Turnout at Elections

[fowler9]

Surely you could apply the same definition to some bankers

The way the country is run politically is not decided by how footballers perform.

 

[Butts]

The way the country is run politically is not decided by how footballers perform.

Or in theory by how the majority of bankers perform

 

[Morgsie]

The TV debates is worth a mention in this thread, the USA had them way before 2010. But will they make a difference in relation to turnout?

 

[Butts]

The TV debates is worth a mention in this thread, the USA had them way before 2010. But will they make a difference in relation to turnout?

Most people are apathetic and get the Government they deserve

 

[Morgsie]

Most people are apathetic and get the Government they deserve

Or people don't bother because they know the outcome for example the 2001 election

 

[yorksrob]

The TV debates is worth a mention in this thread, the USA had them way before 2010. But will they make a difference in relation to turnout?

Well we had them for the first time at the last general election and turnout was a lot higher.

How much of that was down to fatigue with a long running Government and alarm at the financial crisis is difficult to tell.

 

[Butts]

Or people don't bother because they know the outcome for example the 2001 election

How can they know the outcome before the ballot - was it a "North Korea"job

 

[TEW]

Well we had them for the first time at the last general election and turnout was a lot higher.

The turnout wasn't significantly higher. I've just looked on Wikipedia so the figures may be wrong but 2010 had 65.1% turnout. Better than 2001 and 2005 with 59.4 and 61.4 respectively. Before 2001 though turnout hadn't been below 70% since 1918.

 

[fowler9]

Or in theory by how the majority of bankers perform

In theory, ha ha. How the bankers performed has in fact had a dramatic impact on the political landscape.:cry:

 

[SS4]

Most people are apathetic and get the Government they deserve

No, we get the government we're told to have which is run in the interests of giant corporations and the mega rich without giving two pence about the people. Tories and Labour are two sides of the same coin and nobody else has a cat in hell's chance of getting a majority.

 

[Butts]

The turnout wasn't significantly higher. I've just looked on Wikipedia so the figures may be wrong but 2010 had 65.1% turnout. Better than 2001 and 2005 with 59.4 and 61.4 respectively. Before 2001 though turnout hadn't been below 70% since 1918.

Strange how the almost mass start of the "internet age" coincides with a drop in the turnout
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, we get the government we're told to have which is run in the interests of giant corporations and the mega rich without giving two pence about the people. Tories and Labour are two sides of the same coin and nobody else has a cat in hell's chance of getting a majority.

Next you'll be saying everything is agreed at "Davos" and a "Bondesque" type villain is operating the levers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In theory, ha ha. How the bankers performed has in fact had a dramatic impact on the political landscape.:cry:

Some

 

[fowler9]

Strange how the almost mass start of the "internet age" coincides with a drop in the turnout
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Next you'll be saying everything is agreed at "Davos" and a "Bondesque" type villain is operating the levers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Some

As opposed to no footballers having an impact on it.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Well the next election will be the first that I'll vote in (I'll be 20 by then), and I shall probably be voting Labour, on the basis that they are the least worst option. Would vote Lib Dems if they hadn't caved in about tuition fees, as my views are generally closer to LD than Labour.

I steadfast refuse to vote for the Tories or UKIP. The Tories are still the Nasty Party, whilst many of the views that UKIP hold are completely backwards.

 

[Donny Dave]

Well the next election will be the first that I'll vote in (I'll be 20 by then), and I shall probably be voting Labour, on the basis that they are the least worst option. Would vote Lib Dems if they hadn't caved in about tuition fees, as my views are generally closer to LD than Labour.

I steadfast refuse to vote for the Tories or UKIP. The Tories are still the Nasty Party, whilst many of the views that UKIP hold are completely backwards.

Depends on what you mean by nasty .... If you mean nasty as they have to make lots of cuts to spending to balance the countries books, then it's a regular occurance.

Labour spend massively in non productive areas which leads to the inevitable recession, which leads to them being voted out at the next election, and being replaced by the Conservatives, who have to cut costs and rebuild the countries finances. The conservatives do tend to spend money in productive areas though (such as infrastructure projects), which gets more people working, leading to less benefits payments and higher tax receipts.

