If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News3 mins ago
Choosing to abstain.
19 Answers
Since it would appear that it is quite acceptable for MPs to abstain on crucial votes. Would it not be a good idea to include an option to abstain on voting forms in General and Local elections?
Then when these abstained votes where counted, it would go along way to highlight how disillusioned the general public were with their politicians.
Then when these abstained votes where counted, it would go along way to highlight how disillusioned the general public were with their politicians.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
I can see you have not really thought this one through meglet.
By actually turning out to record a vote of no confidence, one would not only be using their valuable demorcratic privilege of voting. But at the same time recording one's dissatisfaction with the candidates.
Those that just sit on their backsides and not bother to turn out and vote, finish up with the politicians they deserve. it is no use moaning and groaning about the politicians, or the state of the country etc, etc. We hold it in our power to make changes.
By actually turning out to record a vote of no confidence, one would not only be using their valuable demorcratic privilege of voting. But at the same time recording one's dissatisfaction with the candidates.
Those that just sit on their backsides and not bother to turn out and vote, finish up with the politicians they deserve. it is no use moaning and groaning about the politicians, or the state of the country etc, etc. We hold it in our power to make changes.
Oneeyedvic, I do see the argument for compulsory voting.
But I'm a big one for liberty and rights. Our ancestors fought for our right to vote. We shouldn't be using it to replace another of our rights - the right not to vote.
Voter turnout is also an important baromoter that shows how well politicians are engaging with the electorate. I don't believe that abstentions would reflect this as accurately. Once in the booths, a lot of apathetic voters would pick a candidate they feel mildly inclined towards. At least low turnout sends a message to politicians - your message isn't working.
But I'm a big one for liberty and rights. Our ancestors fought for our right to vote. We shouldn't be using it to replace another of our rights - the right not to vote.
Voter turnout is also an important baromoter that shows how well politicians are engaging with the electorate. I don't believe that abstentions would reflect this as accurately. Once in the booths, a lot of apathetic voters would pick a candidate they feel mildly inclined towards. At least low turnout sends a message to politicians - your message isn't working.
Unfortunately, there are many constituencies where the result is a forgone conclusion. The sitting candidate having a large majority. And the lack of distinction between the three main parties adds to the disillusionment. That is why we have small turn-outs at elections, and I doubt whether an abstain option would work.
Quinlad - to me it is the opposite. If I was to stand for election, I would know that there is a very small demographic that I will need to appeal to after some research - lets say for example that the majority of voters are white aged 40 - 60. On that basis, I can make all my promises to these people and get elected.
If I knew everyone had a vote, i would then have to appeal to everyone - not just the 40-60 year olds.
In my mind, it would actually improve the political spectrum.
If I knew everyone had a vote, i would then have to appeal to everyone - not just the 40-60 year olds.
In my mind, it would actually improve the political spectrum.
No, politicians do not care about turn out. In fact voter apathy suits them quite well because it allows them to pursue their own agenda without being troubled too much by the electorate.
The idea of compulsory voting is a non-starter. At present we cannot stop young people murdering each other. Quite how we intend to compel two thirds of the population to spend 20 minutes away from the telly every five years doing something they have no interest in needs some explanation.
At present only about one in three of the electorate votes. The idea that this will increase by providing facilities to formally abstain is nonsense. Most people don�t vote because they are of the opinion that they cannot influence events. And they are largely right. Neither of the two parties likely to be elected to govern listens to voters or is prepared to do as they wish.
Yesterday�s vote on the Lisbon Treaty is a case in point. Prior to the last election both parties promised an election on the European Constitution. The Constitution was rejected by France, but of course that could not be allowed to stand in the way of the European project. The Constitution thus became a Treaty but, even on the admission of its supporters and architects, was 95% identical to the Constitution. I�ve read both and can tell you that the name is about the only major thing to have changed. But the promised referendum has now been denied.
In contrast to the electorate, MPs should be compelled to vote. That is their job. The Lib-Dem stance last night was appalling. Their MPs (and all the others) should have found out what their constituents want on this most important issue and voted in accordance with their wishes.
But that would be too simple and might tell them something they don�t want to hear.
The idea of compulsory voting is a non-starter. At present we cannot stop young people murdering each other. Quite how we intend to compel two thirds of the population to spend 20 minutes away from the telly every five years doing something they have no interest in needs some explanation.
