With 35% of people not bothering to vote in the 2010 elections, and 60% of people not that interested in European Parliament elections later this month, and voter apathy at an all time high in the UK is it time for compulsory voting ? If we did have compulsory voting what would happen if those people that at present don't bother voting spoiled the ballot papers because they wanted none of the above ? If enough people voted for none of the above would the politicians need to come up with a new way of doing things. If 60% of the people don't vote in the European Parliament elections doesn't that mean the majority don't want the present system.
I have a different question: If I bother to vote will you put the percentage symbol in the correct place i.e. AFTER the number?
Absence of evidence isn't evidence. There are a lot of reasons for not voting, which disproves your argument in a single stroke. And, for what it's worth, I'd be very surprised if even the majority of people not voting are doing it to signal their opposition to the democratic system. I suspect apathy/disinterest covers the vast majority, supplemented by those unable to make it to the polling station.
This. I think that a large portion of younger people simply don't care, or don't care in an intelligent enough manner to do something about it.
People are more likely to vote if they think the election will affect them more. Hence parliamentary elections get a higher turnout than local elections. I think in general people either have no idea what the european parliament does or think it doesn't really matter and hence are less likely to vote. What that mean in the UK is that Ukip will come top or near top because their voters areworked up about europe and they will then declare that they have changed everything and can now take Britian out of the EU by...er....getting Ed Milliband into No 10.
True, absence of evidence isn't evidence. That's why i asked if it's time for compulsory voting, that way we would know if people are not voting because they CBA, or if they don't believe in the current system. I'm not using the term system to describe the democratic system BTW, but the current political parties and/or politicians. EDIT: err sorry for double post.
Gosh darn it I can't get anything right today EDIT: And that's what got me wondering, either people don't bother voting because they think the outcome wont effect them, or maybe a very small percentage can't get to a polling station from 7am to 10pm It seems UKIP are seeing a rise in the polls because people, rightly or wrongly believe they are not the same as the rest of the suits, are not talking the same tired rhetoric we hear from most politicians. Is it possible the fringe parties like UKIP become popular because people think the current crop of politicians/parties are so similar that it doesn't matter who they vote for, so they vote for something that is different. What would happen if there were more spoiled votes than any single party votes ? My guess is things would carry on as normal, there is no way for the public to show their dissatisfaction with the current system other than voting for parties that challenge the status quo.
If you have compulory voting, what would be your sanction? Fines, prision? Criminal Record? I susupect compulsory voting would be good news for fringe parties and joke candidates, as people who couldn't be bother to vote would pick the biggest idiot they can find or whover they're seen on TV (assuming that is different). I'm not sure this is a good thing.
I have the opinion that voting in the EU is pointless for most parties, as so few recognise that the EU parliament having an internally elected commissioner via a SECRET ballot is wrong. The only party that seems to object is UKIP, and I'm not going to vote for UKIP. I'm not one for voting for second best because there is no other option. I imagine many who won't vote recognise that MEPs can do barely anything, when so many MEPs from other countries are blatantly corrupted and in the pockets of each other. It's a waste of time. When a vote comes near that shows something close to changing the EU for the better, my interest will pique. At this point in time, that's no way near happening. Greece collapsing was the closest event to making that happen, but hey that was swept under the rug as usual. Compulsory voting is downright idiotic. Some people don't care and that's their choice - you can't punish them for not caring about politics. It's not a personal responsibility that everyone should have.
Of course some people do assume that people that don't vote would vote for a progressive socialist utopia if they were not so opressed that they can't be bothered.
But what does that achieve? If we do discover that people aren't voting because they don't believe in the current system, then what are supposed to do? It's fairly clear that democracies aren't perfect, but I don't think there's a better solution around the corner. Are we meant to suddenly start scrabbling for PR or STV (again) and put it to referendum (again)? Even if you subscribe to the view that politics never changes because it's just the big parties lying and going round in circles, then you have to concede that UKIP seem to be doing extremely well for a very young party. And, once upon a time, Labour were that party. There is something to be said, even now, for founding a political party if you don't believe in the current system. It's not impossible to succeed. Furthermore, if 60% of the electorate are apathetic, that suggests that they've paid very little attention to the current state of politics. Would you want to force them to vote, when they've got no interest in what they're voting for or why they're voting? That's a massive group of people who may well be plumping for the candidate with the most amusing name. For an example of what I mean, consider the "Barraco Barner" episode - would it be a good thing for people with that sort of knowledge of current affairs to be forced into putting a tick by a box? Even if we did have a "CBA" box and a "None of the above" box, there's nothing to say that those people would actually tick the applicable one, as opposed to voting for the first name on the ballot.
If voting is compulsory, how will you determine if people are casting votes because they believe in the democratic system, or if they are simply casting a vote because it's mandatory. In other words, is mandatory (but uninformed and uninterested) voting necessarily better than a system in which people are allowed to exercise their right not to vote for whatever reason?
Well they have it in Australia, Argentina, and Brazil to name a few. In Australia they fine people $26 for not voting, not that there is any way to know if someone didn't tick any candidate and just put a blank ballot paper in the box. But at least they get a true representation of what people support or dislike. No one would punish them for not caring, they would be punished for not saying they don't care. It gives a better representation of what percentage of the population are either happy with the way things are, or are not happy. If there was more spoiled votes than any others it would be down to the politicians to come up with a better system, as i said I'm not using the term system to describe democracy but in the terms of they way politics works. For them to come up with new ways to do things, maybe giving voters a greater say in what their policy's should be, a greater say in the way things are run.
They also hold their elections on a Saturday when a large portion of the pop aren't at work. Thursdays are the traditional day for such things here and having to find time before or after work to go and vote is also part of the problem [imo]... Last round of [gneral] elections I didn't vote... There wasn't much point... Where I live is full of enough labour die-hards that they could stick a cardboard cut-out of Hitler up for election and they'd still vote for it and it would get elected... And the alternatives are/were a bunch of neo-nazis [BNP/UKIP Candidates], A communist who had a raging hardon for Vladamir Putin, and the LibDem and Conservative candidates who were so seldom seen everyone assumed they were figments of someone's imagination... I was also some 200-ish miles away from where the ballot box was [I was at uni] at the time which didn't help... Tbh if the MRLP put up a candidate locally i'd vote for them... They're considerably less mad than what we have currently...
We have a similar system, but some states have laws requiring employers to allow paid leave for voting. Many states have no such law, and those that do vary in scope.
And when there is no better candidate because they are all so similar ? Isn't that when people start voting for extremists, idiots, far left, far right, flying pigs, fairy's, or Santa clause ? If you are working 13-14 hour days you have my sympathy, but there are still postal votes and voting by proxy. But why is there not much point ? Is it as i expect that you and others think the current political parties are to similar, or that they are bent as a nine bob note. If people don't bother voting because there is no chance of getting rid of the incumbent party wouldn't compulsory voting make it more likely to change that.