Oh. While the LD may have had to shelve their plans for tuition fees, they did win a big concession from the Conservative Party as well in the form of the tax free allowance. The Conservatives wanted to keep raising the limit at or just below inflation, but instead we have big rises each year in the amount we can earn each year before tax. The limit for the current financial year is £9445, which will go up to £10000 on April 6th.

 

[Metrailway]

I know some love to blame FPTP for falling voter turnouts in the UK but remember turnouts have been falling in nearly every advanced European country for a number of years. Although FPTP has it significant faults, AV/PR/etc would not be a remedy for this particular problem.

 

[Morgsie]

It is not fair that the party I am a member of and hold local offices recieves 24% of the popular vote and gets 57 MPs out of 650

Sorry if I am showing my bias in this thread, electoral reform is an issue I am passionate about
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Since this is about turnout, Second Order Elections (European and Local Elections) have even less turnout than the National First Order

 

[transmanche]

I know some love to blame FPTP for falling voter turnouts in the UK but remember turnouts have been falling in nearly every advanced European country for a number of years. Although FPTP has it significant faults, AV/PR/etc would not be a remedy for this particular problem.

The nearest country to the UK (both geographically and culturally) is the Republic of Ireland. In their 2011 general election, the turnout was 70%. The turnout for the UK general election in 2010 was 65%. (I'm unsure if those turnout figures include spoiled/blank ballots.)

Obviously the UK has FPTP, but Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote form of PR. It wouldn't surprise me if the 5% difference was accounted for by voters in the UK who don't bother to vote, because they live in a safe constituency and therefore feel that their vote doesn't count.

Another country that's culturally similar to us is Australia. They use the system of voting that was offered to us in the 2011 referendum; i.e. Alternative Vote. Voter turnout in their 2013 general election was 93.2%. That figure does include spoiled/blank ballots (known in Australia as "informal votes"), which represented 5.9% of votes. Australia also has compulsory voting: if you don't vote, you can be fined up to $170 (approx £90) - although I don't know how many people are actually penalised.

So 87.3% of Australians turned up at the polling station on polling day and actually cast a valid ballot - i.e. they felt sufficiently engaged that having turned up to vote, they felt their vote actually had value and that their electoral system reflects this.

In hindsight perhaps it's a shame that the UK didn't adopt the Alternative Vote system. And that combined with 'compulsory voting' would greatly increase voter turnout.

As an aside (and I don't know if this affects turnout at all) but the UK has quite a broad franchise entitlement. In Ireland, you can vote in a general election if you are an Irish or British citizen. In Australia, only Australian citizens can vote in a general election. However, in the UK, not only can British and Irish citizens vote in a general election, but also citizens of any Commonwealth country.

 

[fowler9]

The nearest country to the UK (both geographically and culturally) is the Republic of Ireland. In their 2011 general election, the turnout was 70%. The turnout for the UK general election in 2010 was 65%. (I'm unsure if those turnout figures include spoiled/blank ballots.)

Obviously the UK has FPTP, but Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote form of PR. It wouldn't surprise me if the 5% difference was accounted for by voters in the UK who don't bother to vote, because they live in a safe constituency and therefore feel that their vote doesn't count.

Another country that's culturally similar to us is Australia. They use the system of voting that was offered to us in the 2011 referendum; i.e. Alternative Vote. Voter turnout in their 2013 general election was 93.2%. That figure does include spoiled/blank ballots (known in Australia as "informal votes"), which represented 5.9% of votes. Australia also has compulsory voting: if you don't vote, you can be fined up to $170 (approx £90) - although I don't know how many people are actually penalised.

So 87.3% of Australians turned up at the polling station on polling day and actually cast a valid ballot - i.e. they felt sufficiently engaged that having turned up to vote, they felt their vote actually had value and that their electoral system reflects this.

In hindsight perhaps it's a shame that the UK didn't adopt the Alternative Vote system. And that combined with 'compulsory voting' would greatly increase voter turnout.

