We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I didn't agree with any of your post apart from this paragraph. But I couldn't agree with this paragraph any more; and couldn't have put it any better.
The fact this country is being run by a voted-in Prime Minister who was educated at Eton, grew up in Blairmore House, fox-hunting in Berkshire, born to the daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet - a prime minister who does not have two seconds worth of experience of what life is like for any working man not born of immense privilege and wealth - and yet was voted for by these very working people - is a sickening detriment to both our political system and the generations who have allowed the wool to be pulled so blatantly over their eyes.
This system is surely now nearing its end. Young people identify more with Russell Brand's political leanings than they do with the self-serving, question-swerving MPs - of whom they couldn't care less.
Forcing people to vote is not the answer to declining votes. Votes will continue to decline as long as the political class cease to represent the people. The answer is for politics to evolve and force people to care. For politicians to drop the bullshit. Be real. Speak truthfully. Stop towing the party line and putting out audience-tested soundbites. Be something that people can relate to.
It may take another generation, but this current political game has been found out and is suffering, as it should. Parties like UKIP are the last desperate dying breath of a political system searching for relevance among a despondent public.
We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I didn't agree with any of your post apart from this paragraph. But I couldn't agree with this paragraph any more; and couldn't have put it any better.
The fact this country is being run by a voted-in Prime Minister who was educated at Eton, grew up in Blairmore House, fox-hunting in Berkshire, born to the daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet - a prime minister who does not have two seconds worth of experience of what life is like for any working man not born of immense privilege and wealth - and yet was voted for by these very working people - is a sickening detriment to both our political system and the generations who have allowed the wool to be pulled so blatantly over their eyes.
This system is surely now nearing its end. Young people identify more with Russell Brand's political leanings than they do with the self-serving, question-swerving MPs - of whom they couldn't care less.
Forcing people to vote is not the answer to declining notes. Votes will continue to decline as long as the political class cease to represent the people. The answer is for politics to evolve and force people to care. For politicians to drop the bullshit. Be real. Speak truthfully. Stop towing the party line and putting out audience-tested soundbites. Be something that people can relate to.
It may take another generation, but this current political game has been found out and is suffering, as it should. Parties like UKIP are the last desperate dying breath of a political system searching for relevance among a despondent public.
Wish I had written that. The party system is almost impossible to break though isn't it. Not a hope of getting elected outside of that system and an inability to speak out once inside it. Depressing.
But jury service is compulsory. Isn't that equally a civic duty?
Voting is a right. Jury service is a duty.
It could be argued that trial by jury is a right and to make that happen we need jury. But equally democracy is a right but to make that work we need voters to exercise their duty.
OK, I'll take your Socratic bait
Democracy is less a right than a system of rights which ultimately aims at ensuring that the Government is accountable to an extent to the governed. There is no doubt that the right to vote is an integral element in the system of democracy. But it is not the only one and it's regrettable that democracy and the right to vote are conflated in the minds of so many. Equally important are rights to free speech (unfortunately currently under attack from the right not to be offended), the rule of law, the right to form political parties, freedom of the press, the right of free assembly and a variety of other rights.
The importance of these other rights to a functioning democracy can easily be demonstrated. Nobody could reasonably call North Korea a democracy simply because its benighted people have the right (indeed the obligation) to vote for a single party. Russia and Venezula are a best partial democracies - there is thr right to vote in a multi-party system but the Government controls the media and restricts free speech.
If the right to vote on an individual basis must be exercised for us to have a functioning democracy, then this must logically apply to the other rights required. But it would be absurd to suggest that individulas are obliged to exercise their right to free assembly or to form political parties.
I suggest that these rights are all collective rights essential to a democracy which may be, but do not have to be, exercised individually.
Given that voting is often cited as a symbol of freedom making it compulsory seems somewhat contradictory and incongruous to me.
Democracy has become an illusion rather than a reality. The European Commision has the right to overrule the supposedly democratic European Parliament for instance and indeed Peter Mandelson, a former European Trade Commisioner, is on record as speaking about the post democratic age as representative democracy comes to an end.
