Turnout at Elections

[HST Power]

What you mean is your favored candidate wont win

Just as it is possible to draw 13 cards and get only spades it's also possible Labour won't win this seat

Drawing these factors into conclusion, I'm surprised more people haven't suggested the Additional Member System, which is currently employed in both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, as well as in Germany and New Zealand.

If deployed properly, AMS allows the electorate to pick a favoured candidate as well as a national party. So if you like the work that has been done by your Labour MP, but you don't like the national Labour Party, you can still support the Labour candidate, but your national vote go to the Tories or the Lib Dems - or whichever party you wish to vote for.

It also allows for a more proportional distribution of Parliamentary seats.

I didn't support Alternative Vote. But I do support voting reform and I would definitely vote in favour of this particular system.

 

[Butts]

Drawing these factors into conclusion, I'm surprised more people haven't suggested the Additional Member System, which is currently employed in both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, as well as in Germany and New Zealand.

If deployed properly, AMS allows the electorate to pick a favoured candidate as well as a national party. So if you like the work that has been done by your Labour MP, but you don't like the national Labour Party, you can still support the Labour candidate, but your national vote go to the Tories or the Lib Dems - or whichever party you wish to vote for.

It also allows for a more proportional distribution of Parliamentary seats.

I didn't support Alternative Vote. But I do support voting reform and I would definitely vote in favour of this particular system.

I can confirm I am currently enjoying this system which as a Tory Voter in Falkirk allows me to at least have an input in a strong Labour area.

My "Party Vote" goes towards enabling a few Tories to be elected from "The List".

Frankly I can't see how people can object to it as if I were a Labour Voter in a Tory area the effect would be the same in reverse.

 

[AntoniC]

I have voted in every General Election since 1987 and see it as my civic duty to vote.

I vote Lib Dem, here in Southport, to try and keep the Tories out (which has worked apart from 1992 - 1997 when the Tories did win), and although I was hugely disappointed with the Lib Dems forming the Coalition with the Tories, I will still vote Lib Dem in May 2015, because I like my MP.

 

[DownSouth]

I can confirm I am currently enjoying this system which as a Tory Voter in Falkirk allows me to at least have an input in a strong Labour area.

My "Party Vote" goes towards enabling a few Tories to be elected from "The List".

Frankly I can't see how people can object to it as if I were a Labour Voter in a Tory area the effect would be the same in reverse.

Let me help you see.

1. It would allow party hacks to get in without being vetted by the electors in their division, and dilutes the influence of local members.

2. If one of said party hacks actually turned out to be a decent contributor, they could get chucked out just by shifting demographics rather than by the voters in their electorate choosing to chuck them out.

3. It entrenches a party system (bad) without allowing a fair chance for independents (very bad).

4. A separate deomcratically elected upper house would be more fit for purpose to keep the local and proportional representatives separate - see the concerted efforts in New Zealand to introduce a Senate with proportional representation by region.

 

[transmanche]

2. If one of said party hacks actually turned out to be a decent contributor, they could get chucked out just by shifting demographics rather than by the voters in their electorate choosing to chuck them out.

And also, if said party hack turned out to be a decent contributor, more people might vote for the party; an increased vote for local constituency party candidates members would mean more candidates being elected. And under the AMS system used in Scotland/Wales/London, this would mean a reduction in the 'top-up' regional seats for the party.

With the ironic end result that said party hack would get chucked out!

 

[Whistlekiller]

I've always thought it'd be quite interesting if we had to vote for our chosen candidate based on what they actually had to say, not on whichever political party they're supposedly allied to. In a lot of cases this would free the candidate from spouting dogma that he or she might not necessarily believe in and also lead to a more hardworking and honest approach from the MPs themselves.

It would also mean that the lazy voter actually had to make an effort to find out who they were voting for instead of relying on age old traditions or prejudice. As it stands, I'd be willing to wager that a sizeable chunk of the electorate would be unable to name the candidate they chose in the last election.

It couldn't be any worse than the system we have now where it's patently obvious that a lot of MPs are speaking through gritted teeth supporting policies they don't believe in because they're terrified of losing the whip.

 

[Amberley54]

I've always thought it'd be quite interesting if we had to vote for our chosen candidate based on what they actually had to say, not on whichever political party they're supposedly allied to. In a lot of cases this would free the candidate from spouting dogma that he or she might not necessarily believe in and also lead to a more hardworking and honest approach from the MPs themselves.

