Turnout at Elections

[yorksrob]

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.

Good point, I hadn‘t thought of that.

 

[DarloRich]

Not to exercise your vote is simply rejecting your moral and social responsibility.

The woolly headed "they are all the same" argument and the "LIBLABCON" rubbish that many have spouted is simply preposterous, unbelievably lazy and suggests a level of intellectual soft headedness!

The differences between the parties are stark. Take the NHS for example or benefits or taxation or education or Europe. You only have to look, listen and pay attention. But i guess it is easier to shrug and say they are all the same.

Get off your backside and vote. Even if you spoil your paper at least you bloody well take part! For Christ sake even vote Tory if you must! If you dont vote you deserve everything you get. Let us not forget that many people have died simply to earn the right that you so glibly throw away.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I think people have the democratic right not to vote if they wish. People died for freedom, and I for one like having the freedom not to vote if I so wish.

 

[DarloRich]

I think people have the democratic right not to vote if they wish. People died for freedom, and I for one like having the freedom not to vote if I so wish.

fine - dont complain then when things dont go the way you like.

 

[12CSVT]

I agree with making voting compulsory.

Absolutely no way should this happen. Whilst it is important that people have the right to vote, equally there should be the right to abstain / not vote.

 

[SS4]

Not to exercise your vote is simply rejecting your moral and social responsibility.

The woolly headed "they are all the same" argument and the "LIBLABCON" rubbish that many have spouted is simply preposterous, unbelievably lazy and suggests a level of intellectual soft headedness!

The differences between the parties are stark. Take the NHS for example or benefits or taxation or education or Europe. You only have to look, listen and pay attention. But i guess it is easier to shrug and say they are all the same.

Get off your backside and vote. Even if you spoil your paper at least you bloody well take part! For Christ sake even vote Tory if you must! If you dont vote you deserve everything you get. Let us not forget that many people have died simply to earn the right that you so glibly throw away.

So I vote Labour or waste my vote? Or move I guess

 

[transmanche]

Absolutely no way should this happen. Whilst it is important that people have the right to vote, equally there should be the right to abstain / not vote.

However, as in Australia, they can cast a spoiled or blank vote (what in Australia is called an 'informal vote'). Or we could add a 'none of the above' option to the ballot paper.

 

[DarloRich]

So I vote Labour or waste my vote? Or move I guess

Your vote has the same value as all the others. Vote for whom ever you chose.

 

[radamfi]

I nearly always vote, often even in local elections, but deep down I think that my vote in the European elections is the only one worth bothering with, as that is the only election where PR is used.

 

[transmanche]

Not to exercise your vote is simply rejecting your moral and social responsibility.

I mentioned upthread that I cast a blank vote in the Police and Crime Commissioner election. This is the only time since reaching 18 that I failed to cast a valid vote at any election. And the reason was simple: I didn't want a Police and Crime Commissioner. i was happy with the status quo and there was no option to vote for that. The government had decided that I must have one and casting a blank ballot was the only way I could show the government that.

Failing to vote would just get me accused of apathy. Spoiling my vote would mean I was though stupid (or that the ballot paper was too complicated).

So I agree with you that we have a civic duty to vote. I just wish we had a better way for those who make an active choice to reject the options available to them to register their discontent.

 

[GatwickDepress]

fine - dont complain then when things dont go the way you like.

Oh goodness no, I can either vote or not. Whether I partake in that particular democratic process or not does not change whether I can or cannot complain. I am a citizen, a service user, and many other things.

There is a hell of a lot more to politics and political discourse than marking a piece of paper. As for "rejecting your moral and social responsibility"; some people just don't care about politics. I'd feel very uncomfortable living somewhere where it would be mandatory.

And for the record, I do vote regularly.

 

[DarloRich]

Oh goodness no, I can either vote or not. Whether I partake in that particular democratic process or not does not change whether I can or cannot complain. I am a citizen, a service user, and many other things.

There is a hell of a lot more to politics and political discourse than marking a piece of paper. As for "rejecting your moral and social responsibility"; some people just don't care about politics. I'd feel very uncomfortable living somewhere where it would be mandatory.

And for the record, I do vote regularly.

I dont believe in compulsory voting at all. You should be free to chose. I just think if you chose not vote to you are a fool, however i respect the right to be foolish

You also seem to want the right to have your voice listened to despite not wanting to take part in the democratic process. To me that is wrong.

