Compulsory Voting?
- Thread starter J@ffa
- Start date
skunkboy69
Reverend of Eternal Light
In this democratic country (apparently) I'll vote for who I want IF I want.Isn't that what democracy is all about?Or is this a fake democracy like Iraq's?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Pain me tho it does to say it, I can see Alderbaran's point about how not voting in a country with voting rights is a slap in the face to those who suffer under non-voting regimes, and arguably something of a 'spolit child' option in light of the work of previous generations to attain universal suffrage, the point is that regardless of whether it's my responsibility/moral duty to vote I can choose not to do so if, as in Dub's case, none of the choices represent me or what I think.
As for the spolied ballot paper counting thing...psephologists are the only people who really look at this stuff and they are generally concered more with the behaviour of swing voters since outside of universities they are inevitably employed by political parties/lobby groups. And the assertion that the politicos are more concerned with turnout than spoiled papers is supportd by the electoral commission policy and message that concentrates on 'getting out the vote', rather than saying 'Hey, even if you spoil your ballot paper the govt will still take notice'.
Which they don't. Party policy is increasingly focussed on the 30% of the voting population who are likely to swing in key constituencies.
Couple that with the general sense that not only is there very little to choose between the 3 main national parties, a left that has become factionalised and utterly divorced from it's roots (Respect for example - socialists and religionists on the same cart?) and small parties that preach extremes...why should I vote.
As for the spolied ballot paper counting thing...psephologists are the only people who really look at this stuff and they are generally concered more with the behaviour of swing voters since outside of universities they are inevitably employed by political parties/lobby groups. And the assertion that the politicos are more concerned with turnout than spoiled papers is supportd by the electoral commission policy and message that concentrates on 'getting out the vote', rather than saying 'Hey, even if you spoil your ballot paper the govt will still take notice'.
Which they don't. Party policy is increasingly focussed on the 30% of the voting population who are likely to swing in key constituencies.
Couple that with the general sense that not only is there very little to choose between the 3 main national parties, a left that has become factionalised and utterly divorced from it's roots (Respect for example - socialists and religionists on the same cart?) and small parties that preach extremes...why should I vote.
Global_Stoner said:
In every country civil rights come along with civil duties.
I would say that if you want to live in a democracy worht the name, the first of all the civil duties of citizens should be to elect their government. Not only as a duty to themselves and the state they are citizens of, but as a collectively shared duty to ensure all the citizens that democratic priciples are applied and function as they should.
Do you call every civil duty you have to comply with as non-democratic?
And how do you see them change that by not using their right to vote to express their disagreement with the situation?
salaam.
aldebaran, you have an immense inability to listen to a word anyone's saying, don't you?
you CAN'T always vote to express disagreement if you disagree with everybody.
slowly and carefully read kyser's post.
then have a think.
you CAN'T always vote to express disagreement if you disagree with everybody.
slowly and carefully read kyser's post.
then have a think.
Dubversion said:
No, but sometimes I have difficulties in reading. (First of all I am severely dyselcix, secondly I have no clue about this language.) Yet so far you said nothing that can convince me.
Yes you can, like I explained. Who convinced you that silence is the way to be heard?
Since in that post he actually uses a normal tone, I read it.
Nothing argues against what I said about countries outside yours, who do have compulsory vote and who do take every blank or spoilt ballot as a clear protest vote.
You only demonstrate your assessment about how your system works up to now.
Why don't you start thinking about what could (and most certainly would) change if voting became compulsory.
salaam.
Aldebaran said:
i'm didn't know about the dyslexic - it certainly doesn't show - and if it's any consolation your english is pretty bloody good
Aldebaran said:
nobody. That's an insane analogy.
Aldebaran said:
that wasn't what we were discussing - you initially criticised me and others for not voting in elections, and i've tried to explain why. In a system where compulsory voting was in place, a different approach may indeed be called for.
that is NOT the same thing
Dubversion said:
Actually, both largely depends on the moment I choose to read and/or write (and for how long I do it, among others).
Why? I you don't vote, even for only casting a protest vote, your voice isn't heard. That is what I meant. You silence yourself.
True. Yet the result is the same. If everyone would vote you should have seen the difference long ago.
The argument is that it *should* be if every citizen took his responsibility serious and would vote.
salaam
Dubversion said:
And you have failed. Specifically, you have failed to explain why you did not simply write in "Karl Marx" or whoever on the ballot. Your attempt at an explanation--that you were unaware that spoiled ballots were counted--simply shows that you do not care enough to find out the basic rules of British democracy. But then why should you care? It is not your country that Tony Blair is bombing to fuck, is it?