British Governments have also shown contempt for Parliament, one Blair A being a good example with his attitude to Iraq. To balance this I will also mention that Ed Miliband deserves credit for forcing Cameron, against his preferred will, to consult Parliament over Syria.
All that said one hopes that the population is sufficiently educated to realise that many lives have been sacrificed for the right to vote and that individuals will therefore make a moral judgement of their own to vote even if, understandably as described above, they feel thoroughly disenfranchised.
We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I will be voting for Mr Farage, even though he and UKIP have shortcomings, because the Establishment is playing the man rather than the ball and I want to make a statement against that Establishment.
However writing "None of the Above" or otherwise spoiling your ballot paper is equally valid if you prefer but please do something to engage with the process flawed as it is. it is all we have.
Agreed with most of this until I saw the UKIP voting intention. There are other parties you could vote for outside of the big three if you wanted to protest vote.
UKIP is the only anti EU party to the best of my knowledge and the EU is part of the Establishment I oppose.
The Green party is anti EU, but we live in a democracy so vote for whoever you like
Given that voting is often cited as a symbol of freedom making it compulsory seems somewhat contradictory and incongruous to me.
Democracy has become an illusion rather than a reality. The European Commision has the right to overrule the supposedly democratic European Parliament for instance and indeed Peter Mandelson, a former European Trade Commisioner, is on record as speaking about the post democratic age as representative democracy comes to an end.
British Governments have also shown contempt for Parliament, one Blair A being a good example with his attitude to Iraq. To balance this I will also mention that Ed Miliband deserves credit for forcing Cameron, against his preferred will, to consult Parliament over Syria.
All that said one hopes that the population is sufficiently educated to realise that many lives have been sacrificed for the right to vote and that individuals will therefore make a moral judgement of their own to vote even if, understandably as described above, they feel thoroughly disenfranchised.
We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I will be voting for Mr Farage, even though he and UKIP have shortcomings, because the Establishment is playing the man rather than the ball and I want to make a statement against that Establishment.
However writing "None of the Above" or otherwise spoiling your ballot paper is equally valid if you prefer but please do something to engage with the process flawed as it is. it is all we have.
Agreed with most of this until I saw the UKIP voting intention. There are other parties you could vote for outside of the big three if you wanted to protest vote.
UKIP is the only anti EU party to the best of my knowledge and the EU is part of the Establishment I oppose.
The Green party is anti EU, but we live in a democracy so vote for whoever you like
Given that voting is often cited as a symbol of freedom making it compulsory seems somewhat contradictory and incongruous to me.
Democracy has become an illusion rather than a reality. The European Commision has the right to overrule the supposedly democratic European Parliament for instance and indeed Peter Mandelson, a former European Trade Commisioner, is on record as speaking about the post democratic age as representative democracy comes to an end.
British Governments have also shown contempt for Parliament, one Blair A being a good example with his attitude to Iraq. To balance this I will also mention that Ed Miliband deserves credit for forcing Cameron, against his preferred will, to consult Parliament over Syria.
All that said one hopes that the population is sufficiently educated to realise that many lives have been sacrificed for the right to vote and that individuals will therefore make a moral judgement of their own to vote even if, understandably as described above, they feel thoroughly disenfranchised.
We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I will be voting for Mr Farage, even though he and UKIP have shortcomings, because the Establishment is playing the man rather than the ball and I want to make a statement against that Establishment.
However writing "None of the Above" or otherwise spoiling your ballot paper is equally valid if you prefer but please do something to engage with the process flawed as it is. it is all we have.
Agreed with most of this until I saw the UKIP voting intention. There are other parties you could vote for outside of the big three if you wanted to protest vote.
UKIP is the only anti EU party to the best of my knowledge and the EU is part of the Establishment I oppose.
The Green party is anti EU, but we live in a democracy so vote for whoever you like
In agreement with the Australian's on this one, provided there is a none of the above option. Never missed an opportunity to vote, and have even spoilt a paper one year, as they were all incompetent.
Given that voting is often cited as a symbol of freedom making it compulsory seems somewhat contradictory and incongruous to me.
