Voting for genuine change

To what extent can we make a difference through the ballot box?

May 25, 2024

Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)

I had originally planned to put out this post later in the year… but I’ve brought it forward following the recent announcement of a General Election in the UK, which fits with what Andrew Bridgen MP said in this recent interview (4-minute clip here).

In the context of recent events, it has sometimes been suggested to me that we can rely on due process to put things right. For many and various reasons, I am increasingly inclined to doubt that. And I do wonder to what extent we can make a difference at the ballot box.

An insider’s view

In the context of the recent UK local elections, I read with interest this insider’s account of the electoral system.

The author, Miri Finch, describes her own journey. She recognises various objections people raise, not least because she has made them herself:

“Voting is all a fraud. If it made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it.”
“It’s all rigged anyway. Candidates are selected, not elected.”
“Voting is contracting with the government and consenting to what they do.”

But in 2020 — in the context of what she describes as “the unprecedented insanity of ‘Covid’” — she decided to become politically active. And on the basis of her experience of the past four years she has concluded that:

[The electoral system] is not rigged. They [i.e. the establishment] want you to believe that so you don't get involved.

Finch describes what she has observed behind the scenes at local elections over the past four years, noting in particular the way that candidates obsessively watch their vote count, the devastation on candidates’ faces when they lose, and the contempt that candidates of the mainstream parties have for outsiders.

As she sees it:

The crucial thing to understand… is that the count is not rigged in any direct sense, i.e. votes are not shredded, nor are extra ones added in, because this is highly illegal and to do this would run too high a risk of the perpetrators being caught. There are too many low-level people involved in the count who would all have to be “in on it” and so it just wouldn't be practical.

But that:

There is a form of rigging… [that] is enacted in a much more indirect and entirely legal way, which is by perpetuating the utterly inaccurate and fallacious belief that “it’s all rigged anyway [because] if voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let you do it”

And that if lots of people — sometimes more than half the electorate — don’t vote, then it is no surprise that candidates from the establishment parties dominate politics virtually unchallenged.

Finch describes the establishment parties as the “uni-party”. And it seems true enough that, on the biggest issues, it seems to make little difference as to which main party is in power. I’m thinking along the lines of Net Zero, covid policies, and war in Ukraine (to name but three).

It’s been obvious enough to me that there has been little to choose between Conservative and Labour for a long time now. Arguably for at least the past 30 years or so. As Chris Law, the SNP MP for Dundee West, colourfully put it, “the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse” (before the offending word was changed to “bottom” at Mr Speaker’s request).

It’s hard to make the case that Law is wrong:

[Update: though as Finch points out in this post, a Starmer government might well be (even) worse than what we have experienced in the past few years]

And would things change much even if the majority of Westminster MPs were Liberal Democrat? Or indeed Reform? I doubt it.

But while large numbers of disaffected people — many of whom would like to see change — do not vote at all, it has been hard to see how much could change.

Until now. Maybe.

A recent shift?

Finch reckons — and with good reason — that there has recently been something of a shift:

In her home county of West Yorkshire, Labour lost control of Kirklees Council in the May 2024 local elections (Kirklees being one of the five boroughs of West Yorkshire). The former council leader and one “cabinet member” have lost their seats entirely:

Labour also lost control of nearby Oldham (in Greater Manchester), in an area which has traditionally been a Labour stronghold:

And Jonathan Tilt, an independent candidate for mayor of West Yorkshire got over 46,000 votes (8.5%), around 19,000 more than the Liberal Democrats (5%):

Finch notes that:

[Labour’s losses are not to] another branch of the uni-party who will adhere to exactly the same agenda”… [but] to independents, who do not belong to any political party and who openly oppose the lockstep state agenda

And that:

Although the primary issue a lot of independents were campaigning on was Gaza, those who are awake to one genocidal state scam tend to be awake to the others, too — many independent candidates know exactly what the Covid vaccine was designed to do, and that the same people are behind it as are behind the Gaza slaughter, and for the same reasons

She also points out that Jonathan Tilt’s success is remarkable in that:

A “radical” independent candidate, who opposes vaccine mandates, net zero measures, and any future lockdowns (and has since day one of Covid) — [and is] someone who the establishment would love to dismiss as a “crazy conspiracy theorist no-one will vote for — got over 46,000 votes and beat the Liberal Democrat candidate by tens of thousands of votes

Of course all of the above relates to one particular area of the country at local level. Only time will tell as to the extent of any broader shift.

