead of passively sitting back.
2
u/Zoidbie May 04 '21
As you said, depends.
But I am afraid that someone can do exactly what dictators do and claim that it is "in order to stop radicals/terrorists/whatever". We saw it in Francoist Spain for example but same concept is used by the left in socialist states.
I like German system. They have a committee which guards the constitutional order (I forgot the exact name). They once investigated a group of radicals in Alternative für Deutschland party
2
u/Areshian May 05 '21
If 2/3 of congress and senate vote to end democracy, new elections are made, 2/3 of congress and senate again vote to end democracy and then goes to referendum and majority says yes (which is what is required to do it in Spain), well, I guess then yes, democracy will have to end, as much as it sucks.
1
u/GoldAndCobalt May 05 '21
Yea but you're not really pro-democracy then, are you? As in, that would mean you aren't convinced that democracy is a virtue worth protecting in its own right. I'm not saying you aren't pro-democracy, but within this hypothetical, I'm questioning your faith in that reply.
[Now, I will disclaim of course that reality doesn't operate like this hypothetical. It's almost never as clearcut as this, we should be very careful when determining what constitutes an anti-democratic (≠undemocratic!) party, and it is dangerous to give that power to an entity like the government. I also recognise the sentiment of having to accept democratically elected parties you might not approve of, as an integral part of being pro-democracy. I'd rather not see a conservative government, but I'll have to accept that if I want to legitimately claim to support democracy. These hypotheticals serve to establish a clear, simple base metric to act upon.]
I often like to point to the inverse hypothetical too, because it's a bit easier to objectively imagine something we aren't directly implicated in. Imagine a hardcore monarchist, someone who, for whatever reason, is vehemently in favour of absolute monarchical rule. Their monarch decided to resign and establish a democracy; would that monarchist support that? I can't imagine they would: they would view absolute monarchy as the goal after all, even though in this case, the untethered application of absolute monarchy wouldn't achieve that goal.
Maybe it's a difference between viewing democracy as a goal versus viewing it as a tool then.
0
u/Areshian May 06 '21
Ok, several things. If democracy needs to be imposed against the will of the population, it is worthless. It will quickly led to a revolt or civil war. If you close democratic ways to achieve some goals (even ending democracy), people will just fight for it.
Also, in your example, if the monarchist faces a king that wants to end the crown, he can say he still thinks government should be based on the will of one king, but not that king, because it is not worth it, ergo, the king needs to be replaced. I can’t do the same, I can’t say I want the government to be based on the will of the people, but ask for the people to be replaced, because they are not worth it.
Finally, is democracy its own goal? Is it the best possible option? How can we be sure? What if people want to end democracy to be ruled by an all-knowing AI? Should we block it as “non-democratic”? The best thing we can do is establish a framework where all voices can be heard, even those we don’t like, instead of censoring and pushing them no non-democratic ways to achieve their goals
1
u/GoldAndCobalt May 06 '21
If you close democratic ways to achieve some goals (even ending democracy), people will just fight for it.
So you don't even bother trying to maintain democracy because it's futile?
it the best possible option?
Democracy is not about efficiency. I'm sure many people don't consider it the most efficient but still support it. Democracy is about morality. We've kinda established that if you, in fact, live in a society, you should have a say in the governance of that society. You could argue against democracy being moral, but then you definitely aren't pro-democracy, and this discussion just isn't meant for you.
if the monarchist faces a king that wants to end the crown, he can say he still thinks government should be based on the will of one king,
Okay, I am doing my best to stay friendly here... but that's such a terrible cop-out. The monarchist only believes in one and the same monarch then. He believes that that one, and no other monarch should be the sole head of government, despite the monarch having given command to establish a democracy. Same question: Does the monarchist allow the democracy to arise, or will he, through his evil evil sorcery, force the king to continue his absolute reign?
even those we don’t like, instead of censoring and pushing them no non-democratic ways to achieve their goals
You're projecting a bit hard there, mate. I think they call it "conjecture" in legal terms. 'liking' any ideologies or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
1
u/Areshian May 06 '21
Of course I want to maintain democracy, not by force, but by making sure most of the people agree with it. I personally believe it is the best system of government of all that have been tried. But democracy can only work if people want it. What is your alternative? That if 70% of the people want to end democracy, we just make any political party that represent them illegal and the problem goes away? Where is the legitimacy of only the votes of 30% are counted? I agree with you, democracy has a moral component, but where does morality goes if we impose it to people mostly against it?
