Votes & Laziness

[tell-me-more]

What's worse; not voting, or voting for someone whose views don't represent your own?

[tell-me-more]

There are people who don't vote simply out of apathy, but I think there are plenty who don't vote out of disillusionment with the electoral system. If they're willing to engage with that issue, but not willing to vote under the current system I'd argue that was less lazy than those who are willing to vote under the current system, accept that it will only enable them to vote to keep out Dumbest, and then are not willing to engage with the bigger issue of the nature of the electoral system that's used. It's much easier to vote than to try and find a fair voting system and get it adopted.

[johnny7]

Ludwig, I understand what you are trying to say but my point was that voters should vote for the parties they actually support and not the parties they find the best out of a bad bunch. In the event that a voter's party is out of the running, then they should not vote at all. Think about all the people who are voting because they want to see THEIR party win, how angry do you think they would feel if people started voting for a party that was their second choice? Pretty disgusting if that's the case.

[rickycbr]

This guy had the best idea






Guy Fawkes

Born April 13, 1570 (1570-04-13)
York, Yorkshire, England
Died January 31, 1606 (1606-02-01) (aged 35)
Westminster, England
Charge(s) Conspiracy to assassinate King James I & VI and members of the Houses of Parliament
Penalty Hanged, drawn and quartered
Status Ensign
Occupation Soldier
Parents Edward Fawkes, Edith Blake

[johnny7]

Yeah ricky, that sounds like really good fun, getting cut into 4 pieces. That would be a right laugh!

[rickycbr]

He was unlucky

[johnny7]

So you think if someone tried it today, they would be more successful?

[rickycbr]

They check more often nowadays

[tell-me-more]

If you spoil your ballot paper or return a blank ballot paper (which strikes me as being a bit risky given that Brown seems to be morphing into Mugabe) I understand that this is counted and the proportion of the vote attributed to each party is reduced accordingly. It's a kind of vote for non of the above. It won't stop the above from becoming elected, but registers your disapproval rather than registering approval for one party as a means of ensuring another doesn't get in.

If there were 12,000 votes for Red, 9,000 for Blue, 6,000 for Yellow and 3,000 for Green but 70,000 people returned spoilt or blank ballot papers instead of staying at home, then instead of seeing percentages of 40, 30, 20 and 10 (which make the dominant parties seem reasonably well supported), we'd see figures of 3, 6, 9, and 12%.

Shouldn't those figures be reported anyway? Even the 35% that the winners seem to get seems pretty poor to me, but if the turnout's only two-thirds of the people who could have voted, we should be reporting the figure of 23% ish shouldn't we?

Imagine the turnout is really low - say less than 40% - but the Blue party romps home with 60% of the votes cast. Should we really have to listen to them bleating on about how brilliant a result that is, or should we be reminded that 60% of 40% means that that party would have got less than a quarter of the potential vote? That's the figure I'm interested in.

[johnny7]

If people decide not to vote then they should also be included in the actual voting figures anyway as this would give parties a reasonable figure as to how many of the UK's voting public have decided not to and they can do more to find out why and encourage them to do so in the next election.

[tell-me-more]

Interesting discussion, thanks for contributing. Even the Guy Fawkes stuff gave me some light relief (even if you did mean it).

I was wrong about the spoilt/blank ballot papers; they're ignored.

I thought the comment that "Actions other than voting seem highly unlikely to change the system" was particularly interesting.

Do we agree with the idea that figures (particularly percentages) should be given that take into account the number of people that didn't vote who could have done?

How about the idea of having that alongside an option to express disapproval of all candidates (i.e. a none of the above option)

e.g. the results might be reported as:

50,000 Approve Red (25%)
30,000 Approve Blue (15%)
15,000 Approve Yellow (7.5%)
5,000 Approve Green (2.5%)
25,000 Disapprove of all candidates (12.5%)
75,000 Did not vote (37.5%)
_______
200,000

Otherwise you get 50% Red, 30% Blue, 15% Yellow, 5% Green as the headline figures, then they're quickly forgotten about and Red win every seat and you could be forgiven for thinking everyone wanted them in power, which might influence you not to bother voting the next time.

[tell-me-more]

Interesting discussion, thanks for contributing. Even the Guy Fawkes stuff gave me some light relief (even if you did mean it).

I was wrong about the spoilt/blank ballot papers; they're ignored.

[tell-me-more]

"Actions WOULD change the system if the public took action"

but what actions? Not voting? Voting for a party no-one wants? Signing a petition?

What change is the most important? Who would need to act to bring it about? What actions might work?

[tell-me-more]

I'm not a fan of compulsory voting nor voting by post.

I'm not sold on PR either, although I do accept that having these safe seats is not great.

How about a different type of PR with fewer constituencies where MPs votes in the commons are weighted by the number of people that voted for them. Any party that did not get a seat would have an extra seat allocated to them (without having a constituency) and would get a number of votes equal to the number of people who voted for the party. The votes for parties who did win a seat that were cast in areas where they didn't win could also be allocated amongst the MPs that won a seat, so that each MP would have a number of votes in some proportion to the number of people who voted for them and their party, and each party would have exactly the number of votes that were cast for that party in the election.

Seems quite fair to me, and it means that each area would still have a constituency MP, even if they were a bit larger. One for a whole city perhaps, rather than two.

[Pigletion]

At all Uni elections, there was always a Re-open nominations box. This meant, I don't accept any candidates (or their policies).

I don't understand why there isn't a similar thing, so people can at least object. I'm always a bit suspicious about what they do with spolied ballot papers, yet this is the only way to show that what we have been offered is unacceptable.

The recent elections were bad as people either stayed at home as they didn't want to put their name to anyone or voted for someone to keep the BNP/Labour/UKIP etc. etc. out. Having to vote for the lesser evil is not exactly the kind of democracy most people wish to live in. I definitely think recently it is less apathy and more disillusionment.

[tell-me-more]

I'm not in favour of compulsory voting for several reasons.

I think it goes against the principle that a democratic system ought to serve the people, rather than the other way round. If I feel that between three candidates there's so little difference that I'm happy for others to choose which one governs me, I ought to be able to get on with my life without interruption.

How many elections would people be compelled to vote in?

I also would prefer the decision to be made by people who care about the issues enough to actively seek to decide what happens, rather than a bunch of people who don't care and could easily be mobilised (once already compelled to vote) to support policies and parties they know nothing about without a care for the consequences.