Shopping & Style1 min ago
In Australia You Get A $20 Fine If You Dont Vote I Think This Should Happen Here What Do Other Abs Think?
40 Answers
With the importance of the referendum coming up in Scotland every vote is critical and I strongly believe that this should happen in the UK with postal votes available for people who cant make it to the polling station what do abers think ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Sorry, didn't provide the link to the electoral Commission's report:
http:// www.ele ctoralc ommissi on.org. uk/__da ta/asse ts/pdf_ file/00 08/1646 09/Elec toral-f raud-re view-fi nal-rep ort.pdf
http://
I think it is yet another money grabbing scheme by the government. One has as much right not to vote as to vote and I wish folk would stop encouraging the elites to enact more and more oppression/abuse on decent citizens. It is not for one individual to force their will on another just to give the bully an ego boost or whatever. It is a bad thing to do.
A failure to vote is, in effect, a vote in favour of the eventual winner. Rather like a grammatical double-negative, it is a failure to negate part of the winner's majority.
(I would like to see majority figures carry weight in parliamentary votes but talk of 'block vote system' would likely kybosh that!)
I am in favour of something like the Australian fines system although I am likely to fall foul of it myself, due to unpredictable bouts of debility.
This prompts me to believe that it will descend into a morass of 'sicknote' type claims would snarl up the system and consume GPs' time in validating claims, likely costing more to administrate than it draws in fines, leaving its 'value' to be assessed solely in the net effect of boosting turnout into to 80s-90s%.
(I would like to see majority figures carry weight in parliamentary votes but talk of 'block vote system' would likely kybosh that!)
I am in favour of something like the Australian fines system although I am likely to fall foul of it myself, due to unpredictable bouts of debility.
This prompts me to believe that it will descend into a morass of 'sicknote' type claims would snarl up the system and consume GPs' time in validating claims, likely costing more to administrate than it draws in fines, leaving its 'value' to be assessed solely in the net effect of boosting turnout into to 80s-90s%.
@boxtops,
the trouble for me is that I don't know if I'm going to be ill until after I've woken up, on the day.
If their was a health test for the postal vote, I would likely fail that, because it would (likely) happen on one of the less-bad days. I don't claim any benefits and I'd likely fail any ATOS tests, or else totally shaft myself by being to knackered to show up. Complete no-win situation, for me. Election fines would just be rubbing it in…
the trouble for me is that I don't know if I'm going to be ill until after I've woken up, on the day.
If their was a health test for the postal vote, I would likely fail that, because it would (likely) happen on one of the less-bad days. I don't claim any benefits and I'd likely fail any ATOS tests, or else totally shaft myself by being to knackered to show up. Complete no-win situation, for me. Election fines would just be rubbing it in…
..Of course if you don't vote then you cannot complain ! ..
a total non-sequitur - of course you can, and do.
In Australia it leads to the 'donkey vote' - people just vote for the top of the list. If it's in alphabetical order (it used to be) the temptation for politicians to change their name to Aaaardvark must be great
a total non-sequitur - of course you can, and do.
In Australia it leads to the 'donkey vote' - people just vote for the top of the list. If it's in alphabetical order (it used to be) the temptation for politicians to change their name to Aaaardvark must be great
Would fining people be more valuable to democracy than conducting an extensive survey as to why folk don't vote? People are tired of a lack of trust and policies which are weak.
What if there are too many concerns about ANY candidate standing in your area? Should you be forced to vote for something you don't believe in?
What if there are too many concerns about ANY candidate standing in your area? Should you be forced to vote for something you don't believe in?
A decision not to vote is not a vote in favour of the eventual winner. That occurs when you put a cross next to the name of the eventual winner. A decision not to vote is a vote that none of the alternatives were considered a worthy option worth encouraging. It can also be a vote against the existing system where one is expected to choose someone to help dictate what you have to comply with, for the next few years, rather than being given a direct say on the issues.
@dzug2
//In Australia it leads to the 'donkey vote' - //
Good old Don. Is he still tilting at windmills?
@O_G
Sometimes I have to type a nonsense reply in order to persuade others to set out the more true state of affairs. ;-)
Perhaps I should have added the words "in effect" to what I said about the act of not voting?
You are correct that non-turnout is a valid statement about what that constituency makes of the candidates offered to it. In which case, I should modify my 'block vote in parliament' proposition to be (majority * turnout%) so that the majorities are scaled accordingly.
The idea is to stop MPs indulging in the "pairing off" system at divisions, as each constituency will carry a unique 'weight'. No one will be able to tell who cancels out whom and every member will have to show up for even the less contentious bills.
Election majorities should count for something in the day to day working of the house, I feel.
//In Australia it leads to the 'donkey vote' - //
Good old Don. Is he still tilting at windmills?
@O_G
Sometimes I have to type a nonsense reply in order to persuade others to set out the more true state of affairs. ;-)
Perhaps I should have added the words "in effect" to what I said about the act of not voting?
You are correct that non-turnout is a valid statement about what that constituency makes of the candidates offered to it. In which case, I should modify my 'block vote in parliament' proposition to be (majority * turnout%) so that the majorities are scaled accordingly.
The idea is to stop MPs indulging in the "pairing off" system at divisions, as each constituency will carry a unique 'weight'. No one will be able to tell who cancels out whom and every member will have to show up for even the less contentious bills.
Election majorities should count for something in the day to day working of the house, I feel.
Easy fix for forced voters who pick the first name on the ballot paper: -
Just put H.M. Queen's name as the first line. If they can't be @rsed to vote then they are clearly staunch Royalists.
It would be fun if General Election ballot papers had both the "none of the above" option and a "restore the monarchy" option, just to see what happens.
Just put H.M. Queen's name as the first line. If they can't be @rsed to vote then they are clearly staunch Royalists.
It would be fun if General Election ballot papers had both the "none of the above" option and a "restore the monarchy" option, just to see what happens.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.