Compulsory voting

[IglooDame]

Fair enough, here you go:

Even Nation States get to Abstain when voting at the UN. Are they "too lazy to make the effort"?

Obviously they are.

Why does abstaining automatically mean the non-voter is any less interested than the loyal party voter who has voted the same way for years and will never vote for anyone else?

"Less interested"? Not necessarily. For example, I know people that are very interested in their own job, they whine and moan about it constantly. However, they're not interested to the extent that they'll actually fill out employment applications. The loyal party voter is making actual physical effort (if not mental effort) to vote for candidates that they like.

And this is better than Abstaining?

It is, if they're going to whine about who actually won the election afterward, yes.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Obviously they are.

is not a point. Are you seriously saying that a country which Abstains from a vote is "too lazy" to evaluate the issues or, is it possible, the same country does not agree with any of the options and thus decides to remain neutral? As do some voters?

"Less interested"? Not necessarily. For example, I know people that are very interested in their own job, they whine and moan about it constantly. However, they're not interested to the extent that they'll actually fill out employment applications.

I'm assuming that there are more options for a person seeking work than there are for someone needing to cast a vote but I may be wrong. In the event that I am not wrong, the point doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The loyal party voter is making actual physical effort (if not mental effort) to vote for candidates that they like.

And the Abstainer has made the mental effort to understand the policies and not vote, but you still consider them to be "lazy"?

It is, if they're going to whine about who actually won the election afterward, yes

Right, so we end up electing the party with the easiest name to spell since we are "just writing a name"?

BNP is pretty easy to spell. I bet the Conservatives are gutted.

 

[IglooDame]

is not a point. Are you seriously saying that a country which Abstains from a vote is "too lazy" to evaluate the issues or, is it possible, the same country does not agree with any of the options and thus decides to remain neutral? As do some voters?

was an appropriate response to an obviously invalid comparison. But okay, you want it laid out: A country which abstains from a vote has almost certainly done so for carefully considered tactical reasons and not because they're lazy or forgetful, and indeed are making the same effort to abstain as they would to enter a yay or nay. But countries don't compare well to individual citizens, and a better counterpoint for you would be MPs or US congressmen failing to show up for parliamentary/congressional votes or abstaining on them.

I'm assuming that there are more options for a person seeking work than there are for someone needing to cast a vote but I may be wrong. In the event that I am not wrong, the point doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

More options? Sure, but it still comes down to a binary of making the effort, or just being content to voice disapproval without having made any effort. Cursing the darkness versus lighting a candle, if you want an even simpler analogy.

And the Abstainer has made the mental effort to understand the policies and not vote, but you still consider them to be "lazy"?

Yes. They've made the mental effort to understand the policies, but they haven't made the mental leap that if they and everyone like them doesn't vote, then their mental efforts are a complete waste of time? Okay at that point maybe they're stupid rather than lazy.

Right, so we end up electing the party with the easiest name to spell since we are "just writing a name"?

BNP is pretty easy to spell. I bet the Conservatives are gutted.

Inapplicable in the US, insofar as one doesn't write down the name of a party. But anyway, you may have gotten my overall position wrong - I am absolutely opposed to compulsory voting, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that people that don't vote and then express their opinions on the election results are either lazy or perhaps just stupid.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

But okay, you want it laid out: A country which abstains from a vote has almost certainly done so for carefully considered tactical reasons and not because they're lazy or forgetful, and indeed are making the same effort to abstain as they would to enter a yay or nay. But countries don't compare well to individual citizens, and a better counterpoint for you would be MPs or US congressmen failing to show up for parliamentary/congressional votes or abstaining on them.

Why do countries voting not compare well to individuals voting? You keep making the assertion that all Abstainers do so because they are "lazy" it is simply not true. A voter has as many considerations upon voting as a Country does when entering into an international agreement.

and a better counterpoint for you would be MPs or US congressmen failing to show up for parliamentary/congressional votes or abstaining on them.

Why? An MP has a duty to represent their constituents by voting as they were elected to do so. An individual does not.

More options? Sure, but it still comes down to a binary of making the effort, or just being content to voice disapproval without having made any effort. Cursing the darkness versus lighting a candle, if you want an even simpler analogy.