Democracy has become an illusion rather than a reality. The European Commision has the right to overrule the supposedly democratic European Parliament for instance and indeed Peter Mandelson, a former European Trade Commisioner, is on record as speaking about the post democratic age as representative democracy comes to an end.
British Governments have also shown contempt for Parliament, one Blair A being a good example with his attitude to Iraq. To balance this I will also mention that Ed Miliband deserves credit for forcing Cameron, against his preferred will, to consult Parliament over Syria.
All that said one hopes that the population is sufficiently educated to realise that many lives have been sacrificed for the right to vote and that individuals will therefore make a moral judgement of their own to vote even if, understandably as described above, they feel thoroughly disenfranchised.
We will continue to get the ineffectual, self serving politicians we deserve all the time people continue to blindly vote for the pig with the blue or red rosette depending on where they live and family tradition rather than proper analysis of the issues.
I will be voting for Mr Farage, even though he and UKIP have shortcomings, because the Establishment is playing the man rather than the ball and I want to make a statement against that Establishment.
However writing "None of the Above" or otherwise spoiling your ballot paper is equally valid if you prefer but please do something to engage with the process flawed as it is. it is all we have.
Agreed with most of this until I saw the UKIP voting intention. There are other parties you could vote for outside of the big three if you wanted to protest vote.
UKIP is the only anti EU party to the best of my knowledge and the EU is part of the Establishment I oppose.
The Green party is anti EU, but we live in a democracy so vote for whoever you like
The Greens are hugely Pro Europe
Well perhaps anti EU was a step to far, but they do support a referendum on it, which is more than some of the other parties offer.
Already two other threads about UKIP but it seems we now have a third, thanks Len.
Sink
Did you read my post?
Sorry Oh Great And Mighty Thought Policeman for mentioning IN PASSING who I was going to vote for in a thread about voting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: Presumably I am not allowed to respond to Red red Robin's comment on my post with an explanation??
Yes I read your posts and in both of them you mentioned your anti-EU stance and UKIP.
So not "in passing" at all but you carry on.
Do you want a debate about voting or not?
If you do then it is necessary to address the fact that a reduction in true democracy = a reduction in voter numbers.
The EU is a factor in that. But, hey, you set out what we are allowed to talk about in the world of Henry and voting and we'll just discuss that.
Leave it out, all this "I'm not allowed to talk about the EU, help, help I'm being repressed" nonsense.
As I said there are TWO OTHER threads about UKIP and the EU where lots of people are debating those issues rationally and in some cases very eloquently.
You could have posted on them but instead you wanted to twist what was clearly labelled an ethical debate about should voting be compulsory into yet another of your anti-EU rants.
Fine if you believe that, fine if you want to express that, no one, least of all me, is stopping you no matter how hard to try to play the victim.
Already two other threads about UKIP but it seems we now have a third, thanks Len.
Sink
Did you read my post?
Sorry Oh Great And Mighty Thought Policeman for mentioning IN PASSING who I was going to vote for in a thread about voting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: Presumably I am not allowed to respond to Red red Robin's comment on my post with an explanation??
Yes I read your posts and in both of them you mentioned your anti-EU stance and UKIP.
So not "in passing" at all but you carry on.
Do you want a debate about voting or not?
If you do then it is necessary to address the fact that a reduction in true democracy = a reduction in voter numbers.
The EU is a factor in that. But, hey, you set out what we are allowed to talk about in the world of Henry and voting and we'll just discuss that.
Leave it out, all this "I'm not allowed to talk about the EU, help, help I'm being repressed" nonsense.
As I said there are TWO OTHER threads about UKIP and the EU where lots of people are debating those issues rationally and in some cases very eloquently.
You could have posted on them but instead you wanted to twist what was clearly labelled an ethical debate about should voting be compulsory into yet another of your anti-EU rants.
Fine if you believe that, fine if you want to express that, no one, least of all me, is stopping you no matter how hard to try to play the victim.
IT WAS JUST ON THE WRONG THREAD.
Henry you are talking bollocks!
If others say I've hi jacked the thread then I'll give it some credence but as far as I'm concerned I genuinely tried to engage in the debate.
