Elections

[Kathyan]

Does anyone think that we should have compulsory voting?

[Zeuhl]

Only if we could enforce compulsory motivation, compulsory interest, compulsory thinking, compulsory consideration of all the candidates, compulsory weighing up of all the options.

Otherwise it would mean our governance was decided by the random selection of lots of people who don't give a sh1t.

On the other hand, there should also be a minimum turnout below which the result is void.

[d9f1c7]

No, rediculous notion. Democracy means choice, forced voting is not choice.

[ummmm]

No, absolutely not. You'd just have a rake of people ticking a box, any box. They'd be voting for people with the nicest name.

[andrew1707]

Like it or not, we live in a free country and that includes the freedom to not vote if you so choose.

[AB Editor]

Also, not voting can sometimes be a valid choice - for example, if you cannot get behind a particular party or local MP. While most of us can make a "least evil" choice, some cannot bring themselves to do it. Compulsory voting would deny those who believe there is no valid candidate the right to express that view.

[Kathyan]

"On the other hand, there should also be a minimum turnout below which the result is void."
I think they would have to set the bar very low on that one!

[d9f1c7]

Those that don't vote, clearly don't give a sh1t as zeuhl says so I'd rather have the governement decided by those that at least "give a sh1t" enough to vote. There should be no minimum turnout though.

If people don't vote then their opinion is seriously downgraded in relevance, in my view anyway.

Many don't vote because they say they don'lt agree with any of the candidates, well welcome to reality, no one totally agrees with any of the candidates it's a question of getting as closer fit as possible to your core beliefs.

If you demand 100% agreement then you are too stupid to even have the vote but that's another story!

[Kathyan]

Ab Editor, maybe we should have a 'none of the above' box?

[d9f1c7]

we have one kathyan, it's called not voting.

[mike11111]

The Ed is wrong - you can always cast a spoilt or blank ballot. Having said that, people fought for the right to vote and that is exactly what it is, a right, not an obligation.

[Zeuhl]

d9

Re minimum turnout

I agree that if people don't vote they shouldn't complain about the consequences.

My unease comes from situations like some of yesterday's LG elections.

Large budgets are now in the hands of people with a mandate that is ludicrously small e.g. 32% of a small minority turnout. That seems inappropriate. Especially if they have replace incumbents who had been voted in with a more significant endorsement.

[anotheoldgit]

I believe the reason some do not bother to vote these days is because of today's lifestyles, one section are busy, busy, both working while trying to incorporate all that entails into a normal family life, then of course there is the other section who cannot be bothered to lift their butts off their settees.

The answer could be changing the day from Thursday to a choice of days.

Providing polling booths in supermarkets.

On-Line voting, one can fill in one's censor form on-line, so why not vote on line?

[Vicasso]

Following a low turnout at an election around 1999/2000, I recollect John Prescott describing it as 'the politics of contentment'...ho ho ho!

[MarkRae]

There's only one thing wrong with our brand of parliamentary democracy - and that is that it isn't a perfect system. However, I don't know of a better one...

[Zeuhl]

L O L

Not the politics of complacency then?

Ed Balls (he who should have a His n Hers cell in Wormwood Scrubs)
said on the radio this morning that people were 'starting to trust Labour again'

(Good Grief)

[Nibble]

Unfortunately, even with low polling nothing happens, i.e The lowest turnout in peacetime since 1918 was 19.9% at the Leeds Central by-election, 1999. Apathy party lost again - NO turnout

[FredPuli43]

An Australian told me that, in practice,almost everybody votes though the fine for not doing so is small. My informant didn't say how many turned up but spoiled their ballot papers or the equivalent, or put 'none of the above'.

No, if the apathetic don't vote, presumably they don't care enough to be concerned much either way, perhaps thinking 'they're all the same, those politicians'. That's likely to be the problem. Years ago, Labour and the Tories were far apart. Since Blair was first elected PM that distance has shrunk to almost nothing.

[d9f1c7]

Ok zeuhl but are you saying then if the turnout doesn't reach the minimum then the the incumbants remain regardless of the outcome? We rerun it, just that town? what if the overall turnout in the country is below the threshold? It needs some refinement.

[Vicasso]

To wander slightly off topic, I did find some of the party political broadcasts woeful. In particular, Lord Robert Winston's spent his five minutes of fame banging on about the threats to the NHS! What has that got to do with how my local authority (Sheffield) provides, or to be accurate, fails to provide local services? There are potholes round here that you could hide a dog in.