ChatterBank1 min ago
What, Another Referendum ..... But With Compulsory Voting!
A lot has been said about another referendum, and I tend to agree that we should have another one, but with this big proviso.
It should be, that like Australia with general elections, it should be made compulsory for all the electorate here to vote in any second referendum. Most people now have a much clearer idea of what they really want, after listening to the remain or leave camps over the past couple of years.
This way we will truly know what the actual voters seek. I would add, that as well as a box on the voting slip for a 'remain' or 'leave' vote, there would have to be a third box for the 'don't knows', although I would hope that it would be virtually redundant.
It should be, that like Australia with general elections, it should be made compulsory for all the electorate here to vote in any second referendum. Most people now have a much clearer idea of what they really want, after listening to the remain or leave camps over the past couple of years.
This way we will truly know what the actual voters seek. I would add, that as well as a box on the voting slip for a 'remain' or 'leave' vote, there would have to be a third box for the 'don't knows', although I would hope that it would be virtually redundant.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wiltsman. 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.
They had decades of experience giving everyone actual facts. Now we have just worse case scenarios and fear stories being pushed in the hope of frightening folk to back off from doing the right thing for our nation. Sure there'll be disruption, but it's the longer term one should be looking at, that and self determination as a necessity.
QUOTE BY Canary41
I agree with Chris, how is it that many people who can't grasp even the most elementary features of the language (such as the difference between your and you're, or there and their and they're) suddenly become experts in the most complex international economics.
UNQUOTE
I love you, Canary42! (Clap clap clap emojis)
Plus, I've always said that misuse of the apostrophe should carry the death penalty. :-) :-) :-)
Seriously, though, it is true that most people don't understand the intricacies of what is going on, and trying to find unbiased information is extremely difficult.
This was a major flaw with the last referendum.
I agree with Chris, how is it that many people who can't grasp even the most elementary features of the language (such as the difference between your and you're, or there and their and they're) suddenly become experts in the most complex international economics.
UNQUOTE
I love you, Canary42! (Clap clap clap emojis)
Plus, I've always said that misuse of the apostrophe should carry the death penalty. :-) :-) :-)
Seriously, though, it is true that most people don't understand the intricacies of what is going on, and trying to find unbiased information is extremely difficult.
This was a major flaw with the last referendum.
I'll stick to the question rather than re-visit the referendum campaign and "Project Fear".
Without arguing over the ethics of it, effective compulsory voting is a complete non-starter. Australia is often cited as an example (although there are numerous others to choose from. Under their legislation voters who have not been granted a postal or proxy vote must "...attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box"
Because the ballot is secret, nobody knows what the voter does to "mark" his paper.
The practicalities of enforcing people to vote (presumably coupled with the threat of fines) are immense. The authorities in the UK cannot even get everybody to properly register their names on the electoral role. The turnout at the referendum was the largest for a national vote in many a year. But even then some 15 million of those eligible to do so did not vote. How would it be possible to issue penalties (and see them paid) to 15 million people?
So to the "competency to vote". Many people participate in activities for which they are not strictly competent. The finest example of this is government ministers who move from department to department with no particular competency to operate in any of them (witness recently Dominic Raab. the then Minister for Exiting the EU, who had no idea of the amount of trade passing through the Port of Dover). Another example is juries. Ordinary members of the public are placed in a position where their judgement on what may be complex criminal cases can consign the defendant to lengthy spells of imprisonment. Nobody suggests that because they are not Queens Counsel they cannot do their job. In both those cases the people who do know the issues involved (Civil Servants and advisors in the case of Ministers, prosecution and defence advocates along with the judge) are expected to explain the issues in language they can understand. Nobody is competent in all issues relating to a referendum of an election. Some may, by coincidence, have some competency but most have none. If it is being suggested that only those competent to vote should be allowed to do so compulsory voting may be a little easier to introduce as the electoral register would probably be in the low hundreds rather than 46 million.
Without arguing over the ethics of it, effective compulsory voting is a complete non-starter. Australia is often cited as an example (although there are numerous others to choose from. Under their legislation voters who have not been granted a postal or proxy vote must "...attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box"
Because the ballot is secret, nobody knows what the voter does to "mark" his paper.
The practicalities of enforcing people to vote (presumably coupled with the threat of fines) are immense. The authorities in the UK cannot even get everybody to properly register their names on the electoral role. The turnout at the referendum was the largest for a national vote in many a year. But even then some 15 million of those eligible to do so did not vote. How would it be possible to issue penalties (and see them paid) to 15 million people?
So to the "competency to vote". Many people participate in activities for which they are not strictly competent. The finest example of this is government ministers who move from department to department with no particular competency to operate in any of them (witness recently Dominic Raab. the then Minister for Exiting the EU, who had no idea of the amount of trade passing through the Port of Dover). Another example is juries. Ordinary members of the public are placed in a position where their judgement on what may be complex criminal cases can consign the defendant to lengthy spells of imprisonment. Nobody suggests that because they are not Queens Counsel they cannot do their job. In both those cases the people who do know the issues involved (Civil Servants and advisors in the case of Ministers, prosecution and defence advocates along with the judge) are expected to explain the issues in language they can understand. Nobody is competent in all issues relating to a referendum of an election. Some may, by coincidence, have some competency but most have none. If it is being suggested that only those competent to vote should be allowed to do so compulsory voting may be a little easier to introduce as the electoral register would probably be in the low hundreds rather than 46 million.
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.