But there are other signs, not least the result of the Rochdale by-election of 29th February this year:

In Rochdale, the “uni-party” (with or without Reform) recorded less than a third of the vote. No wonder the establishment appeared so rattled:

Yes, it was a by-election. And yes, there were local issues. But the two leading candidates each polled many more votes than any of the candidates from the so-called mainstream parties. People are starting to wake up:

Pushing back against the establishment

Moreover, as Finch points out (in the context of her local government experience):

The only reason independent candidates didn’t do even better than they did is because the vast majority of people who share their beliefs won’t get up off their sofas and vote for them, believing abstaining entirely is the “anti-establishment” thing to do

Adding that:

I know this is how they feel, as for many years, that was me, too

She defines “anti-establishment” as:

Always the minority position, because the establishment possesses the resources to ensure that, for any given issue, the majority believe what the establishment wants them to believe

And cites covid as an example, where the establishment wanted people:

To believe there was a novel virus called Covid killing millions of people… to, take experimental gene therapy injections to combat this “threat”… [and] to mask, test, socially distance, etc.

Which the majority did. In contrast, those who (for good reason) did not believe what they were told, and who did not comply with the “covid measures” were very much in the minority, as genuinely anti-establishment positions always are.

She draws a parallel with a majority of people not voting, and points out that:

By definition, not voting is the majority, status quo, establishment position [emphasis added], because, if the establishment wanted the majority of people to vote, they would… festoon local towns centres with advertisements about the importance of doing it (just like they did to promote the “importance” of adhering to Covid measures). Yet on polling day… there were no expensive media campaigns urging you to do your democratic duty...

Stepping back, and in response to the objection that “if voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”, Finch points out that once upon a time they didn’t:

Prior to 1832, a person had to [be male and] own property or be in a certain tax band in order to qualify to vote. This made politics an elitist closed shop wholly controlled by the wealthy, as it by definition excluded almost the entirety of the working classes.

But while in the 1800s people were excluded from voting, in the 2020s:

Politics is an elitist closed shop wholly controlled by the wealthy… as the working classes have now excluded themselves. Voter turnout is by far the lowest in the most deprived areas… as low as 13% — meaning nearly 9 in 10 people don’t vote.

She contends that it is no coincidence that what is happening in the 2020s resembles the situation 200 years ago:

The elites don’t want ordinary people involved in politics and they never have… the only difference is that now — understanding human psychology better than they did then — social engineers realise it is more expedient to have people voluntarily exclude themselves from politics, rather than introducing diktats that exclude them by force.
Any armchair psychologist knows the alluring promise of the “forbidden fruit”…Hence the birth of the universal suffrage movement, which campaigned for voting restrictions based on wealth and class (and gender) to be lifted, and the [right to] vote available to all.
The establishment resisted this at first, but eventually granted it, realising that once voting had lost its “forbidden fruit” credentials, it would be easier to put “undesirables” off doing it, by convincing them… [via] the “manufacture of consent” [that it was pointless to vote]…

And argues that:

If you don’t vote… you’re doing exactly what the establishment wants you to do [emphasis added], which is precisely why not voting is the majority position... Just as it [was 200 years ago]

She challenges people:

If you don’t vote, you must ask yourself: if voting is such a fraudulent farce, why did the establishment go to such lengths for so long to stop so many people from doing it? If it’s “all rigged anyway”, why would it have mattered?

And contends that:

Voting does matter, and, as such, they want to put as many people as possible off doing it — and they’ve realised that allowing people to vote but sowing the belief [that] there’s no point, it’s all rigged, etc., results in a lower overall turnout than prohibiting people by force.

(I wonder to what extent the perennial appearance of “anti-establishment” Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates such as Screaming Lord Sutch and Lord Buckethead has contributed to the above.)

Okay... but there’s nobody I want to vote for…

Finch recognises that there is often little choice but to vote for one of the mainstream political parties. And if that is the case, she advocates spoiling the ballot paper which — she argues — is one somewhat effective way to show dissatisfaction.

