Compulsory voting

[ComradeDavo]

Compulsory voting is being suggested for the UK at the moment, and being undecided on the issue I thought i'd poll you people to see what you think....

Do you think people should be forced to vote? And for those of you who live somewhere with complusory voting - is it a good thing? And if you support it - what should the penalty be for not voting?

Here's the link to the UK story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4961532.stm

Britain 'needs compulsory voting'

Geoff Hoon has given his support to compulsory voting
Britons should be forced to vote in elections, a think-tank has said.
Think-tank The Institute for Public Policy Research's report suggests those who do not vote should be fined to combat low turnout at the polls.

The research comes just days before local elections in England, where turnout is expected to be low.

Several Cabinet ministers support the move, but the Conservatives have warned that compulsion could be used as a government "cash cow".

'Incentive to engage'

Under the institute's plan, electors would be offered a "none of the above" choice or could simply spoil their papers.

This report convinces me more than ever that we must consider radical measures to renew our democracy

Geoff Hoon
Leader of the Commons


Send us your comments

Ben Rogers, from the institute, said he believed forced voting would improve British politics.

At the moment, the main parties simply give up on people who do not vote and concentrate their efforts on the "core vote", he said.

"If you had compulsory turnout, then the core vote would turn out anyway and the political parties would have to spend much more time persuading people to vote for them."

He said this would be an incentive for parties to engage with the people who they would usually ignore.

The radical solution was backed by Northern Ireland and Wales Secretary Peter Hain and Commons Leader Geoff Hoon.

Mr Hoon said it was "disturbing" that young people and those from deprived communities were "falling out of the habit of voting".

The test for politicians and for political parties is to make voting more easy and more attractive

Simon Hughes
Lib Dem spokesman

"This report convinces me more than ever that we must consider radical measures to renew our democracy," he said.

"Falling turnouts should concern us all."

Mr Hain said: "In Australia and other countries, the civic duty to vote reconnects those who are distanced from the democratic and political process, producing consistently high turnouts without any complaints whatsoever about infringing individual liberty."

But the Tories are not convinced, arguing that the move would be an "unwelcome extension of the state" into the rights and liberties of citizens.

Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary Oliver Heald said it was "perfectly acceptable" for those who were "genuinely disillusioned" to refuse to vote.


The Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman, Simon Hughes, also said compulsory turnout "could make politics less appealing".

"The test for politicians and for political parties is to make voting more easy and more attractive," he added.

International comparison

The report found that the last two general elections had the lowest turnouts - 59% and 61% - since World War I.

Young people were found to be half as likely to vote as the over-65s.

And just 32% of Londoners voted in the capital's last local elections in 2002 - down 16% in 12 years.

In contrast, more than nine in ten voters regularly went to the polls in countries like Australia and Belgium, where compulsion had been introduced.

 

[Hakim]

I voted no on the poll, but perhaps the first vote should be compulsory as studies shows that if new voters abstain they are likely to do it next time as well.

 

[warpus]

Insteady of having a mandatory vote, I say we restrict voting to intelligent people only.

If you can't pass an IQ test - you can't vote.

 

[Ciceronian]

I don't think voting need be compulsory, as I'm of the opinion that anyone who does not vote forfeits any right of political representation. If someone doesn't vote in a local election and then later has a problem with what the elected party is doing, he has no right to complain, as he didn't seem to care about it on election day. Politics is immensely important, it affects all our lives to no small extent, and ignoring or being indifferent to politics means you don't care about your own life either.

 

[Sidhe]

I'd say madatory voting is a breach of my civil liberty and my democratic rights, unless we are allowed to spoil the ballot or vote for no one, in which case there's not much point in making people vote.

People don't vote because they don't care that much for politics, in this case forcing someone to vote on something they really have no interest in is unlikely to make any sort of significant impact, I'd vote Green or MRLP ATM, being a floating voter and all, that way I'm voting for the sort of people I want running Britain, environmentalists and lunatics I'm not sure which I'd want though maybe both

 

[Fifty]

I'd say madatory voting is a breach of my civil liberty and my democratic rights, unless we are allowed to spoil the ballot or vote for no one, in which case there's not much point in making people vote.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[JerichoHill]

I agree with Sidhe and Fifty too, they made the statement I would make.

People should have the choice to vote or not to vote, especially in a democracy.

 

[bhsup]

Absolutely a horribly idea. While I would love 100% voter participation, it's only if the population bothers to take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and issues. The idea of people just going in there and checking boxes because they are forced to is terrible.

 

[ZiP!]

The idea of people just going in there and checking boxes because they are forced to is terrible.

Agreed. And since they don't care (if they did really, they would have went to vote by themselves), they will vote anything, and that will add 'noise' to the results (they'll just pick the first name on the list !)

Although a *small* kind of award for voting people might be kinda cool... But surely no compulsory. (IMHO)

 

[capslock]

Maybe, compulsory voting....