At present only about one in three of the electorate votes. The idea that this will increase by providing facilities to formally abstain is nonsense. Most people don�t vote because they are of the opinion that they cannot influence events. And they are largely right. Neither of the two parties likely to be elected to govern listens to voters or is prepared to do as they wish.
Yesterday�s vote on the Lisbon Treaty is a case in point. Prior to the last election both parties promised an election on the European Constitution. The Constitution was rejected by France, but of course that could not be allowed to stand in the way of the European project. The Constitution thus became a Treaty but, even on the admission of its supporters and architects, was 95% identical to the Constitution. I�ve read both and can tell you that the name is about the only major thing to have changed. But the promised referendum has now been denied.
In contrast to the electorate, MPs should be compelled to vote. That is their job. The Lib-Dem stance last night was appalling. Their MPs (and all the others) should have found out what their constituents want on this most important issue and voted in accordance with their wishes.
But that would be too simple and might tell them something they don�t want to hear.
The idea of compulsory voting is a non-starter. At present we cannot stop young people murdering each other. Quite how we intend to compel two thirds of the population to spend 20 minutes away from the telly every five years doing something they have no interest in needs some explanation. There are less than 1000 murders a year - so me thinks that you exaggerate too much.
Very simply, a law that makes it compulsory to vote, on punishment of fine (in a similar way to council tax). It is not difficult, and although there will be people who protest and do not vote, the majority of people (in my opinion) will happily go down to their voting booths. I would also do this for local elections, so it would be an annual event. Maybe a bank holiday should be declared on that day as well so that there can be no excuse. Maybe (and I do use the word maybe), technology can be used so that people can vote on line or by phone / text. This would of course have to be done correctly.
Rumour has it that more people voted in a big brother competition that voted in a general election. Young people have to take on certain responsibilities - and this is a good starting point.
Very simply, a law that makes it compulsory to vote, on punishment of fine (in a similar way to council tax). It is not difficult, and although there will be people who protest and do not vote, the majority of people (in my opinion) will happily go down to their voting booths. I would also do this for local elections, so it would be an annual event. Maybe a bank holiday should be declared on that day as well so that there can be no excuse. Maybe (and I do use the word maybe), technology can be used so that people can vote on line or by phone / text. This would of course have to be done correctly.
Rumour has it that more people voted in a big brother competition that voted in a general election. Young people have to take on certain responsibilities - and this is a good starting point.
I disagree. It's a cop out.
We want people to engage with the political process because they care. And it's up to the politicians to come up with a well-articulated direction that people want to sign up to. Threatening people with a fine absolves the politicians of much of this responsibility.
It should be the carrot, not the stick. Otherwise, people will resent politics even more than they do already.
We want people to engage with the political process because they care. And it's up to the politicians to come up with a well-articulated direction that people want to sign up to. Threatening people with a fine absolves the politicians of much of this responsibility.
It should be the carrot, not the stick. Otherwise, people will resent politics even more than they do already.
Yes, Vic, I believe the fact you quoted about the �reality� show phone-in vote is true. This is because many people have a far greater interest in such matters than they have in politics.
At the last general election just short of 20m of those registered to vote failed to do so. Even if this could be reduced by half with compulsion (and I would suggest that is very optimistic) there would still be 10m �Fixed Penalties� to pursue. Many of these would not be paid and the cost of the subsequent action needed to enforce them would be prohibitive.
At present we cannot even get people to register themselves on the electoral role � and that is compulsory. It is estimated that in London alone there are more than half a million missing voters.
Of course many people will comply if voting is made mandatory � that�s generally what Brits do. But a sizeable number will not � including those who are not on the electoral register and some who may vote at the moment but will refuse to do so if compelled.
My analogy to the number of murders may have been a little disingenuous. But my point was that we cannot adequately enforce the laws we currently have. The population does not need protection from non-voters as it does from murderers or burglars. What it does need is protection from arrogant politicians unwilling to establish their constituents� wishes and act upon them.
The way to get people to vote is to show them it is worthwhile, not to compel them to do so and fine them if they don�t.
At the last general election just short of 20m of those registered to vote failed to do so. Even if this could be reduced by half with compulsion (and I would suggest that is very optimistic) there would still be 10m �Fixed Penalties� to pursue. Many of these would not be paid and the cost of the subsequent action needed to enforce them would be prohibitive.
At present we cannot even get people to register themselves on the electoral role � and that is compulsory. It is estimated that in London alone there are more than half a million missing voters.
Of course many people will comply if voting is made mandatory � that�s generally what Brits do. But a sizeable number will not � including those who are not on the electoral register and some who may vote at the moment but will refuse to do so if compelled.
