h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If the party that wins in the end isn't penalty enough, then I really don't know

The penalty would be having to listen to all the candidates explain their policies.

Wouldn't that be against the geneva convention?

So, what you're all saying is that elections work the same way in the UK as in the US? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F71813?thread=502253&post=5946784#p5946784

yep, being photogenic and promising the impossible are more important than having principles or ability

Is that why more people voted in Pop Idol than in the general election?

You're joking!

If it's in the Edited Guide, it must be true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A71173

NBY

>>
I'd never vote for the Tories or UKIP
at the moment I'm not prepared to vote Labour
that still gave me 4 centrist or left-wing parties to choose from so I'm not convinced by the lack of choice arguement
if you want a choice that makes a difference than you can vote for a party that supports electoral reform even if you have no intention of ever voting for them again
I think compulsory voting would be a very good idea
<< Blackberry Cat

I think the only sensible vote in the UK now is one that furthers electoral reform. There is no other way out of the 2 party dictatorship. New Zealand has had an MMP system now for a decade and it's made voting such an interesting and worthwhile activity.

Turn out for the general election: 27,132,327 (according to the BBC)

Total votes cast in Pop Idol 1 - 31 million. But of course that's presumably some people voting more than once, in different rounds.
The final of Pop Idol 2003 attracted 10.26 million votes.

If you go for compulsory voting line, how can you get round the breach of Human Rights argument? (Right to privacy in particular).

There is an argument that people can use to say that their lack of a vote indicates that they do not wish to vote for any candidate / party standing in their local election (OK, it's a crap argument, but it will inevitably be used). Just saying "you should go along and spoil your vote then" isn't really getting on for a winner.

I think education has a lot to do with voter turnout. In the US I have a feeling many public schools don't stress the importance of voting. The only reason I have started to vote is because I had a very compassionate Government teacher who was very interested in inspiring his students, (and obviously) it worked.

But I think the "not voting to make a statement" view might come from not having enough information.... unless that opinion comes from someone well-read who has just given up on the whole system.

Also, for the countries with violence during the elections, maybe they have more to lose then countries with less voter turn-out? I don't know.

>>If you go for compulsory voting line, how can you get round the breach of Human Rights argument? (Right to privacy in particular).
<<

We already have things that we have to do that breach privacy - registering births and deaths, paying taxes etc.

In NZ voting is not compulsory but being registered to vote is, so the 'loss of privacy' happens at that point. We have a generally high voter turnout (upper 80% or above 90%) so we don't need compulsory voting. If I lived in the US or the UK I'd be in favour of it though.

I think people don't vote for a variety of reasons. Some people don't because they feel disenfranchised but aren't motivated enough to do something about it. If you are on the electoral roll, then spoiling a vote is the least you can do. Otherwise the system just sees you as someone too lazy to bother and then why should it really care about you? I take the view that voting is a civil responsibility, and that people in the West take their democracy for granted.

It seems selfish to not vote - as if one expects other people to organise the society that one benefits from. Or do people think that society organises itself?

However I have some anarchist friends who do everything they can to stay off the electoral roll because they see the whole system as essentially corrupt and won't have anything to do with it. They are also active in their lives in trying to create a better way of having society, so I don't really have too much of a problem with them not voting.

Thatprat
it is already compulsory to give personal details for the electoral register
since we have a secret ballot there would be no loss of privacy if voting was made compulsory

I definitely agree with you, worldcitizen. Even when we do have sort of 'voting' exercises, like a school-wide mock election, they always add stupid things to the ballot, like 'Should we have school uniforms?' or something like that. That's not the way to foster interest in a democratic government.

I think a lot more could be done to encourage school kids who are old enough to vote to do so. True, there aren't many in most high schools who are over 18, but it could be done anyway.

No it's not COMPULSORY to give details to the electoral register. You don't even have to be on the electoral register.

Much like you don't HAVE to fill in the damn silly census form, especially if they don't deliver it to your address as happened to me last time.

I've said it before (possibly at the Labour conference ) and I'll say it again - Low voter turn out in the UK is indicative of one thing and one thing only - the total death of party politics in this country, which is now largely irreversible. Since interest rates were given to the bank of England, the amount of influence any of the idjits who pretend to be Chancellor of the Exchequer has on the lives of UK citizens is at best negligible. Since there is no more than a gnats whixsker in the difference between the Tories and Labour, there really is very little point in pretending that it matters which of them gets in.

Hence the reasoning behind Tony Benn's (wrongly much ridiculed) statement that he was leaving Parliament to spend motre time dealing with politics.

Just for reference, I did say that the privacy issue was a crap arguement, and it's not one I would use. I can't help but feel though, that compulsory voting is the wrong way to go, as how would you enforce it? What would be the penalty for not doing so? Losing your right to vote? Compulsory voting would increase the interest of "the man on the street" in politics, in the same way that ID cards will "reduce crime" - ie no direct effect at all. If you want to increase turnout at an election, you have to give people a reason to vote - it's that plain (I nearly said simple there ). If people CARE about voting, they will. If, as has happened in Britain, a great many people don't give a monkey's, they aren't going to bother.

Blues Shark
are you sure about that
I seem to remember something about it being required by law to return the form to the Electoral Registration Officer and there being penalties for not doing so but maybe I'm getting it confused with Council Tax forms

<>

which is why I voted Green but I seem to remember that during the campaign you were arguing that anyone who voted LD was risking letting the Tories get in

It is indeed a legal requirement to return the annual electoral registration form in the UK. Some local authorities do prosecute for non-return, most don't. The fine is up to £5,000 if memory serves (which it might not: the annual canvass was months ago and I'm still in elections mode).

The electoral register is entirely separate from council tax billing (as I have told countless people in the past 8 weeks).

Everybody who votes is crossed off the register at the time they vote. So it would be relatively easy to round up those who didn't vote and demand a reasonable explanation. But that would penalise those who did at least bother to register. Rounding up those who didn't even bother to do that is harder, because we don't know who they are or where they live (because they didn't return their registration form ).

Turnout figures are based on electors, ie the percentage of those who could have voted and did. The actual turnout must be lower, if you take account of those who have avoided registration.

If we could only get adults to accept the value of stickers in the way that children do, giving adults an "I voted today!" sticker as they leave the polling station could do wonders for the turnout figures

Mol

>>I can't help but feel though, that compulsory voting is the wrong way to go, as how would you enforce it? What would be the penalty for not doing so? Losing your right to vote? Compulsory voting would increase the interest of "the man on the street" in politics, in the same way that ID cards will "reduce crime" - ie no direct effect at all.
<<

Thaprat, if you seriously want some answers to that go to the Australian/NZ researcher's page and ask there - I'm pretty sure that Australia has compulsory voting.


>>Since there is no more than a gnats whixsker in the difference between the Tories and Labour, there really is very little point in pretending that it matters which of them gets in.
<< Blues Shark

I'm interested in how true that is. They say the same about the Labour Party and the Nats in NZ. Obviously they are alot more similar than they used to be with the Labour Party becoming more centrist. But here at least the Labour Party still has active policy that the Nats wouldn't go near - they repealed the Nat's employment legislation that had hugely disempowered workers; they've stopped the privatisation of a number of state owned assets; they're attempting to repair the damage done to health and welfare by previous govts. etc

While economic policies remain closer, I have no doubt that things in NZ would be quite different under a National govt (considerably worse in my opinion).


The thing that I find strange is that there is no serious discussion from the Brits about electoral reform. What are you waiting for? Or do you agree with Blues that nothing can be done about the political situation in the UK?