Her take is that not voting might send the message that you’re happy enough with how things are, or that you’re too disengaged to make the effort to vote, or that you endorse the leading candidate by default (or a combination thereof). But by submitting a vote (of sorts) with no candidate selected, and perhaps writing on the ballot paper your reason for doing so, you make a significant statement.

She points out that the numbers of blank votes and spoiled ballots are read out at the count, along with the results. They are also included in subsequent reports. And so your dissatisfaction towards the political parties on offer will be registered. And if suddenly there are large numbers of blank votes/spoiled ballots at election time, the major political parties might start to think more about what they need to do to reconnect with voters.

Finch quotes Jonathan Tilt (cf. earlier) who said, after achieving 8.5% of the vote as an independent, that:

“There really is no such thing as not voting. If you don’t vote you are by default voting for the winning candidate and in this case that means facilitating [whatever they implement]”

She points out that:

Given that voting is anonymous and doesn’t bear any information that could identify you (any ballot papers that contain this information are disqualified and not counted), you are not contracting with the government by voting, nor are you consenting to anything. Whether you vote for a candidate or spoil your paper with a message, you are simply ensuring that your beliefs are communicated accurately, and that you are not voting by default for the establishment candidate.

And that:

We can change the system by actively challenging it rather than passively receiving it, and if we don’t, then [in the words of the title of her article]: if we don’t play, we’ll get played [emphasis added]. That’s the choice.

She contends that:

If our side [the anti-establishment] stood candidates and voted in every election we’re eligible to participate in, we’d win most of them, and the face of the country would change completely. Voting and standing may not be “it”, the answer and the meaning to it all, but these tools are definitely significant and we urgently need to reconsider how we, as the anti-establishment minority, responds to the electoral process…

And challenges people:

Please ask yourself: are you really “stickin’ it to the man” and being a subversive anti-establishment rebel by not voting and repeating the same tired old soundbites about it?
Or are you actually playing right into their hands, not only by allowing establishment candidates to get in again and again, but by keeping voter turnout so low [that it risks] giving the establishment the justification it needs to scrap democracy entirely and replace it with explicit authoritarian tyranny. "Voters have made it clear they're not interested in democracy, so from now on, we'll just tell everyone what to do."

She points out that:

Plenty of countries don’t have democratic governments and these are not places anyone reading this would like to live (e.g. Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea). The more voter turnouts plummet at elections, the more we are risking a dramatic and ultra-repressive regression, giving the ruling classes ammunition to scrap our current system and replace it with something much worse — ultimately leading to a fully authoritarian One World Government over which we have no influence or control…

And finally that:

The quote “if voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it” has been attributed to Mark Twain. But please bear in mind [that he] also said, “whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect”... [emphasis added]

Brief thoughts on the forthcoming UK General Election

While the current electoral system has its downsides, we are — for now at least — stuck with it. And while it might be argued that the best way forward is not to participate at all, I find it hard to see how that is likely to help. Not least given that an increasing number of people have been taking that approach over the past few decades, and things have got worse not better.

For what it is worth, my own current thinking on the forthcoming UK General Election is that a strong case can be made for:

Voting for a candidate other than the incumbent MP (if applicable) unless there is a really good reason not to, e.g. the incumbent has a strong track record of pushing back against multiple elements of the globalist agenda — digital ID/programmable CBDCs,1 Net Zero, covid policies, war in Ukraine and the Middle East, the sexualisation of children etc.
Voting for candidates from parties pushing back against the globalist agenda — I would not include the Greens in that category, and I would be wary of Reform [Update: I share many of the sentiments expressed here]
Voting for independent candidates, and especially those pushing back against the globalist agenda, because irrespective of how many independents actually get elected, a substantial increase in the independent vote would send a signal of dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties, and embolden more people to stand as and to vote for independent candidates in the future
Voting for uni-party candidates only if there is no good alternative and the seat is sufficiently marginal that a change of MP is reasonably likely
As a last resort, spoiling the ballot paper in the absence of any candidate pushing back against the globalist agenda (for reasons discussed earlier)