No need for a simpler analogy, in my view the original one was already too simplistic. Which was the point I was making.

was an appropriate response to an obviously invalid comparison.

So to the "quit moaning about your job and vote" comparison then

Yes. They've made the mental effort to understand the policies, but they haven't made the mental leap that if they and everyone like them doesn't vote, then their mental efforts are a complete waste of time? Okay at that point maybe they're stupid rather than lazy.

It appears that this is an opinion you have that, although it has no basis in fact, you are not going to relinquish and so I'm going to refrain from explaining my position.

Inapplicable in the US, insofar as one doesn't write down the name of a party.

You wouldn't write a name on a ballot on our side of the pond either. It was you that suggested we

If nothing else, just write in a name

But anyway, you may have gotten my overall position wrong - I am absolutely opposed to compulsory voting, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that people that don't vote and then express their opinions on the election results are either lazy or perhaps just stupid.

It is that position which, frankly, I find to be incorrect, ignorant and offensive.

 

[IglooDame]

Why do countries voting not compare well to individuals voting? You keep making the assertion that all Abstainers do so because they are "lazy" it is simply not true. A voter has as many considerations upon voting as a Country does when entering into an international agreement.
...
Why? An MP has a duty to represent their constituents by voting as they were elected to do so. An individual does not.

The difference between the country or MP and an individual voter is simple: one is made public, the other is private. A country's vote may not make a difference in the balloting they are partaking of, but there are many other considerations. Meanwhile, my family or neighbors will never find out if I abstained, voted for the tree or the chimp unless I actively make it known.

No need for a simpler analogy, in my view the original one was already too simplistic. Which was the point I was making.
So to the "quit moaning about your job and vote" comparison then

You're not actually making sense here, perhaps you've misinterpreted what I was saying.

It appears that this is an opinion you have that, although it has no basis in fact, you are not going to relinquish and so I'm going to refrain from explaining my position.

As presumably yours has no more "basis in fact" than mine? Truly, I'm not going to relinquish it based on the criticisms you've given so far, but if you have actual evidence to support a contrary position, I'm very much open to it - trust me, I get no kick out of thinking the less of people.

You wouldn't write a name on a ballot on our side of the pond either. It was you that suggested we

The name of a party, you wouldn't write here. The name of a candidate (we refer to them as 'write-in candidates') is something you'd write on a ballot. You see why I keep thinking you're misinterpreting what I'm saying?

It is that position which, frankly, I find to be incorrect, ignorant and offensive.

So you don't vote, and because I assume the majority of eligible voters don't vote out of laziness, you're offended?

 

[bhsup]

Um, just to throw something into the mix, a vote to abstain is still a vote. They show up and say they are abstaining. That's totally different than being too lazy to even show up to vote. It's rather like voting for "none of the above".

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The difference between the country or MP and an individual voter is simple: one is made public, the other is private. A country's vote may not make a difference in the balloting they are partaking of, but there are many other considerations. Meanwhile, my family or neighbors will never find out if I abstained, voted for the tree or the chimp unless I actively make it known.

A vote may make even less of a difference to the outcome of an election but that is besides the point. A democracy is made up of representative parties. If there are no parties which represent my politics then I reserve the right to abstain until there is. Why do you have such a problem with that?

You're not actually making sense here, perhaps you've misinterpreted what I was saying.

Not at all. You first made an anology of the abstaining voter and the unhappy worker. I thought that was too simplistic. You then made an analogy regarding a candle as a "more simplistic analogy". Since the first analogy was already too simplistic, no need for an even simpler one. Where did I lose you? The was a response to your using the same following my comparison to countries voting at the UN.

As presumably yours has no more "basis in fact" than mine? Truly, I'm not going to relinquish it based on the criticisms you've given so far, but if you have actual evidence to support a contrary position, I'm very much open to it - trust me, I get no kick out of thinking the less of people.

Mine has basis in fact as I am speaking from personal experience. I say that "I don't vote as I actively abstain given the options". You say "you don't vote because you are lazy". I know why I don't vote. What evidence do you have which proves you know why I vote?

