Talk:Abstentionism

message: A quick Google search suggests that the word 'abstentionism', with the meaning given here, has only ever been used in Ireland.  Elsewhere, as far as I can see, it means abstaining from voting, or voting 'none of the above'.
Perhaps, instead of trying to give a worldwide view, the article should begin with a statement along the lines of "Abstentionism is a political strategy used in Ireland..."
Scolaire 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A worldwide view?

message: If you can identify examples of candidates running for election and stating beforehand that they would not take their seats, then this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I would argue that there is a difference in taking one's seat, then boycotting it for some reason or other (like the SDLP and Stormont), and indicating from the before the election that one would not attend the parliament in question (SF in 1918/1919). 
(Please don't see this as "stalking", as I've contributed to this page as early as 2 August 2006 and its on my watchlist).--Damac (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (I've moved this point to its own section.)  I agree there is a distinction between abstentionism and walking out of parliament in protest.  Different again is the resign-and-restand principle as with the 1986 Unionists. Most walkouts have been short-term tactics, but there may be cases where what began as a walkout later solidified into an abstentionist strategy.  I don't know how much should be discussed in this article and what needs discussion elsewhere, perhaps even in a new article. jnestorius(talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstentionism vs walkout

message: The article is rather confusing. It says in the Sinn Féin section
:In 1986 Sinn Féin split over the same issue as in 1970. The larger group led by Gerry Adams abandoned abstentionism, while Republican Sinn Féin (RSF), led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh retained it. Sinn Féin's first sitting Teachta Dála was Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin in Cavan–Monaghan in 1997. 
So I thought Sinn Féin had abandoned abstentionism completely and were now participating in the Westminister parliament. But re-reading it again today, later it says: 
:SDLP MPs have consistently taken their seats in the Westminster parliament, in contrast to Sinn Féin MPs who refuse to take their seats there, as they refuse to recognise that body's right to legislate for any part of Ireland. 
So I guess they're not. So what did they abandon and why did they split. Was this over "adopted non-abstentionist policies for elections to local authorities (next held in 1985) and to the European Parliament" that's mentioned earlier or something else? Either way, the article is rather confusing. 
Also, while included as a see also, it may be helpful to further discuss the Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) issue. While partially a seperate issue, as I understand it this is also preventing them from participating in the Westminster parliament as they refuse to swear the oath. 
Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recast the 1986 sentence. The oath isn't really relevant, but I agree that it should be mentioned somewhere since many people incorrectly think it is. jnestorius(talk) 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing - Sinn Féin 

message: Has anyone ever published on the outcomes of the policy? Obviously abstentionism in Northern Ireland contrasted 100% with the involvement of former unionists in the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, not all of whom were Protestant Nationalists. In contrast, when the Northern Irish parliament voted to exclude itself from the IFS in December 1922, no nationalist MP spoke out against it because they were all abstaining.86.42.197.226 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects of abstentionism

message: Understanding the historical context of the opening paragraph being 19th century then shouldn't the opening paragraph say "Great Britain and Ireland" rather than "the United Kingdom and Ireland" as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom in the 1800's. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: It's clear that most of the parties in the 1800s that had abstentionist policies also didn't have any MPs elected who could then abstain. So that's all a lot of hot air. Then the First Dáil wasn't abstentionist because it was doing its own thing.78.19.208.109 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual abstention from 1900 

message: Perhaps I just missed it buried in the text, but I don't see any explanation of why people would want to refuse to sit on a deliberative body. What does it actually accomplish? Does it deny a quorum? Is it a mere form of protest?  It seems somewhat counterintuitive, and some explanation of what they hoped to accomplish or demonstrate by doing so would be very helpful, because it still makes no sense to me. So you have a grievance, and you address it by getting your man elected to the ruling assembly...and then refusing to attend or otherwise represent you in that body? Seems like the Southern States in the US tried something along those lines in 1861, and it worked out poorly in the end, because their opponents who remained simply used their absence to pass numerous bills contrary to their interest without them.
I suppose if one doesn't have the votes to win a vote anyway anyway, abstaining allows you to boycott and therefore deny the legitimacy of whatever is passed contrary to your interests, because you refused to participate in the voting process. That seems to be the only way this makes any logical sense, besides as a symbolic gesture or act of protest.
64.222.90.118 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are they trying to accomplish?