Should voting be compulsory?

TheBlueWolf

fretmeister;1137813" said:

Yes.

But with an official "none of the above" box on every ballot.

What @fretmeister said.

Otherwise It's a 'forced' vote

ICBM

You can already do that - just put a line through all the boxes, or mark all of them in some other way.

octatonic

Yes, I think voting should be compulsory.

Australia manages to do it quite successfully.

Evilmags

Here´s a really good idea. How about NOTHING being compulsory. Seriously who the fuck is anyone to tell someone else what they should be obliged to do. If their is some sort of mystical social contract, then at least give people the opportunity to sign it before enforcing upon them. Their are clearly a lot of people in the UK, and Europe, who don´t give a shit about politics. Trying to force them to become enfranchised because "it is in their best interest" is just one group of people lording it over another. It might just be possible that getting to decide which bunch of mendacious thieves get to rule me, regulate me and violate my property rights is like a sheep choosing between a wolf and bear.

fretmeister

Evilmags said:

Here´s a really good idea. How about NOTHING being compulsory. Seriously who the fuck is anyone to tell someone else what they should be obliged to do. If their is some sort of mystical social contract, then at least give people the opportunity to sign it before enforcing upon them. Their are clearly a lot of people in the UK, and Europe, who don´t give a shit about politics. Trying to force them to become enfranchised because "it is in their best interest" is just one group of people lording it over another. It might just be possible that getting to decide which bunch of mendacious thieves get to rule me, regulate me and violate my property rights is like a sheep choosing between a wolf and bear.

ah - the call of the Libertarian.

A group of people who are upset they are not permitted to be as selfish as they would like to be.

Still, having a 'none of the above' option is hardly forcing enfranchisement is it?

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

Evilmags said:

Here´s a really good idea. How about NOTHING being compulsory. Seriously who the fuck is anyone to tell someone else what they should be obliged to do. If their is some sort of mystical social contract, then at least give people the opportunity to sign it before enforcing upon them. Their are clearly a lot of people in the UK, and Europe, who don´t give a shit about politics. Trying to force them to become enfranchised because "it is in their best interest" is just one group of people lording it over another. It might just be possible that getting to decide which bunch of mendacious thieves get to rule me, regulate me and violate my property rights is like a sheep choosing between a wolf and bear.

ah - the call of the Libertarian.

A group of people who are upset they are not permitted to be as selfish as they would like to be.

Still, having a 'none of the above' option is hardly forcing enfranchisement is it?

Why bother? It's meaningless. Why not turn everything on its head a say to form a government you need X% of the vote. Force the parties to get off their arses and go and meet ordinary people and engage in political debate. The referendum showed how out of touch some people were.

fretmeister

Many countries do have a minimum percentage for constitutional change to ensure that there is actually a majority of citizens (not just voters) that approve.

It's usually 60% or above to bring in a change and in default the status quo continues to apply.

That wouldn't work in a General Election otherwise the default position would mean the same party staying in forever. But I suppose it could be reversed - automatic change to the 2nd place if the existing govt didn't achieve 60%.

Would certainly make Question Time more interesting.

Dominic

Evilmags said:

Here´s a really good idea. How about NOTHING being compulsory. Seriously who the fuck is anyone to tell someone else what they should be obliged to do. If their is some sort of mystical social contract, then at least give people the opportunity to sign it before enforcing upon them. Their are clearly a lot of people in the UK, and Europe, who don´t give a shit about politics. Trying to force them to become enfranchised because "it is in their best interest" is just one group of people lording it over another. It might just be possible that getting to decide which bunch of mendacious thieves get to rule me, regulate me and violate my property rights is like a sheep choosing between a wolf and bear.

I agree with you completely......I have zero interest in politics ,its for old people and boring -I have never watched a political programme or Panorama in my life -I like cartoons and kids tv -I hate those programmes as much as I did when I was 14 and my Dad sent me to bed because he wanted to watch them -there is already enough serious and depressing stuff in the world .I never watch tv really but if I do I like Disney channel and Nikolodeon which makes me sound like an imbecil but its what I like and its light entertainment  and not serious .I would never watch programmes about illness or hospitals or social unfairness / war because it upsets and depresses me .I know its childish but that's my choice and it always surprises people.

If I did vote it would probably be for Spongebob Squarepants or Dick Dastardly and Mutley ( oh,hold on haven't we already had them )

seany65

axisus said:

I think 100% not! 

What is this, big brother? If people don't want to vote it is up to them. It's freedom of choice.

Providing they don't then go and start whinging about the result and wanting a 2nd election/referendum 'cos their views weren't counted as they didn't vote the first time.