Back to Kent getting stuffed in the cricket I think.
The Greens are in favour of the concept of the EU but think it has been taken over by big business. They want it throughly reformed to make it more democratic and accountable. Like Cameron they don't say what their policy is if the other member states say "non". They are in favour of a referendum.
Although I might disagree with Len, his post that mentioned UKIP did have context for this thread. We are talking about whether voting should be compulsory and why people don't vote or believe in or trust politics anymore. UKIP has been a response to this and unfortunately people are using them as a protest vote.
But jury service is compulsory. Isn't that equally a civic duty?
Voting is a right. Jury service is a duty.
It could be argued that trial by jury is a right and to make that happen we need jury. But equally democracy is a right but to make that work we need voters to exercise their duty.
OK, I'll take your Socratic bait
Democracy is less a right than a system of rights which ultimately aims at ensuring that the Government is accountable to an extent to the governed. There is no doubt that the right to vote is an integral element in the system of democracy. But it is not the only one and it's regrettable that democracy and the right to vote are conflated in the minds of so many. Equally important are rights to free speech (unfortunately currently under attack from the right not to be offended), the rule of law, the right to form political parties, freedom of the press, the right of free assembly and a variety of other rights.
The importance of these other rights to a functioning democracy can easily be demonstrated. Nobody could reasonably call North Korea a democracy simply because its benighted people have the right (indeed the obligation) to vote for a single party. Russia and Venezula are a best partial democracies - there is thr right to vote in a multi-party system but the Government controls the media and restricts free speech.
If the right to vote on an individual basis must be exercised for us to have a functioning democracy, then this must logically apply to the other rights required. But it would be absurd to suggest that individulas are obliged to exercise their right to free assembly or to form political parties.
I suggest that these rights are all collective rights essential to a democracy which may be, but do not have to be, exercised individually.
I'm glad that someone recognises a Socratic bait when they see one ; - ) You should have been a lawyer.
Personally I'm not convinced by the idea of compulsory voting although it does seem to work without too many issues in fully functioning democracies such as Australia.
Could it be that the decrease in % of voting is about a lack of identity. People in Northern Ireland vote in higher numbers perhaps in part due to clearer identities ie Unionist/Republican that don't exist in mainland UK.
The old identities of class, church (Non-conformists = Liberal, C of E = Conservative) no longer apply.
Maybe a large majority of the population are too comfortable (relatively) and content with what they have that they don't feel a need for radical change or new systems but prefer to protect what they have or return to what they think you had.
Absolutely not, it's an awful idea. False logic: You won't make people more interested in an election by forcing them to vote. If anything, you'll reduce voting to the mechanical act of putting a cross on a piece of paper rather than being a deliberative process. Right not to vote: Points already well made above. Abstention as protest: How do I exercise this right if I'm forced to vote? Worse for existing voters: The people that care and vote already would have their votes watered down by people that don't care, and perhaps even voted for anyone at random. It avoids the real issue: People who are concerned at low turnouts would do better to look at what's wrong with the process and what's wrong with the options rather than forcing people to comply. This is absolutely what is wrong with politics, not that 60%+ don't wan't to vote, but that the political classes would rather spend their time squabbling with each other than sorting out real issues. It makes no difference: No elections are that close that single votes count for anything. If people choose to do something more constructive with their time, that should be their choice. It won't affect the outcome. Quality of decision making: I'd argue that we may well do better with less voters rather than more. There are loads of people that don't follow politics, people aren't good at making decisions, and people are innately gullible. If it were up to me, people would have to sit a test to prove that they were worthy of voting. Policing: Who's going to do the work of enforcing it? Election staff are overworked as it is. Administrative burden of extra voters: Remember the problems in Sheffield and Bristol a few years back? How would we cope with the late surge in voters? Unfair on the poor: There's no was of making it socially equitable. The rich could comfortably afford the fines whilst some poor old pensioner (who may be in great pain) might have to struggle to vote because they'd be terrified that they couldn't afford not to. Another tax: Do we really want to give the govt another means of sneaking money out of our purses? The old anarchist argument: If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it!