As an aside (and I don't know if this affects turnout at all) but the UK has quite a broad franchise entitlement. In Ireland, you can vote in a general election if you are an Irish or British citizen. In Australia, only Australian citizens can vote in a general election. However, in the UK, not only can British and Irish citizens vote in a general election, but also citizens of any Commonwealth country.

Yeah, surely someone from New Zealand can't just spend a couple of months here and vote???? I would imagine they have to be registered to vote and it isn't just as simple as saying they are from the Commonwealth. Those of us in the UK should be grateful we have UK passports as it makes it so much easier (And cheaper) to get in to all manner of countries around the world and trust me plenty of brits do. I have myself. We can of course change all that and make harder for people to come here and for us to go anywhere else.

 

[transmanche]

Yeah, surely someone from New Zealand can't just spend a couple of months here and vote????

Yes they can, if they "have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or do not require such leave".

I would imagine they have to be registered to vote and it isn't just as simple as saying they are from the Commonwealth.

Yes they do (but 'rolling registration' means you can register to vote at any time) and yes it is!

 

[fowler9]

Yes they can, if they "have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or do not require such leave".


Yes they do (but 'rolling registration' means you can register to vote at any time) and yes it is!

Wow, well I never knew that! Seems a bit rubbish given how hard it is to get to stay in the likes of Australia or New Zealand more than a few months! Bit of an eye opener!

 

[Butts]

It is not fair that the party I am a member of and hold local offices recieves 24% of the popular vote and gets 57 MPs out of 650

Sorry if I am showing my bias in this thread, electoral reform is an issue I am passionate about
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Since this is about turnout, Second Order Elections (European and Local Elections) have even less turnout than the National First Order

Check out the situation in the last UK Election when the LD's polled a similar number of Votes to the Conservatives in Scotland yet received far more than the Tories 1 seat

 

[yorksrob]

The danger with spoiling ballots is that the establishment is liable to assume that the electorate are too thick to fill out a ballot paper rather than interpreting it as a statement of political dissatisfaction.

 

[DownSouth]

How can we have a situation where you are eligible to Vote but not buy alcohol or cigarettes or fireworks ?

I think that's less of a problem than allowing 16-17 year olds to pay taxes (they pay sales taxes even if they have no job earning enough to pay income taxes) but not giving them a say in how taxation revenue is spent.

I'm also one of those nutjobs that thinks that we should consider extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds so what do I know

I'm even more loony, I think we need each election to feature a minimum of one national seat, preferably one in each state, restricted to candidates no older than 24 years on the day of the election, with voting open exclusively to 16 and 17 year olds who have registered.

I do recognise that issues of coercion might be a problem for 16-17 year olds whether voting as part of the whole or for restricted seats, but there's no guarantee that doesn't exist for other people. At the 2013 Federal Election our polling place's Officer in Charge had to physically usher away a man who was trying to stand over his wife's shoulder and tell her how to vote (an offence under the Commonwealth Electoral Act), and then escort her to the ballot box.

I do sometimes think about that but then I'm lead to believe it hasn't worked very well in Australia.

I'm an Australian, and I think it's been a very good thing for a few big reasons. First thing is just a major point - voting is only compulsory if you have chosen to enrol as a voter, and the initial enrolment is not compulsory.

1. It forces the parties to develop policies designed to appeal to everybody, rather than focusing on trying to get their long-time supporters to come out and vote. In a non-compulsory system it's more effective to advertise to get out the vote than it is to appeal to people to switch from supporting another party.

2. It's one of the few areas where there is a positive sense of citizenship having responsibilities as well as privileges. As well as having the weight of the law behind it, it has led to a general expectation that it is part of living in such a great country. Out of ~2000 voters which come through the polling place where I work on election day we would get less than ten who grumble about having to do it each time, and half of those would only grumble if the weather was crap or they missed out on the sausage sizzle outside (more on that later).

3. A preferential ballot is used for the House of Representatives, eliminating tactical voting - although The Greens still try to get people to preference them first out of non-existent tactical motives.

4. The democratically-elected Senate uses a multi-member method across each state, allowing some of the minor parties and even the odd independent to get their voices represented.