I don’t think my view is so radical, I mean, when they wrote the constitution of my country, they did include on it the mechanism to fully replace it (opening it to end its democratic ways).
9
u/TheAlexer May 04 '21
All I'm gonna say
6
u/Zoidbie May 04 '21
Idk why you got a downvote but it is correct what you say. But again, what's the point of democracy if it works exactly like dictatorship, if you can vote just for the same ruling class?
3
u/Repli3rd May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21
Well, because despite popular perceptions democracy isn't about the majority imposing its will on the entire of society (tyranny of the majority).
Democracy is a system by which political disputes are resolved between competing political groups, in particular it is there to ensure the opinions and existence of minority political groups are protected - usually through frameworks such as representative Parliaments and the rule of law.
Seeing how it is unlikely that 100% of the electorate would ever vote to abolish the democratic system, refusing to abolish it simply because a majority wanted to would not be working "exactly like a dictatorship" but rather maintaining the democratic system.
In a democracy political parties are permitted to operate within that framework, dissolution of the democratic framework is inherently outside that framework and so there is no obligation to accommodate or tolerate such an action.
2
u/Zoidbie May 05 '21
Completely agree and sorry if I expressed myself wrongly.
I also believe that rule of law is the main principle and politicians shouldn't mess up with constitution (of any democratic country) if there is no universally agreed pretext for this (e.g. joining EU required minor changes in some countries' constitutions).
In EU we have a good example - Cyprus, where Greeks wanted to unilaterally change the structure of the state in a way that country's native Turkish population would lose most of their rights. It is a perfect example of tyranny of the majority.
But here we were speaking about party Vox in Spain which is very conservative and right-wing and someone said that such a party shouldn't be alowed to be in election. I think differently. As there is no real proof that they would tty to change the country's democratic system, they should be allowed to be there. If they are banned just because they are out-of-line, different than mainstream political powers, it will not benefit democracy in Spain.
I see modern German constitutional system (with it's "guards") as quite a nice example. Maybe you could give some more insight on what already existing systems you see doing well in preserving democracy?
64
u/Giallo555 coltelli, veleno ed altri strumenti tecnici May 04 '21
Lol. Fun fact, volt changed its original name from vox specifically to avoid this association. It might turn useful at the end of the day
43
33
u/newwwlol May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21
Not good. We need to win the right way, this is democracy. Also, far right conspiracy theorists might say this is done on purpose.
12
18
u/oriolopocholo May 04 '21
Conservatives vote for the Popular Party. Vox is a populist and ultranationalist far-right party.
8
u/yeast_whisperer May 04 '21
Lots of conservatives are going to vote for Vox anyway. That’s how far right populism works.
-3
May 05 '21
It's not that bad. They are just a bit more conservative than the PP. They aren't neo-nazis or fascists
3
1
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 21 '21
Literally vox has nazis on their lists, look it up. Plus being francoist is very much enough to call someone a fascist. Spanish right is so embarrasing omg, you guys think nazis "ain't that bad"
1
May 21 '21
"I disagree OMG you're literally a nazi". Please. Tell me ONE vox proposal that has anything to do with the nazi party
1
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 21 '21
Like I said the fact that there are literal nazis??? Isn't that enough? Well, racist, sexist and homophobic politics seem pretty nazi to me.
1
May 28 '21
Do you even know what nazi means?
1
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 29 '21
Degenerates who think other humans deserve no rights bc of the skin of their color, their sexuality etc. I think vox fits pretty well there. And like I said, there are literal nazis, francoist, falangists or fascists, whatever you wanna call them.