It would also mean that the lazy voter actually had to make an effort to find out who they were voting for instead of relying on age old traditions or prejudice. As it stands, I'd be willing to wager that a sizeable chunk of the electorate would be unable to name the candidate they chose in the last election.

It couldn't be any worse than the system we have now where it's patently obvious that a lot of MPs are speaking through gritted teeth supporting policies they don't believe in because they're terrified of losing the whip.

The poor vote for independent candidates (with the very occasional exception) at Parliamentary elections is strong evidence that electors usually choose to vote for the party not the candidate. Not so strong at the local level where several councils have Independants in the chamber, and a couple are controlled by independent groups.

However, this in itself can be a nightmare, as the perpetually shifting alliances and policies held by such disparate groups can result in ineffective, inefficient and expensive local leadership and governance. may I cite Stoke-on-Trent city council as an example, where every day during the short reign of the Independants brought some new twist and turn of often byzantine complexity that cost a considerable amount of waste in time and resources - all of which had to be picked-up by the taxpayer, both local and national.

 

[ScottishIain]

Why do young people not Vote ? - I voted when I was young

I'm only 26 and have voted at every opportunity since I turned 18. I'd never not vote, then I'd be a hypocrite if I complained about how things are been run as I'd know at least I'd done my bit to try make a difference.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Butts]

I'm only 26 and have voted at every opportunity since I turned 18. I'd never not vote, then I'd be a hypocrite if I complained about how things are been run as I'd know at least I'd done my bit to try make a difference.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority when it comes to young people voting.

 

[meridian2]

It never fails to amaze me the proportion of the Electorate who fail to exercise their democratic right to vote whenever given the opportunity.

Why does it amaze you? Democracy is a two-way street. I have every right NOT to vote and that, in itself, is what led to the hung parliament back in 2010.
Maybe you should start to realise that voting is not compulsory.

 

[Butts]

Why does it amaze you? Democracy is a two-way street. I have every right NOT to vote and that, in itself, is what led to the hung parliament back in 2010.
Maybe you should start to realise that voting is not compulsory.

I do realise that voting is not compulsory and I can't see how you can possibly conflate the result in 2010 being a consequence of your failure to participate

 

[Amberley54]

If a citizen can't be bothered to spend a maximum of 30(?) minutes once every 4 or. 5 years to get to a polling station and make a mark on a ballot paper - even if it is to write "None of the above". - they are clearly content with whatever government is subsequently formed and the policies implemented?

I teach young students from a range of nationalities and cultures and the majority strongly regard voting as a civic duty. Such a view is the exception rather than the rule amongst UK and US students, I'm afraid.

 

[SS4]

I teach young students from a range of nationalities and cultures and the majority strongly regard voting as a civic duty. Such a view is the exception rather than the rule amongst UK and US students, I'm afraid.

I wonder if this is related to the UK and the US being pretty much the only Western countries to use FPTP?

 

[DarloRich]

If a citizen can't be bothered to spend a maximum of 30(?) minutes once every 4 or. 5 years to get to a polling station and make a mark on a ballot paper - even if it is to write "None of the above". - they are clearly content with whatever government is subsequently formed and the policies implemented?

I teach young students from a range of nationalities and cultures and the majority strongly regard voting as a civic duty. Such a view is the exception rather than the rule amongst UK and US students, I'm afraid.

I agree entirely!

I wonder if this is related to the UK and the US being pretty much the only Western countries to use FPTP?

I would suggest it is a symptom of the wider "couldn't give a damn" attitude of many, especially young, people in this country.

FPTP is an easy, straight forward system to follow. The person with the most votes wins in your area,the party ( or collection of parties ) with more winners than anyone else plus 1 wins and is invited to form a government

AV/STV etc are very, very complicated- do you really think they would entice people to vote? I dont.

( and those that could be bothered to vote rejected them comprehensively!)

 

[meridian2]

I do realise that voting is not compulsory and I can't see how you can possibly conflate the result in 2010 being a consequence of your failure to participate

Hung parliaments aren't born out of a whim, you know. The people spoke by not voting, turnout was low, which led to a hung parliament.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've had low turnouts previously and not had a hung parliament. I'm not sure how the two are related...

 

[Butts]

We've had low turnouts previously and not had a hung parliament. I'm not sure how the two are related...