Absolutely not, it's an awful idea. False logic: You won't make people more interested in an election by forcing them to vote. If anything, you'll reduce voting to the mechanical act of putting a cross on a piece of paper rather than being a deliberative process. Right not to vote: Points already well made above. Abstention as protest: How do I exercise this right if I'm forced to vote? Worse for existing voters: The people that care and vote already would have their votes watered down by people that don't care, and perhaps even voted for anyone at random. It avoids the real issue: People who are concerned at low turnouts would do better to look at what's wrong with the process and what's wrong with the options rather than forcing people to comply. This is absolutely what is wrong with politics, not that 60%+ don't wan't to vote, but that the political classes would rather spend their time squabbling with each other than sorting out real issues. It makes no difference: No elections are that close that single votes count for anything. If people choose to do something more constructive with their time, that should be their choice. It won't affect the outcome. Quality of decision making: I'd argue that we may well do better with less voters rather than more. There are loads of people that don't follow politics, people aren't good at making decisions, and people are innately gullible. If it were up to me, people would have to sit a test to prove that they were worthy of voting. Policing: Who's going to do the work of enforcing it? Election staff are overworked as it is. Administrative burden of extra voters: Remember the problems in Sheffield and Bristol a few years back? How would we cope with the late surge in voters? Unfair on the poor: There's no was of making it socially equitable. The rich could comfortably afford the fines whilst some poor old pensioner (who may be in great pain) might have to struggle to vote because they'd be terrified that they couldn't afford not to. Another tax: Do we really want to give the govt another means of sneaking money out of our purses? The old anarchist argument: If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it!
Turn out, although still low, has actually increased in each of the last two elections. At the Euro elections, turnover has always been at around a third of the electorate.
Turn out, although still low, has actually increased in each of the last two elections. At the Euro elections, turnover has always been at around a third of the electorate.
Which suggests that either fewer people care about the EU or fewer know what it is (pros and cons) where as general elections are more relevant to more people. They are also get more publicity and the personalities (ie local MPs) are better known.
I think it voting should be compulsory and Reopen Nominations be an option on the ballot paper .If RON got over 50 per cent of the votes then the electoral process would start again.
That way it would be an active not passive abstention.
Reopen Nominations on the ballot paper. If it wins enough votes to be "elected" under the rules of the election system, the election has to happen again.
Ban political parties. Individuals run on their own policies/opinions and act individually on behalf of their constituents.
No more 'government/prime minister', just a civil service who make representations and then act on the votes/instructions of Parliament. The existing civil service do this now, but they only advise the cabinet/ministers. Let them advise the Parliament.
Much greater transparency of policies and the options presented/not presented.
Find an electoral system whereby each representative can reasonably say that they have won the votes of their constituency and each MP has won the votes of roughly the same number of people. Something like the Single Transferrable Vote or Proportional Representation (or both, combined). No longer have a FPTP system where a seat can be won on less than 30% of the vote.
If Reopen Nominations wins the election, treat it like a job ad. No one who has been beaten by Reopen Nominations can run in the follow-up election.
If all of the above happens, I might be OK with compulsory voting. It doesn't remove the inequity of it or the problem of uninterested voters, but hey, I'd have enough of my view of political utopia to be happy.
Not sure if it has been mentioned above, but your vote is not secret. They write your number on the stub of the voting paper then tear it off. The voting paper can be matched to the stub as they both have the same number. If you wanted to identify who voted for, say, the Monster Raving Loony it would not be a particularly laborious job. That could apply to knowing who votes for any party if you really wanted to find out. So if voting were compulsory, however logistically nightmarish it would be, your vote could be traced back to you. If there was a box to tick that said 'All are not acceptable', and more than 50% voted for that option, they could hold another election...which we pay for of course.
I think our system discourages voting. If you want to vote labour in a safe tory seat - what's the point? And if you want to vote tory in a safe labour seat, what's the point? I think there should always be a point. The liberal proposals that got rejected were all about having a second choice - which could count more than your first choice! All a load of boll***s if you ask me. A true democracy counts everybody's vote.