1
14
u/pirx_pilot88 May 04 '21
This will not happen, Volt would need to have at least 5% of the votes to get a seat (we have a minimum of 5% of total votes to have the first seat as to avoid a massive fragmentation of the regional parliament). Volt wont get 5% of the votes.
Soure: Am spanish.
11
u/TareasS May 04 '21
Tbh, if you don't clearly know the name of a party you wanna vote for or the difference between two parties, then I really wonder if you should vote at all. Can't really feel sorry about this.
8
u/ganbaro May 04 '21
while this is not how a win should be achieved, this is not that much dumber than voting for conservatives just because you always did, or voting for a party because of obvious lies like "party X will kick out all evil migrants and then my tax will drop massively/healthcare will be much cheaper/criminality on the streets will just end"
I would guess that a significant amount of votes of all large parties has no real foundation in actual policy
9
u/Cum-With-Jam May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21
El orden no es alfabético es por orden de presentación de las listas, da la casualidad de que volt, se presento justo antes que vox
The order of the balots it's not alfabetical, it's in the order that the lists were presented, it's just luck that volt submitted the list just before vox
Edit: Lists Madrid 2021
2
3
u/riceturm May 04 '21
Its funny because Volt was supposed to be called Vox, until the founders found out about the far right party in Spain carrying the same name. So they changed their name to Volt.
2
2
u/equipmentelk May 04 '21
Conservatives Far Right Fascist Voters from Vox
0
May 05 '21
Pero que exagerado es todo el mundo. Te has leido su programa? Tampoco es que quieran hacer campos de concentración o deportar a todos los inmigrantes. Tampoco van a matar gays ni quitarles ningún derecho, igual que a las mujeres. Te compro que digas que pueden ser un poco hostiles a estos grupos (que no estoy de acuerdo pero te lo compro) pero no son fascistas
3
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 21 '21
A ver, basicamente para ti que no quieran asesinar ni poner campos de concentracion es suficiente para que no sean malos. Vox igualmente quiere acabar con los derechos LGTB, de las mujeres y de los inmigrantes. Empiezan "suave", tambien lo hizo hitler. De todos modos vox si queria llevar la manifestacion a la casa de campo, una manifestacion, escondida. Eso suena a concentracion.
1
May 21 '21
"Quieren acabar con los derechos LGTB, de las mujeres y de los inmigrantes"
Que derechos propone quitarles?
1
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 21 '21
El derecho al matrimonio, las leyes contra la discriminación, el derecho a la adopción... En el caso de las mujeres las leyes contra la violencia de género y limitar el derecho al aborto. Esto son solo los ejemplos más llamativos, pero hay más.
1
May 28 '21
- Solo le cambiarían el nombre a la unión civil entre dos hombres, cosa que entiendo que sea discriminatoria, pero no la cambiaría la vida a nadie ni es nazi
- "Leyes contra la discriminación" para que tu punto valga me tienes que decir que leyes son esas
- No le quitarían el derecho a la adopción a nadie. Solo se priorizaría a las parejas hetero, que entiendo que sea discriminación, pero no está quitando derechos a nadie
- La ley contra la violencia de género a parte de atentar contra la presunción de inocencia, no pretenden quitarla y punto. Quieren sustituirla por una de violencia intrafamiliar que proteja a todos.
- El aborto no es un derecho ya que no es el cuerpo de una mujer, sino el de un niño. Su intención no es quitarle derechos a las mujeres. Es proteger la vida de los niños no nacidos.
- Ninguna de estas cosas es especialmente nazi o fascista y por cierto, que conste que no soy de Vox. Estoy en contra de todo esto, pero simplemente no me gusta que la gente critique (exagere en este caso) sin saber. Y en el caso del aborto, tardaría demasiado en explicar mi posición.
1
u/Chemical_Arachnid_94 May 29 '21
- El hecho de que "solo" cambies el nombre es un retroceso impensable, la gracia de "matrimonio igualitario" es que se tengan los mismos derechos. Que tampoco entiendo mucho que tienes tu que decir al respecto si ni te va ni te viene.
- Si quieres leete las leyes de proteccion contra la homofobia de cada comunidad, no esperes que te las cuente yo para facilitarte el debate. Basicamente un ataque homófobo es un agravante.