The name of a party, you wouldn't write here. The name of a candidate (we refer to them as 'write-in candidates') is something you'd write on a ballot. You see why I keep thinking you're misinterpreting what I'm saying?

I'll accept that being from England I have no idea of how American balloting operates. My original point that "just write a name" is no way to vote remains justified.

So you don't vote, and because I assume the majority of eligible voters don't vote out of laziness, you're offended?

I'm offended because you've labelled people who actively abstain from voting as "lazy", "disinterested" and "stupid". I can assure you that I, and many others like me are neither.

 

[IglooDame]

A vote may make even less of a difference to the outcome of an election but that is besides the point. A democracy is made up of representative parties. If there are no parties which represent my politics then I reserve the right to abstain until there is. Why do you have such a problem with that?

My problem with that is that you and many others like you are doing nothing to change the lack of representation. Politicians get elected whether the voting turnout is 5% or 95%, and they don't have to care which it is, just that the people that stayed home aren't likely (for whatever reason) to vote for them or their opponent. Thus, they don't care about your opinion, individually or collectively. If every "active abstainer" went and actually cast a legitimate write-in vote, it would send a message that there are votes waiting to be had, and those votes don't require more enthusiasm or less laziness, just different policies.

Don't get mad at me for lumping you in with people who are stupid or lazy, get mad at the politicians and campaign managers who are lumping you in with people who are stupid or lazy and you're letting them get away with it.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

My problem with that is that you and many others like you are doing nothing to change the lack of representation.

I'd disagree. since the local elections on our side of the pond there have been many politicians stating that they are trying to reach those who didn't vote. However, I do take your point that unless I'm asked personally nothing will be done to acquire my vote personally.

If every "active abstainer" went and actually cast a legitimate write-in vote, it would send a message that there are votes waiting to be had

Sorry, what is a "write in vote"? I'm not being facetious, it's not a term I've come across before and I don't think we have that option over here.

 

[IglooDame]

I'd disagree. since the local elections on our side of the pond there have been many politicians stating that they are trying to reach those who didn't vote. However, I do take your point that unless I'm asked personally nothing will be done to acquire my vote personally.

You wouldn't happen to have any surveys or statistics on attitudes/reasons for not voting? I'm pretty sure the politicians do - they are certainly trying to reach those lazy types who agree with them but didn't vote, and they're simultaneously trying to discourage people who disagree with them from voting.

Sorry, what is a "write in vote"? I'm not being facetious, it's not a term I've come across before and I don't think we have that option over here.

If you don't have the option over there, then we need to kiss and make up. A write-in vote is most generally a blank at the bottom of a ballot where you can fill in the name for an alternative candidate if you don't like the ones listed.

 

[JerichoHill]

I believe in Freedom

Freedom implies choice

Such, one makes a calculation (is it worth it to vote?) If it is not, then one does not vote.

I don't see how that is wrong, or bad. Not-Voting is a vote. It might be an indicator of the worthiness of voting.

Perhaps rates of voting would be different if the election system were different? (This is in fact true, different types of election formats do affect voter turnout)

 

[ComradeDavo]

ComradeDavo in my opinion the problem is not ignorance.

I don't think it is per say, but I do think that it is the problem in some peoples cases. I think of a few peopel I know who really don't understand how politics effects them and know pratically nothing about teh parties, and I would say that the reason they don't vote is because they are ignorant.

People are usually happy to vote for an honest sensible person that they trust will have the best interests of their area at heart and will represent them. But only to often they do NOT get that choice and so do not vote.

There are two underlying problems: both parties and businesses have become too organised. Organised party politics has captured local representative democracy. Most party structures only let stooges (typically honest, likeable and well intentioned but manipulable and not too smart) stand as their candidates. The parties will promise whatever is popular but try to deliver whatever the very well organised and efficient business lobbys them to do and the stooges will be persuaded to ignore the views and interests of their constituency and vote for the party line or be ruthlessly cold shouldered.

The best method of increasing voter turn out would be to

(i) abolish political parties such that represenatives would have to stand and campaign and be judged on their own merits

(ii) increase the amount (in UK) they can each independently spend on advocating their case (in the UK the parties who borrow shamelessly to spend on themselves have colluded to maintain a now (due to inflation) derisory limit on candidates' election campain expenses;

(iii) banning all undeclared contributions and limiting business contributions.

