Actually it’s an interesting question. Elections are an opportunity for the people to speak. There could be no greater exercising of this right than a mass refusal; that would be the purest form of speech there could be, a universal and democratic decision to opt-out. You can bet your bottom dollar though that such an expression would be null and void under some obscure legislation, undoing such a liberated choice and no doubt forcing a vote, no less then than an undemocratic insistence to adhere to ‘a democratic right’.
This ^ although from a previous post it seems what would happen next would be up to Her Maj, or Lizzy as I like to think of the dear old bag.
But just imagine if nobody voted at all. Could someone please disprove the following theory:
"All politicians are self-serving career people who will tell voters what they think voters want to hear when they're not in power. And then change their minds depending on what they think will serve them best when they are in power."
This ^ although from a previous post it seems what would happen next would be up to Her Maj, or Lizzy as I like to think of the dear old bag.
But just imagine if nobody voted at all. Could someone please disprove the following theory:
"All politicians are self-serving career people who will tell voters what they think voters want to hear when they're not in power. And then change their minds depending on what they think will serve them best when they are in power."