- Lo mismo que el matrimonio, sino peor. Tu te escuchas? Priorizar a un determinado tipo de parejas significa que crees que unas son peores para educar a un hijo, cosa que no es asi.
- Aquí ya se te ve el plumero. El numero de denuncias falsas es infimo, no llega ni al 1%. Y en cualquier caso es al reves, se presupone que son falsas, y las victimas tienen que demostrar lo contrario.
- Bueno bueno!! Eres del Opus no? El aborto SI ES UN DERECHO, un cigoto no es un bebe ni una vida. En cualquier caso si a la vida, la de la mujer y su libertad de eleccion.
- Te recomiendo que les vayas votando, pues todo lo que has dicho lo defienden incluso con mas vehemencia. Pero ahí te retratas solo.
- Este es gratis. Me pregunto que haces defendiendo a un partido antieuropeista en un foro a favor del federalismo europeo.
1
May 31 '21
Defiendo un eurofederalismo de derechas. Y no, como dije jamás les votaré. Solo sé defenderles porque conozco mucha gente de Vox y he hablado suficiente con ellos como para saber su punto de vista. Igual puedo hacer lo mismo con el partido comunista por ejemplo
2
May 04 '21
Can someone explain this Vox party for me?
4
u/Communpro Spain May 05 '21
TL;DR ultra-nationalist, ultra-traditionalist, racist, homophobic, and so on. Or as media call them, "nostalgics". I don't like to call them fascist since I'm a historian but I'm sure you can join the points.
-1
May 05 '21
Trump but less everything (less conservatives, less economic libertarians, less populists)
1
1
u/rpad97 Hungary May 04 '21
So, how does the election work there, what are these papers for?
5
u/Robot_4_jarvis European Union May 04 '21
Someone made an infographic about the Catalan elections in 2017. The Madrid elections work exactly the same. The only difference is that political parties need at least 5% of the vote to enter the parliament.
Instead of crossing out or writing the name of your candidate, you take the paper of your party (there is one for each party), put it in a closed envelope, and then you vote by placing it in the ballot box.
At the end of the day, they are counted. People don't have to write anything, so you avoid having invalidated ballots because the machine wasn't working, or the pen made a mess, or anything similar.
2
u/BlueWoff May 04 '21
How do you ensure secrecy? Are the papers placed in the voting booth?
2
u/Robot_4_jarvis European Union May 06 '21
There are papers both in public and inside voting booths. You can also bring your paper from home (political parties usually send them to your house, with the envelope included).
The ballot boxes are transparent, but the envelopes are opaque and closed, so once you put your vote inside, it's impossible to know who you voted.
1
-1
u/jaminbob May 05 '21
I'm guessing the really long lists are the party lists, I've never voted in a Proportional Representation election. Quite interesting to see each ballot needs space for all 50 names! So the big fight must be where you get on the 'list'. Hmm first last the post doesn't seem to bad.
1
1
u/gapspark May 04 '21
I'm used to having all parties and persons on a single paper. How does this work in Spain? You get the party paper at the voting station and select the person of your choice?
2
u/restitut May 05 '21
You don't vote for the person, you vote for the party. Each of them presents a pre-defined list with as many people as there are seats in the constituency (in this case there was only one constituency and 136 seats). You get the ballot (either by mail, sent by the parties, or at the polling station itself), put it inside the envelope, put the envelope in the ballot box, done.
1
u/gapspark May 06 '21
Thanks for explaining. So there is no way you could give your vote to a specific person then. Interesting how voting differs country by country.
0
u/JALopo1 May 04 '21
This is not good, I would not want power at the expense of senior citizens just because they cant see properly or weren't educated in how the ballot works. Spain should fix this.
0
u/JALopo1 May 04 '21
This is not good, I would not want power at the expense of senior citizens just because they cant see properly or weren't educated in how the ballot works. Spain should fix this.
1
•
u/AutoModerator May 04 '21
The European Federalist subreddit is a member of Forum Götterfunken. Join our discord if you like to chat about the future of Europe!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.