Uuuummmm! .... Asterisks .... bizarre logic applied in argument ... and a fan of phildwyer's as well ....Aldebaran said:
As Harry Hill might say: "What are the chances of that happening?!!"
It couldn't be some cunning phildwyer field trial could it?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
A democracy worth it's salt wouldn't have the kind of national 'government' that only gives it's people one a chance to have their say once every four years at both local and national level. A democracy worth it's salt would have a government that listened when 1 million of it's people and over half the population didn't support invading another country - or have the choice between, as dub says, one bunch of warmongering bastards, another bunch of warmongering bastards and an underdog party of warmongering bastards.
Phil - you insistence that anyone outside of psephologists studied spolied papers shows what you accuse Dub of - ignorance of how the UK electoral system works. As I said, outside of academics and specialists, the key statistic that is focussed on is turnout, not spoiled papers (indeed, a quick Google Scholar search 'UK psephology' reveals that even in academia the core discussions are about voter turnout and the legitimacy problems it causes)
kyser_soze said:
Life evolves. That may be now, but things change.
What if the next election drew a vastly bigger turnout, let's say 90%, and over half of those voting spoiled their ballot papers.
Everyone would still be focussing on turnout, and avoiding spoiled papers? Or would this massive change in voting patterns be ignored?
[if you want a precedence, study what happened in thailand last month. The culmination was prime minister leaving his office exceedingly reluctantly, even though he won most of the popular vote. A highly successful campaign, organised at very short notice led to a huge number of votes saying none of the above or spoiled papers (with some colourful words aimed at the prime minister...)]
kyser_soze said:
But what do you think would be the reaction if, say, 30% spoiled their ballot papers? Would that not raise far more "legitimacy problems" than the current situation where 30% simply do not vote? Anyway, my real objection to Dubversion's approach was that he had simply not bothered to think about the matter--indeed he was under the impression that spoiled ballots were simply discarded.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fela - the UK doesn't have a NOTA option, and it's never helpful to compare electoral systems since Thailand has a different politica culture to the UK.
PD - it would still be looked at in the same way as low turnout, and the arguments would be the same - a spoiled paper can (and would be seen as) exactly the same in terms of meaning to politicians - it's simply another protest vote.
Unfortunaly, because spolied papers are not counted as votes against the government in the UK there is no difference in the legitimacy issue - spoil paper/don't vote it's the same (otherwise the serious issue with voter turnout wouldn't be one that excises parliament in this country - it's not just about the rhetoric, there is an deep concern at Westminster about this issue)
So I say again - the not voting issue (at least in the UK) is one of moral choice.
PD - it would still be looked at in the same way as low turnout, and the arguments would be the same - a spoiled paper can (and would be seen as) exactly the same in terms of meaning to politicians - it's simply another protest vote.
Unfortunaly, because spolied papers are not counted as votes against the government in the UK there is no difference in the legitimacy issue - spoil paper/don't vote it's the same (otherwise the serious issue with voter turnout wouldn't be one that excises parliament in this country - it's not just about the rhetoric, there is an deep concern at Westminster about this issue)
So I say again - the not voting issue (at least in the UK) is one of moral choice.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
TBH the issue goes far beyond this - even if 30% of people spolied their papers despite the outcry in the press that would follow, most people in the UK have so little fucking idea of what it would actually mean that they wouldn't care...
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Brainaddict said:That sounds like a great thing to happen though. It's about time we had a crisis of legitimacy in this country
I've never liked the idea of compulsory voting but if it revealed how pissed off people really are with politics that wouldn't be a bad outcome.
what he said, basically.
kyser_soze said:
That would be funny since most people in the UK would have already spoiled their ballot papers. So how they would not know what it meant...
The voting system in thailand is remarkable similar to the UK, they're both democracies.
Thai people managed to get themselves informed as to what a spoiled paper or none of the above meant, and all in two weeks. They'd never done this before. They did it remarkably quickly, thanks to sms texts on mobiles.
I think the british people have more brains than you're crediting them with.
it's bollocks, why is it the responsibility of people to turn up at the polling station to prove what we already know, that none of the cunts are worth voting for cos they are all the fucking same
criminalising people for refusing to turn up on the day they choose to make you turn up to tell them that is a load of shite
criminalising people for refusing to turn up on the day they choose to make you turn up to tell them that is a load of shite
Similar threads