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts so apologies if I repeat anything said before.
On the one hand I think compulsory voting would keep people involved in politics. However, the quality of politicians is such that people are seriously put off voting, so I can understand why, on the other hand, they don't vote.
One point I always feel strongly about is the fact that over the last 100 years or so people fought long and hard for the right to vote. Having the vote is something that is part and parcel of being a member of a free democracy, and it's a right that we should not give away easily. Admittedly, the right to abstain from voting is also valid - but for me that would fly in the face of the efforts of both those who established and those who later have defended our freedom.
Comments
Yes I read your posts and in both of them you mentioned your anti-EU stance and UKIP.
So not "in passing" at all but you carry on.
If you do then it is necessary to address the fact that a reduction in true democracy = a reduction in voter numbers.
The EU is a factor in that. But, hey, you set out what we are allowed to talk about in the world of Henry and voting and we'll just discuss that.
The fact this country is being run by a voted-in Prime Minister who was educated at Eton, grew up in Blairmore House, fox-hunting in Berkshire, born to the daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet - a prime minister who does not have two seconds worth of experience of what life is like for any working man not born of immense privilege and wealth - and yet was voted for by these very working people - is a sickening detriment to both our political system and the generations who have allowed the wool to be pulled so blatantly over their eyes.
This system is surely now nearing its end. Young people identify more with Russell Brand's political leanings than they do with the self-serving, question-swerving MPs - of whom they couldn't care less.
Forcing people to vote is not the answer to declining votes. Votes will continue to decline as long as the political class cease to represent the people. The answer is for politics to evolve and force people to care. For politicians to drop the bullshit. Be real. Speak truthfully. Stop towing the party line and putting out audience-tested soundbites. Be something that people can relate to.
It may take another generation, but this current political game has been found out and is suffering, as it should. Parties like UKIP are the last desperate dying breath of a political system searching for relevance among a despondent public.
Democracy is less a right than a system of rights which ultimately aims at ensuring that the Government is accountable to an extent to the governed. There is no doubt that the right to vote is an integral element in the system of democracy. But it is not the only one and it's regrettable that democracy and the right to vote are conflated in the minds of so many. Equally important are rights to free speech (unfortunately currently under attack from the right not to be offended), the rule of law, the right to form political parties, freedom of the press, the right of free assembly and a variety of other rights.
The importance of these other rights to a functioning democracy can easily be demonstrated. Nobody could reasonably call North Korea a democracy simply because its benighted people have the right (indeed the obligation) to vote for a single party. Russia and Venezula are a best partial democracies - there is thr right to vote in a multi-party system but the Government controls the media and restricts free speech.
If the right to vote on an individual basis must be exercised for us to have a functioning democracy, then this must logically apply to the other rights required. But it would be absurd to suggest that individulas are obliged to exercise their right to free assembly or to form political parties.
I suggest that these rights are all collective rights essential to a democracy which may be, but do not have to be, exercised individually.
http://greenparty.org.uk/news/yes-to-an-eu-referendum-green-mp-calls-for-chance-to-build-a-better-europe.html
But as you say we live in a democracy so vote for who you like :-)
Equally important are rights to free speech (unfortunately currently under attack from the right not to be offended),
How very true.
I'll admit I read this without doing to much other research into the matter, so I could be wrong: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/73-ukip-voters-green-party.html
As I said there are TWO OTHER threads about UKIP and the EU where lots of people are debating those issues rationally and in some cases very eloquently.
You could have posted on them but instead you wanted to twist what was clearly labelled an ethical debate about should voting be compulsory into yet another of your anti-EU rants.
Fine if you believe that, fine if you want to express that, no one, least of all me, is stopping you no matter how hard to try to play the victim.
IT WAS JUST ON THE WRONG THREAD.
If others say I've hi jacked the thread then I'll give it some credence but as far as I'm concerned I genuinely tried to engage in the debate.
Back to Kent getting stuffed in the cricket I think.
I'm glad that someone recognises a Socratic bait when they see one ; - ) You should have been a lawyer.
Personally I'm not convinced by the idea of compulsory voting although it does seem to work without too many issues in fully functioning democracies such as Australia.