EDIT: For instance. You dont like the tax policy of the ruling "Republican" party and think the policy of the "Democrats" is better. You write and complain etc yet nothing changes. You have a chance to elect a new MP and perhaps a new government at a forthcoming election but you dont vote. Republicans get elected and the policy continues. For all your complaining etc you have achieved nothing when taking part might have brought wholesale changes.

 

[transmanche]

I nearly always vote, often even in local elections, but deep down I think that my vote in the European elections is the only one worth bothering with, as that is the only election where PR is used.

Strangely, one system of PR is used in GB (and Gibraltar) - with a different one used in NI.

UK turnout in the last European election was only 34% - just over half the turnout in the last UK general election (65%). If people took more interest in how the EU and the European Parliament worked, they might find it's actually more democratic than the Westminster Parliament.

A few years ago on a different forum, I was discussing the EU ePrivacy directive[*] - the one that means website owners have to inform you and ask your permission when using cookies when you visit their website[§]. He was ranting about how it was more red tape imposed on the UK by Brussels and how undemocratic it all was.

And then I pointed out that his MEP had voted in favour of the directive...

The average British voter's attitude to the EU seems to be closing their eyes, shouting "blah, blah, i'm not listening" and then grumbling about the result.

* Directive 2009/136/EC
§ Over simplified for the sake of brevity

 

[Butts]

Not to exercise your vote is simply rejecting your moral and social responsibility.

The woolly headed "they are all the same" argument and the "LIBLABCON" rubbish that many have spouted is simply preposterous, unbelievably lazy and suggests a level of intellectual soft headedness!

The differences between the parties are stark. Take the NHS for example or benefits or taxation or education or Europe. You only have to look, listen and pay attention. But i guess it is easier to shrug and say they are all the same.

Get off your backside and vote. Even if you spoil your paper at least you bloody well take part! For Christ sake even vote Tory if you must! If you dont vote you deserve everything you get. Let us not forget that many people have died simply to earn the right that you so glibly throw away.

This is precisely what we need as I mentioned earlier.....

Right Wing Labour, Left Wing Conservative and Orange Book Liberal Democrats in coalition
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I nearly always vote, often even in local elections, but deep down I think that my vote in the European elections is the only one worth bothering with, as that is the only election where PR is used.

Move up to Scotland then , you will only have to put up with FTP in UK General Elections

 

[fowler9]

Roll on PR then .....

Pipe down tory boy. Sorry mate, that was said in jest.

 

[yorksrob]

The average British voter's attitude to the EU seems to be closing their eyes, shouting "blah, blah, i'm not listening" and then grumbling about the result.

* Directive 2009/136/EC
§ Over simplified for the sake of brevity

Quite. I see it as a matter of self Government. You can shout blah blah blah as much as you like, but if you are subject to a foreign power, it will make no difference. Ultimately it's a question of whether you believe Britain should govern itself, And then we get to the ECHR. Does it have the power to dictate our penal policy or not.

If it does, then I'm sceptical as to whether we should be part of that club as well.

 

[transmanche]

Quite. I see it as a matter of self Government. You can shout blah blah blah as much as you like, but if you are subject to a foreign power, it will make no difference. Ultimately it's a question of whether you believe Britain should govern itself,

Every time the UK joins an international organisation or signs a treaty, it gives up an element of sovereignty. UN, NATO, Geneva Conventions, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and so on - they all limit the sovereignty of the UK in some way.

And then we get to the ECHR. Does it have the power to dictate our penal policy or not.

If it does, then I'm sceptical as to whether we should be part of that club as well.

It's strange that the right-wing media are demonising a convention that was championed by Churchill and written mainly by British lawyers as a post-war attempt to enforce British values across Europe. A treaty that was extended by none other than Thatcher in the 1980s to prohibit the death penalty.

And what has the court said? That life sentences without the possibility of even applying for parole are incompatible with the convention. It's not saying that prisoners can't be imprisoned for life. It's not saying that prisoners must be given parole. (And if the parol criteria is sufficiently tough it'll not make a jot of difference to the outcome anyway.) That doesn't seem anything like as bad as the right-wing media paint it out to be - I'd say it's almost reasonable!

 

[Butts]

Pipe down tory boy. Sorry mate, that was said in jest.

No worries "Tory Boy" is an endangered species in Falkirk - I'm as rare as a "Wild Haggis" on Falkirk High Street

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No worries "Tory Boy" is an endangered species in Falkirk - I'm as rare as a "Wild Haggis" on Falkirk High Street

I though that you were one of the bright Vestas of the STPP

.....Scottish Tobacco Protection Party....