Patently they are not

 

[SS4]

I would suggest it is a symptom of the wider "couldn't give a damn" attitude of many, especially young, people in this country.

FPTP is an easy, straight forward system to follow. The person with the most votes wins in your area,the party ( or collection of parties ) with more winners than anyone else plus 1 wins and is invited to form a government

AV/STV etc are very, very complicated- do you really think they would entice people to vote? I dont.

( and those that could be bothered to vote rejected them comprehensively!)

Yet it's more than possible for FPTP to contribute to apathy: why vote if you know that, realistically, your vote is not going to change anything? When we're then told that the ballot box is the place to express our discontent with the government you get more apathy.

STV and AV are not that difficult although I'll grant they're more complicated than FPTP. I also know that the former is not a panacea for voter apathy but I still see it as a step forward. Surely it is most democratic for each party to have a number of seats proportional to it's vote share (and eliminate gerrymandering to boot)

 

[Amberley54]

We've had low turnouts previously and not had a hung parliament. I'm not sure how the two are related...

There is no evidence to support this speculation whatsoever. However, I am prepared to consider actual evidence if produced.

Indeed, the turnouts in the 1930's was also in the low 70's% and the conservatives were in power for most of the decade.

However, perhaps the elephant in the room is the steep decline in actual voter registration in urban areas of mainland Britain over the past couple of decades- with the Poll Tax accepted as the initial trigger.

 

[DarloRich]

Yet it's more than possible for FPTP to contribute to apathy: why vote if you know that, realistically, your vote is not going to change anything? When we're then told that the ballot box is the place to express our discontent with the government you get more apathy.

STV and AV are not that difficult although I'll grant they're more complicated than FPTP. I also know that the former is not a panacea for voter apathy but I still see it as a step forward. Surely it is most democratic for each party to have a number of seats proportional to it's vote share (and eliminate gerrymandering to boot)

the electorate didnt see it as the way forward.

 

[Butts]

the electorate didnt see it as the way forward.

The turnout was miniscule for that one

 

[ainsworth74]

I voted!

 

[Butts]

I voted!

So did I

 

[DarloRich]

so did I!

and miniscule or not you were all ( if eligible) given the right to express your opinion. That it didn't go the way you wanted is because most of you didn't bother to vote.

Because of that lost opportunity it will be many years before electoral change comes.

 

[Butts]

so did I!

and miniscule or not you were all ( if eligible) given the right to express your opinion. That it didn't go the way you wanted is because most of you didn't bother to vote.

Because of that lost opportunity it will be many years before electoral change comes.

Not in Scotland - there was no referendum, the system for Scottish Parliamentary Elections were PR from the start and the local elections quickly followed suit.

 

[DarloRich]

I know - i meant England.

 

[Butts]

I know - i meant England.

Why are people in England so backward when it comes to Electoral reform, the other parts of the UK are streets ahead in terms of PR.

 

[transmanche]

Not in Scotland - there was no referendum, the system for Scottish Parliamentary Elections were PR from the start and the local elections quickly followed suit.

Well there was a UK-wide referendum, in 2011 on the system to be used for elections to the Westminster Parliament.

And it was the Westminster Parliament who decided that Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, London Assembly and NI Assembly elections should all be PR (AM for the first three, STV for the latter) - but they didn't see fit to ask the public to choose the electoral system for those institutions.

 

[Amberley54]

Why are people in England so backward when it comes to Electoral reform, the other parts of the UK are streets ahead in terms of PR.

Not just how we elect politicians are we stuck in Victorian era. UK went decimal/metric about 40 years ago and we still cling on to expressing weights, distances and speed in obsolete 'Imperial' units.

By the way, I'm old enough to remember Decimalisation Day back on 15th February 1971 and know my height, weight and the UK speed limit(s) in metric units!

 

[Bevan Price]

I think one reason why people do not vote is that many people are fed up with hypocrisy / duplicity by rather too many politicians. They promise to do something in their manifesto, in the hope of getting elected. Then they do something complete different after they get elected. For example

Lib Dems (2010) - "We oppose student tuition fees" - did they vote against Cameron's tuition fee increases ?

Labour (1964) - "We will stop the Beeching rail closure programme" - after they won the election, they caved in to the "money mafia" pressure (treasury, etc.) and continued with rail closures.