Could it be that the decrease in % of voting is about a lack of identity. People in Northern Ireland vote in higher numbers perhaps in part due to clearer identities ie Unionist/Republican that don't exist in mainland UK.
The old identities of class, church (Non-conformists = Liberal, C of E = Conservative) no longer apply.
Maybe a large majority of the population are too comfortable (relatively) and content with what they have that they don't feel a need for radical change or new systems but prefer to protect what they have or return to what they think you had.
Another two days of Henryism's and Farrage's mob could clean up round here :-)
False logic: You won't make people more interested in an election by forcing them to vote. If anything, you'll reduce voting to the mechanical act of putting a cross on a piece of paper rather than being a deliberative process.
Right not to vote: Points already well made above.
Abstention as protest: How do I exercise this right if I'm forced to vote?
Worse for existing voters: The people that care and vote already would have their votes watered down by people that don't care, and perhaps even voted for anyone at random.
It avoids the real issue: People who are concerned at low turnouts would do better to look at what's wrong with the process and what's wrong with the options rather than forcing people to comply. This is absolutely what is wrong with politics, not that 60%+ don't wan't to vote, but that the political classes would rather spend their time squabbling with each other than sorting out real issues.
It makes no difference: No elections are that close that single votes count for anything. If people choose to do something more constructive with their time, that should be their choice. It won't affect the outcome.
Quality of decision making: I'd argue that we may well do better with less voters rather than more. There are loads of people that don't follow politics, people aren't good at making decisions, and people are innately gullible. If it were up to me, people would have to sit a test to prove that they were worthy of voting.
Policing: Who's going to do the work of enforcing it? Election staff are overworked as it is.
Administrative burden of extra voters: Remember the problems in Sheffield and Bristol a few years back? How would we cope with the late surge in voters?
Unfair on the poor: There's no was of making it socially equitable. The rich could comfortably afford the fines whilst some poor old pensioner (who may be in great pain) might have to struggle to vote because they'd be terrified that they couldn't afford not to.
Another tax: Do we really want to give the govt another means of sneaking money out of our purses?
The old anarchist argument: If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it!
Don't pretend that you weren't going to vote for them anyway. : - )
Ban political parties. Individuals run on their own policies/opinions and act individually on behalf of their constituents.
No more 'government/prime minister', just a civil service who make representations and then act on the votes/instructions of Parliament. The existing civil service do this now, but they only advise the cabinet/ministers. Let them advise the Parliament.
Much greater transparency of policies and the options presented/not presented.
Find an electoral system whereby each representative can reasonably say that they have won the votes of their constituency and each MP has won the votes of roughly the same number of people. Something like the Single Transferrable Vote or Proportional Representation (or both, combined). No longer have a FPTP system where a seat can be won on less than 30% of the vote.
If Reopen Nominations wins the election, treat it like a job ad. No one who has been beaten by Reopen Nominations can run in the follow-up election.
If all of the above happens, I might be OK with compulsory voting. It doesn't remove the inequity of it or the problem of uninterested voters, but hey, I'd have enough of my view of political utopia to be happy.
They write your number on the stub of the voting paper then tear it off. The voting paper can be matched to the stub as they both have the same number.
If you wanted to identify who voted for, say, the Monster Raving Loony it would not be a particularly laborious job. That could apply to knowing who votes for any party if you really wanted to find out. So if voting were compulsory, however logistically nightmarish it would be, your vote could be traced back to you.
If there was a box to tick that said 'All are not acceptable', and more than 50% voted for that option, they could hold another election...which we pay for of course.
On the one hand I think compulsory voting would keep people involved in politics. However, the quality of politicians is such that people are seriously put off voting, so I can understand why, on the other hand, they don't vote.
One point I always feel strongly about is the fact that over the last 100 years or so people fought long and hard for the right to vote. Having the vote is something that is part and parcel of being a member of a free democracy, and it's a right that we should not give away easily. Admittedly, the right to abstain from voting is also valid - but for me that would fly in the face of the efforts of both those who established and those who later have defended our freedom.