 

[yorksrob]

It's strange that the right-wing media are demonising a convention that was championed by Churchill and written mainly by British lawyers as a post-war attempt to enforce British values across Europe. A treaty that was extended by none other than Thatcher in the 1980s to prohibit the death penalty.

And what has the court said? That life sentences without the possibility of even applying for parole are incompatible with the convention. It's not saying that prisoners can't be imprisoned for life. It's not saying that prisoners must be given parole. (And if the parol criteria is sufficiently tough it'll not make a jot of difference to the outcome anyway.) That doesn't seem anything like as bad as the right-wing media paint it out to be - I'd say it's almost reasonable!

It's not just the right wing media that has misgivings about the continual extension of the courts power. Leading members of the judiciary have expressed concerns as well.

Perhaps there just needs to be a clearer separation of powers between what constitutes national policy and the Courts competency. Either way, something needs to change in my opinion.

 

[Whistlekiller]

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

I don't recall ever seeing official published statistics of spoilt ballots in UK General Elections. The cynic in me believes this is quite likely why there's never been an official "non of the above" box to tick as it would then become recordable and therefore readily apparent just what people actually thought of the politicians presented to them. I suspect the total of "non of the above" votes would be a major embarrassment to the political establishment.

I wouldn't have any problem with compulsory voting if the above choice were available, any more than I do now about filling out compulsory census forms. It's not too much to ask a citizen to do.

Rich

 

[Amberley54]

I don't recall ever seeing official published statistics of spoilt ballots in UK General Elections. The cynic in me believes this is quite likely why there's never been an official "non of the above" box to tick as it would then become recordable and therefore readily apparent just what people actually thought of the politicians presented to them. I suspect the total of "non of the above" votes would be a major embarrassment to the political establishment.

I wouldn't have any problem with compulsory voting if the above choice were available, any more than I do now about filling out compulsory census forms. It's not too much to ask a citizen to do.

Rich

Spoilt ballots ARE published but only at the constituency/ward level - an email to the Returning Officer is all that is required. usually about 0.50% unless there are large number of candidates and/or the elector can vote for two or more candidates when it can reach the dizzy heights of 1%. Not collated at the national level though as legislation very much stresses local nature and administration of elections in the UK. Even Euro elections in a region overseen by a single local authority returning officer, not a civil servant.

As someone who worked on over 30 elections since 1984 I can assure posters that we get plenty of ballots marked 'none of the above' , and far worse!

Compulsory census -once every decade, hardly a major task or infringement of our 'uman rights.

On the other side of the coin i have also observed with a cynical smile that many of the most voluble refuseniks about big brother firm filling can be the quickest to complain if 'the state' fails to give them maximum opportunity to object to any planning and development issues, for example. The link may be entirely unrelated though!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Strangely, one system of PR is used in GB (and Gibraltar) - with a different one used in NI.

UK turnout in the last European election was only 34% - just over half the turnout in the last UK general election (65%). If people took more interest in how the EU and the European Parliament worked, they might find it's actually more democratic than the Westminster Parliament.

A few years ago on a different forum, I was discussing the EU ePrivacy directive[*] - the one that means website owners have to inform you and ask your permission when using cookies when you visit their website[§]. He was ranting about how it was more red tape imposed on the UK by Brussels and how undemocratic it all was.

And then I pointed out that his MEP had voted in favour of the directive...

The average British voter's attitude to the EU seems to be closing their eyes, shouting "blah, blah, i'm not listening" and then grumbling about the result.

* Directive 2009/136/EC
§ Over simplified for the sake of brevity

I think that's more because (for many people, although certainly not all) it's a socially acceptable vent for xenophobic tendencies and less to do with actual facts.

 

[Whistlekiller]

Spoilt ballots ARE published but only at the constituency/ward level - an email to the Returning Officer is all that is required. usually about 0.50% unless there are large number of candidates and/or the elector can vote for two or more candidates when it can reach the dizzy heights of 1%. Not collated at the national level though as legislation very much stresses local nature and administration of elections in the UK. Even Euro elections in a region overseen by a single local authority returning officer, not a civil servant.

As someone who worked on over 30 elections since 1984 I can assure posters that we get plenty of ballots marked 'none of the above' , and far worse!

Compulsory census -once every decade, hardly a major task or infringement of our 'uman rights.

On the other side of the coin i have also observed with a cynical smile that many of the most voluble refuseniks about big brother firm filling can be the quickest to complain if 'the state' fails to give them maximum opportunity to object to any planning and development issues, for example. The link may be entirely unrelated though!