I used to dislike the idea of the party, but when you think about it a group of individuals in parlimet would no doubt start siding together where they agree on various issus and boooom you've got yourself a political party....

With a national curriculum; this would likely amount to indoctrination.

I doubt that, it would have to be a very transparant system of course and kids could get to meet representatives form various parties to make sure all sides and views were given.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't see how you mean - you mean it's bad that people don't care which party controls all of this? Maybe - but surely they have that choice not to care. Alternatively, they may care, but either be happy with any choice, or unhappy with all choices.

Well like i've said there are a fair few chocies and people should vote according to which party they feel best represents them. Someone can't say they don't care about politics if they have opnions on drug use or crime or how much tax they pay.

Given that many people now vote without learning about the parties/issues (beyond what they hear or read in the news), I don't see that those who are completely apathetic are suddenly going to spring into being enthusiastic followers of politics. If they resent giving up time to vote, they're not suddenly going to spring to then spend even more time learning about it all.

There are better ways to make people interested, that don't involve criminalising innocent people. For example, make people feel their vote is worth something, by getting rid of the useless "first past the post" single vote system. Also, perhaps we can fine Governments who don't keep their manifesto promises. And how about making voting (in the House of Commons) compulsory for MPs for a start?

Well i'm not saying I actually advocate complusory voting, I just want to know what people think about it.

It woudl be a nice idea to make voting in the commons compulsory for MP's but thats not pratical for many, what with foreign trips, meetings and what not.

I agree - even if not until 16, some would be a start. At my school in the UK, we had none; it wasn't even an option, until A Level.

 

[IglooDame]

I doubt that, it would have to be a very transparant system of course and kids could get to meet representatives form various parties to make sure all sides and views were given.

The BNP could show up? How about the Communist Party? Or the PeopleWhoDislikeParties Party?

The problem starts in determining who gets the airtime...

 

[ComradeDavo]

The BNP could show up? How about the Communist Party? Or the PeopleWhoDislikeParties Party?

The problem starts in determining who gets the airtime...

Well you do have a point there, I suppose that any racist parties would have to be barred. But you could still have Lab/LinDem/Con/Green/UKIP/Respcect/SNP/PC and idependents.

 

[IglooDame]

Well you do have a point there, I suppose that any racist parties would have to be barred. But you could still have Lab/LinDem/Con/Green/UKIP/Respcect/SNP/PC and idependents.

But don't the racist parties have just as much right to be heard as the others?

 

[mdwh]

It woudl be a nice idea to make voting in the commons compulsory for MP's but thats not pratical for many, what with foreign trips, meetings and what not.

Similarly, compulsory voting isn't practical for many citizens.

 

[bhsup]

It's tragic that such an important civic duty like voting can be seen as an inconvenience or not practical. I really have very little patience for those that complain about standing in line for two hours "just to vote". I'm sure the folks in totalitarian nations would love the chance to stand in line for two hours if they had a voice in choosing their next government.

 

[warpus]

The BNP could show up? How about the Communist Party? Or the PeopleWhoDislikeParties Party?

Then let them talk! If people like what they hear - they will vote for that party.. and if they don't - they won't.. if enough people like what they hear and decide to vote for party X, then party X might get representation in the next government - however outrageous their ideas might be. That's how democracy works.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

If you don't have the option over there, then we need to kiss and make up. A write-in vote is most generally a blank at the bottom of a ballot where you can fill in the name for an alternative candidate if you don't like the ones listed.

Davo can advise if I'm wrong but on any ballot which I have seen you are only given the names of the people who are standing and the party they represent. There is no other option.

As someone has mentioned above, in areas where the BNP hasn't stood people have just resorted to scrawling BNP on the ballot. The vote wouldn't count.

There's no need to make up since we are only debating and I didn't sense any malice in any of your posts.

We can forgo the kiss as well if you don't mind

But don't the racist parties have just as much right to be heard as the others?

Agreed. Let them stand in a debate alongside other parties who can show them for the lying racists they are.