Dominic

I've had a great idea ............so much Brexit Contention -this would keep everybody happy

why don't we partition the country,a bit like N and S Korea and have an Eu part and a Brexit Part sort of like China and Taiwan

We could have a population exchange like in India - partitioning etc ...easy ,wire fence,checkpoints,searchlights

Then everybody is happy 

Axe_meister

Our greatest issue we have is that politics has become a career option. You leave uni get a jnr job in government and work yourself up. Ministers no longer come from a working background, be it management or blue collar. The top brass is so removed from local government and grass roots politics it's no wonder the electorate are pissed off.

cacophony

i don't vote, never have since i became eligible.the reason?, i view my vote the same way i view money in my pocket, and to make an analogy, if i walk into a shop look at the items available to buy with my money and decide that not one thing in there is for me, then i can turn and walk out of the shop. it isn't compulsory for me to buy something. same with my vote, if there's no party out there i can really, with a clear conscience throw myself in with, then i won't vote. i'm being made to choose the "least worst" option, which is ridiculous.

as for the "none of the above" idea, a good one in principle, but the politicians of today are so far removed from real people and so trapped within the political machine that is westminster, that they will not give a toss if 97% vote 'none of the above, as long as 2% of the remainder vote for them!. and they'd still talk about a "win for democracy".

it doesn't help that i live in a rural(ish) area in norfolk, where anyone other than the usual 3 parties don't bother putting up candidates. to me, not voting is as much about making a statement as voting.

CabbageCat

No frickin' way. I enjoy the right to keep my opinion to myself. Plus I don't want to have to get off my arse just to have to express my ignorance of a subject I might very well have no interest in. And if I did have an interest in the subject I wouldn't want some dude with no opinion randomly cancelling out my vote because he had been frog-marched to a booth to just pick answer "a" for everything. A "none of the above" option is just an authoritarian version of not turning up. It becomes meaningless if people only pick it because they had been forced to.

hungrymark

No. It bugs me especially when people play the emotional blackmail card of 'soldiers died to protect your vote, you ungrateful so and sos'. Maybe some of them did, but that doesn't mean that the attitude is morally superior. They died to protect our right not to be dictated to, if anything. If people don't want to vote then that's their prerogative.

octatonic

CabbageCat said:

No frickin' way. I enjoy the right to keep my opinion to myself. 

Compulsory voting doesn't mean you have to put something down on the ballot.

You can always vote informally- turn up, tick your name off and walk away.

Some people do this.

I'd say though that, at least in Australia, that compulsory voting means more people get involved in the political process.

BigLicks67

Say we have compulsory voting with a "None of the Above" option, what do we do if "None of the Above" wins the election?

I always vote, but increasingly I'm aware that I like none of the options that are on offer.

ICBM

BigLicks67 said:

Say we have compulsory voting with a "None of the Above" option, what do we do if "None of the Above" wins the election?

Interesting question. If 'NOTA' is an actual voting option, then it must be allowed to 'win' since it's a positive choice. I think if you were to approach it logically, that means that you must have another election. In theory that could go on forever though - you would probably have to apply conditions such as the parties could not field the same candidates.

Sporky

ICBM said:

Interesting question. If 'NOTA' is an actual voting option, then it must be allowed to 'win' since it's a positive choice. I think if you were to approach it logically, that means that you must have another election. In theory that could go on forever though - you would probably have to apply conditions such as the parties could not field the same candidates.

Or hope that the parties are smart enough to try different tactics, canvas more and get their policies right.

It could work out quite positively.

Even with non-compulsory voting I think a "none of the above" option could be useful just because it gives information that spoiled ballots do not.

paulmapp8306

Absolutely not.

Im sure there are many examples of why not, but heres one.

Im ex forces, and spent a period of time in Northern Ireland.  Come vote time I didnt.  This is because:

1.  A vote for a main party - even if a candidate stands - is completely wasted

2.  I dodnt know enough about he community really to vote for a NI Party

3.  Im only there for a short while - so local issues dont affect me enough

So - while based in NI I didnt vote.  Nothing wrong in that.

Now, even If we had PR, I STILL may not have voted.  PR breaks down when the party you want to support doesnt put up a candidate in your seat (as is the case in many NI seats).  If I voted, I would have been taking a PR vote AWAY from who I wanted to vote for.

If there was a "non of the above" then I wouldnt be voting for anyone - but I couldnt register my vote for who I wanted either.

Democratically, living in NI for a period, if your not from NI totally screws you up.  

Snap

Evilmags said:

Here´s a really good idea. How about NOTHING being compulsory. Seriously who the fuck is anyone to tell someone else what they should be obliged to do. If their is some sort of mystical social contract, then at least give people the opportunity to sign it before enforcing upon them. Their are clearly a lot of people in the UK, and Europe, who don´t give a shit about politics. Trying to force them to become enfranchised because "it is in their best interest" is just one group of people lording it over another. It might just be possible that getting to decide which bunch of mendacious thieves get to rule me, regulate me and violate my property rights is like a sheep choosing between a wolf and bear.

I'd say the argument against this is possibly the rule of law.

If you want to exist in a society, and reap all the benefits that come with it, then its not unreasonable to have to adhere to some form of social code that's intrinsic to it.

What you are proposing is anarchy, not something I'd relish. Anarchy ultimately ends up in dictatorship, because fundamentally humans are bastards. We can't exist harmoniously, so we need laws.

I'm pretty liberal, and loathe establishment and conformity, but they are both necesary to provide social order. In their absence all you do is eventually hand over power to a set of ruthless bullies who have the power and influence to lord it over people.

For me, what we have in modern democratic society is the better option.

But I don't agree with forced voting.