I was in the process of replying to this but I note the edited post is sufficiently different for me to reconsider my response. The fact that the information is only available by email (which I wasn't aware of and certainly wasn't mentioned on the ballot paper the last time I voted) and that there's no collation of it at national level rather reinforces my opinion that the powers that be would rather not have people know just how crap the populace thinks the overall political landscape is.

I still maintain that a properly regulated offer on a ballot paper, "non of the above", would achieve a higher turn out of the populace and would give a better indication of those who thought the candidates presented were a poor choice. BTW, I'm only interested in the candidate for my constituency. I listen to what he or she says, not which party they represent as that can seriously cloud judgement.

A prime example being my erstwhile local MP. Eventually sent to prison for fraud.

I never voted for him despite my leanings towards his party's policies at the time. He was a wrong'un and I'd twigged it way, way before he got convicted. There was no way I wanted him representing me in parliament regardless of who he answered to.

I voted for somebody with less dubious credentials. He lost.

Aside from this I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. People are pretty much happy to fill in official forms for the state ad infinitum when there's a few quid in it for them but the same people are likely to pipe up with all sorts or pseudo-revolutionary cobblers otherwise.

Rich

 

[SS4]

Your vote has the same value as all the others. Vote for whom ever you chose.

Only on paper. In the real world it has less value than a vote in an unsafe seat. Just as it is possible to draw 13 cards and get only spades it's also possible Labour won't win this seat

 

[DarloRich]

Only on paper. In the real world it has less value than a vote in an unsafe seat. Just as it is possible to draw 13 cards and get only spades it's also possible Labour won't win this seat

What you mean is your favored candidate wont win. It doesn't make your vote meaningless. or holding any less value.

Consider that your MP is still there to represent you and to assist with your problems. I would never vote for my MP but he still represents me and i still have access to him to ask for help with any matter. He doesn't say sorry you didn't vote for me so i cant help!

 

[radamfi]

If your MP doesn't agree with your view, he won't be particularly co-operative.

Unless you want to vote for one of the main parties, chances are your preferred party won't even have a candidate in your constituency.

 

[Butts]

I though that you were one of the bright Vestas of the STPP

.....Scottish Tobacco Protection Party....

Hmmm....I'm afraid that's a lost cause - a bit like the Tories in Scotland

 

[Amberley54]

I was in the process of replying to this but I note the edited post is sufficiently different for me to reconsider my response. The fact that the information is only available by email (which I wasn't aware of and certainly wasn't mentioned on the ballot paper the last time I voted) and that there's no collation of it at national level rather reinforces my opinion that the powers that be would rather not have people know just how crap the populace thinks the overall political landscape is.

I still maintain that a properly regulated offer on a ballot paper, "non of the above", would achieve a higher turn out of the populace and would give a better indication of those who thought the candidates presented were a poor choice. BTW, I'm only interested in the candidate for my constituency. I listen to what he or she says, not which party they represent as that can seriously cloud judgement.

A prime example being my erstwhile local MP. Eventually sent to prison for fraud.

I never voted for him despite my leanings towards his party's policies at the time. He was a wrong'un and I'd twigged it way, way before he got convicted. There was no way I wanted him representing me in parliament regardless of who he answered to.

I voted for somebody with less dubious credentials. He lost.

Aside from this I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. People are pretty much happy to fill in official forms for the state ad infinitum when there's a few quid in it for them but the same people are likely to pipe up with all sorts or pseudo-revolutionary cobblers otherwise.

Rich

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough but my reference to an email was intended to be illustrative rather than exclusive, in that to obtain the number of spoilt papers in an election is very straightforward. Indeed, one of my first jobs as the office junior was to post the official statement of the result on the public notice board outside the town hall front door the morning after the day of the election.

 

[Whistlekiller]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough but my reference to an email was intended to be illustrative rather than exclusive, in that to obtain the number of spoilt papers in an election is very straightforward. Indeed, one of my first jobs as the office junior was to post the official statement of the result on the public notice board outside the town hall front door the morning after the day of the election.

No worries, I wasn't having a dig at you, far from it. I just found it incredible that as I enter my 50th year and having voted in every election for which I've been eligible, up until your advice I was totally unaware that this information was available at all, but still certainly not to the extent that the general public are made aware of it.

I still maintain an officially sanctioned opportunity to positively protest on the ballot paper would improve turn out. A potential protest vote against all candidates may sharpen the thoughts of those standing. A spoilt ballot doesn't necessarily achieve this.