5. It provides a great level of insulation against tiny parties standing on racist platforms (they do exist in Australia, as they do everywhere including the UK) getting representation on the back of a tiny but loud minority. The likes of the BNP could never get elected here because compulsory voting allows the overwhelming majority to shout them down!

6. Election day here is fun! It only takes a few minutes, it's on a Saturday (so it finishes doesn't exclude workers) and there are usually barbecues and stalls set up outside many polling places as fundraisers for schools, sporting clubs, the CFS and so on.

The TV debates is worth a mention in this thread, the USA had them way before 2010. But will they make a difference in relation to turnout?

TV debates have a fairly low impact on the end result here in Australia, but they would have no impact on turnout here thanks to the above-mentioned issue of compulsory voting.

The danger with spoiling ballots is that the establishment is liable to assume that the electorate are too thick to fill out a ballot paper rather than interpreting it as a statement of political dissatisfaction.

I disagree, if only because political parties all over the world all learned from the Mitt Romney 47% comment. The thing with informal ballots being condensed into a single % figure is that you can't get any idea of what motives were at work.

An anonymous web poll asking why people voted informally might be interesting, but not very useful. The political parties would be better off developing policies which people can understand (even the thick ones!) and support on merit.

Yes they can, if they "have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or do not require such leave".

However, a visitor does not "have leave…" as they do not satisfy the first part of the sentence you edited out, which reads "to qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK…" which is not granted by a visitor visa, time-limited visa or a visitor's entry without a visa. Having been one of the character references for a friend who was trying to get UK residency, I can assure you that getting UK residency it is difficult and nowhere near being the automatic right of a Commonwealth citizen.

When my mate travelled to the UK on a sporting visa playing cricket as the club's professional, that visa did not grant him residency or the right to enter/remain at will and therefore did not grant him the right to register to vote.

Similarly, a UK citizen visiting Australia or a time-limited working visa does not automatically have the right to apply for residency and the extra rights residency gives - including a pathway to citizenship and therefore voting. Ironically, a UK citizen getting citizenship in Australia still might have them voting for the first time quicker than a Commonwealth citizen getting UK residency but not citizenship, thanks to our electoral terms being a maximum of three years long instead of fixed at five years.

 

[Butts]

The danger with spoiling ballots is that the establishment is liable to assume that the electorate are too thick to fill out a ballot paper rather than interpreting it as a statement of political dissatisfaction.

I do not believe that assumption would be without foundation

 

[transmanche]

The danger with spoiling ballots is that the establishment is liable to assume that the electorate are too thick to fill out a ballot paper rather than interpreting it as a statement of political dissatisfaction.

Indeed, I seem to recall certain politicians and spin doctors using that as a justification for the high number of spoiled votes at the Police & Crime Commissioner elections.

Which is why I cast a blank ballot at that election - as a blank ballot is demonstrably a protest vote.

 

[DownSouth]

Which is why I cast a blank ballot at that election - as a blank ballot is demonstrably a protest vote.

No, I would say a blank ballot would be more of a suggestion of apathy or stupidity than a reasonable protest.

As a person who has to sort and count ballot papers, I can assure you that there are many other ways to make your intention clear than leaving your paper blank.

 

[transmanche]

No, I would say a blank ballot would be more of a suggestion of apathy or stupidity than a reasonable protest.

No, apathy would mean not turning up at the polling station at all.

As a person who has to sort and count ballot papers, I can assure you that there are many other ways to make your intention clear than leaving your paper blank.

And as a person who also has to sort and count ballot papers I know that any messages people write on ballot papers are only seen by the people who sort and count ballot papers - the people the messages are directed to (the politicians) never get to see them. That way the politicians can continue pretending that all spoiled papers are a result of people being too thick to fill out a ballot paper correctly.

 

[DownSouth]

Does your electoral commission not keep internal statistics on blank/informal/spoilt ballots?

 

[Yew]

I live in a safe labour seat, even if I did find a party the agreed with me, it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Butts]

I live in a safe labour seat, even if I did find a party the agreed with me, it wouldn't make a difference.

Roll on PR then .....