...

...

FOR ME! After I become emperor of course.

 

[jamiethearcher]

I don't want compulsory voting, I vote in every federal election, every provincial election, (but not yet in a state election). If people don't want to vote, they don't have too, it gives MY vote more weight.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I voted no on the poll, but perhaps the first vote should be compulsory as studies shows that if new voters abstain they are likely to do it next time as well.

Thats an intresting idea.

Insteady of having a mandatory vote, I say we restrict voting to intelligent people only.

If you can't pass an IQ test - you can't vote.

We've had the discussion regarding IQ tests for voting many times here before, I find it to be most undemocratic and to be frank arrogant and unworkable.

I'd say madatory voting is a breach of my civil liberty and my democratic rights, unless we are allowed to spoil the ballot or vote for no one, in which case there's not much point in making people vote.

The article says that woudl be 'allowed'. They don't check who you've voted for, they only check that you put the slip in the ballot box.

People don't vote because they don't care that much for politics

I hear this often, but lets face it - politics is human interaction, and of course people are intrested in that. Personally I think people need to be educated better on the issues, and that schools should teach kids about political issues from the age of 8ish, so people grow up understanding how votes effect thigns and what parties/policies do and why we need democracy.

 

[Sidhe]

How can you fail an IQ test, it was a joke Davo but I take your point

And yes I agree educating people to what politics is about is a good idea, those 'Dont do politics adverts' were a step in the right direction.

I still don't think forcing people to vote is a good idea at all. People genrally begin voting consistently as they get older, this is not a bad thing IMO, people are often wiser and more balanced and less partisan than they are as youths.

Besides I would probably be a non voter and I can do that perfectly well from the comfort of my arm chair, so on a purely lazyness issue I'd say bad idea

 

[sysyphus]

Absolutely a horribly idea. While I would love 100% voter participation, it's only if the population bothers to take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and issues. The idea of people just going in there and checking boxes because they are forced to is terrible.

Precisely. I believe that voting is just as much a responsibility as it is a right, but those who don't vote generally are so out of touch with the issues it would be irresponsible for them to vote.

 

[Masquerouge]

A poll or a study that has answers provided only by people who were willing to answer is meaningless.
For the same reason, I think that elections where only people who want to vote do so do not represent the true will of the people.

 

[Perfection]

A poll or a study that has answers provided only by people who were willing to answer is meaningless.
For the same reason, I think that elections where only people who want to vote do so do not represent the true will of the people.

This isn't a study, this is people exercising thier right to vote. How can we put them in with the will of the people if they have no apparent will?

 

[ChrTh]

For the same reason, I think that elections where only people who want to vote do so do not represent the true will of the people.

Exempting people who are physically unable to vote for whatever reason (car accident the night before, e.g.), the will of people who don't vote is "I'll go along with what people who do care say". It's a method of putting the responsibility on those who at least think they know what they're voting about.

Of course, the thing that really pisses me off is the Straight Party Ticket option

 

[Masquerouge]

This isn't a study, this is people exercising thier right to vote. How can we put them in with the will of the people if they have no apparent will?

Exempting people who are physically unable to vote for whatever reason (car accident the night before, e.g.), the will of people who don't vote is "I'll go along with what people who do care say".
It's a method of putting the responsibility on those who at least think they know what they're voting about.

I think the US is very peculiar in that matter because it has basically only 2 options available.
But when you have a dozen political parties that are active and that you can vote for, then the danger is that usually it's the extremists who are more motivated to vote, and you will end up with having Jean-Marie Le Pen on the second turn of the presidential election, a person that more than 80% of the French voted against on the second turn. So the will of the people who don't vote is not "I'll go along with what people who do care say", but more "I hope that people who are voting are voting the way I would have"

If voting was compulsory Jean-Marie Le Pen would not have made it to the second turn. So the will of the people (not having Jean-Marie le Pen on the second turn) was not respected because voting was not compulsory.

 

[warpus]

We've had the discussion regarding IQ tests for voting many times here before, I find it to be most undemocratic and to be frank arrogant and unworkable.

I think you'll agree that the most capable people should be running our respectable countries - I'd simply like to extend that idea and disallow people who do not understand the issues from voting.

Sure, it wouldn't be an IQ test and an IQ test alone, it'd be much more than that - a test of whether the voter understands the issues, the platforms of the various parties, etc.

I'd rather have an informed voter than one who votes along party lines without understanding what the issues really mean.

 

[Hotpoint]

As long as there is a 'None of the Above' choice available on the ballot paper I'm in favour of compulsary voting.

If 'None of the Above' actually "wins" in a district the vote should be repeated with a new set of candidates, but I doubt that would happen very often as frankly I think that those who say they don't vote because they don't like any of the available alternatives are often just too damn lazy to go to the polling station, or even fill in a postal ballot.