My analogy to the number of murders may have been a little disingenuous. But my point was that we cannot adequately enforce the laws we currently have. The population does not need protection from non-voters as it does from murderers or burglars. What it does need is protection from arrogant politicians unwilling to establish their constituents� wishes and act upon them.
The way to get people to vote is to show them it is worthwhile, not to compel them to do so and fine them if they don�t.
To New Judge & Quinlad.
I think we would all agree that there is a huge voter apathy. This means that MPs are being elected somewhat unfairly, and as mentioned previously an intelligent candidate (if that is not an oxymoron) can be elected by going after specific groups and ignoring the wants / wishes of the majority.
By enforcing people to vote, anyone who wants to be elected is going to have to make certain promises (and keep them). The majority of labour mps yesterday did not keep their election promise (due to semantics). But the same old people will keep turning up to the polls and nothing will really change. If everyone turned up to the polls (or even 70% turnout compared to around 40% now), I believe the effect would be dramatic.
That said, it would never happen, in the same way that proportional representation will never happen - it may be a fairer way of governing but it would also reduce the power of the government that are in.
I think we would all agree that there is a huge voter apathy. This means that MPs are being elected somewhat unfairly, and as mentioned previously an intelligent candidate (if that is not an oxymoron) can be elected by going after specific groups and ignoring the wants / wishes of the majority.
By enforcing people to vote, anyone who wants to be elected is going to have to make certain promises (and keep them). The majority of labour mps yesterday did not keep their election promise (due to semantics). But the same old people will keep turning up to the polls and nothing will really change. If everyone turned up to the polls (or even 70% turnout compared to around 40% now), I believe the effect would be dramatic.
That said, it would never happen, in the same way that proportional representation will never happen - it may be a fairer way of governing but it would also reduce the power of the government that are in.
I agree, Vic, that a higher turnout might make MPs more responsive to the wishes of their constituents. However, one �volunteer� voter must be worth two or three �conscripts�.
There is a vast disconnect at present between the government and the governed. As a result of apathy government has become more arrogant and take the view that if less than half of us bother to turn out on polling day, then more than half must be happy as things are.
Of course this is a flawed argument, but that does not trouble them. They see themselves more able to get away with virtually what they want. The parliamentary opposition is weak and so it perpetuates.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to overcome (as I�ve said before) is the Party system. Most of the current MPs (with a few honourable exceptions) see their function as representing their party�s line to the voters and not representing their voters� wishes at Westminster. Until MPs become more afraid of their constituents� reactions to their conduct than they are of the Party Whips then it will simply continue.
There is a vast disconnect at present between the government and the governed. As a result of apathy government has become more arrogant and take the view that if less than half of us bother to turn out on polling day, then more than half must be happy as things are.
Of course this is a flawed argument, but that does not trouble them. They see themselves more able to get away with virtually what they want. The parliamentary opposition is weak and so it perpetuates.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to overcome (as I�ve said before) is the Party system. Most of the current MPs (with a few honourable exceptions) see their function as representing their party�s line to the voters and not representing their voters� wishes at Westminster. Until MPs become more afraid of their constituents� reactions to their conduct than they are of the Party Whips then it will simply continue.
I am so sorry meglet if I sounded rather rude, but it was not intended. Perhaps it was due to your rather sharp reply ie.
Surely this happens now !!!! as you say !!!!!! do you really think !!!!!!!
I was only trying to get it over to you that you perhaps had not thought about it before coming up with your answer.
I was trying to point out there is a vast difference between not bothering to turn out because it doesn't matter to them if you do or don't, and taking the trouble to turn out if one could register a disatifaction vote, this would hurt their peacock type pride.
For example if you knew that if you were to turn out you could air your grouses personally to your MP you would then turn out. Yet if you could only post your moans through his letter box, then in this case you would be more likely to refrain from turning out.
Surely this happens now !!!! as you say !!!!!! do you really think !!!!!!!
I was only trying to get it over to you that you perhaps had not thought about it before coming up with your answer.
I was trying to point out there is a vast difference between not bothering to turn out because it doesn't matter to them if you do or don't, and taking the trouble to turn out if one could register a disatifaction vote, this would hurt their peacock type pride.
For example if you knew that if you were to turn out you could air your grouses personally to your MP you would then turn out. Yet if you could only post your moans through his letter box, then in this case you would be more likely to refrain from turning out.
1 to 19 of 19
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.