General Election

[Ducati]

With the general election looming, what is the consesus opinion on having to demonstrate a certain level of political awareness before you are allowed to vote?

 

I pose this question as I had to explain to a friend over the weekend what a hung parliament is which, frankly, staggered me.

 

I firmly believe that voting is a privilege that should be earned.

[jno]

I disagree. Parliament has the right to tell us what to do. They can only derive that right from us - the voters - in the first place. If I voluntarily refuse to vote, I'll have to accept whatever government other voters choose for me. But if I'm prevented from voting, why should I feel morally obliged to accept any laws that are passed? Only children and the mentally ill (and perhaps prisoners? not sure if they vote or not) have to put up with that. Ignorant or not, people are obliged to obey the law and therefore must have a say in choosing who passes the laws.

I do sympathise with your point about ignorance but the answer is education, not disenfranchisement.

[Grunty]

I agree with Jno, but strongly feel that there is a moral responsibility to be informed about the issues involved. 

As a mater of interest, the people who cannot vote are

Members of the House of Lords (those hereditaries recently kicked out can now vote)

Prisoners

Those convicted of electoral malpractice are barred for 5 years (unless they are still prisoners)

Persons with mental health problems.  The actual words used, begining with i and L were acceptable when the law was passed, but are not now.

The Queen can vote but chooses not to do so.

[natalie_1982]

I don't know what hung parliament is, I don't even know, apart from Tony Blair, who stands for which party.  I recognise names like Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy but don't know who they are. 

I watch the news ands really want to understand politics but living in an area that falls under the jurisdiction of the IWCA I don't get a lot of information from other parties.

I think children should be taught basic politics in school, I don't know where each party's heart lies, or what is important to each particular one.

I don't vote, because I don't feel I know enough to pass judgement, although the impression I do get is that I wouldn't really want any of them to lead our country.  It seems very playground and one up-manship which I can't keep up with.

[Didwot]

Either this is a democracy or it is not. You can not have an objective test as to whether or not someone may vote. Imagine the political advantage to be gained from setting the tests, and adjudicating the results. It might even make the gerrymandering of US voting districts look honest, and would put the postal vote in Birmingham well in the shade.
What I would like on my ballot sheet is a box for "None of the Above" so that if I am interested enough to cast my vote, but do not like the candidates, or their parties' policies, I can nonetheless register that fact. Moreover if None of the Above were to get the largest share of the vote I would like all the candidates to forfeit their deposits, be debartred from standing for five years, and the ballot to be rerun. Perhaps the politicians might be more inclined to listen if we could do that to them

[Didwot]

Err ... Subjective test

[woofgang]

Well first define political awareness. I do know what a hung parliament is but that is terminology, not morals or ethics. I know what I think is right and how I think this country should be run and therefore I have a right to vote. BTW...."none of the above great idea!!!

[Miss Zippy]

I don't think it is necessary to knows the ins and outs of the political process to be 'politically aware'. Most people who vote must be politically aware to the extent that they understand which parties' policies will or will not have a bearing on their circumstances or issues important to them and care enough to vote. To exclude people from voting on the basis they don't understand what a 'hung parliament' is or, for instance, cannot argue the merits of our 'first past the post' system vis a vis proportional representation is a bit draconian.  

[Guinevere]

Didwot - I believe that if you spoil your ballot paper (ie scribble all over it, or tick every box) it is still counted as a vote but is taken to mean "I don't want to vote for/believe in any of these people."  By doing this is distinguishes a protest about the state of politics from just plain apathy.

I am always shocked at the amount of people I hear say things like 'I can't be bothered to vote'   Esp women - we've had the vote for less than 100 years!

It is a privilege to be able to vote, but luckily not one we have to earn.  We live in a democracy.  If anyone has any doubts on what a good thing that is then they should give Amnesty International a call, and ask for some stories from countries without democracy.

[silly moo]

The right to vote is a right that some people fought very hard to get. Some even lost their lives.
We should ALL vote at every opportunity.
Spoiling your ballot paper in any way is certainly an option - I have done this myself in the past when I have felt that there is nobody on the ballot paper I feel I can vote for.
I have never not voted unless I have been out of the country and unable to arrange a postal vote.
I have tried to bring my daughters up to always vote and not to waste this hard won right.

[bernardo]

There should be a pomposity test - people who say outrageous things like in the question should be banned from voting.

[OBonio]

I agree with Didwot.  A vote of 'No Confidence' would be a marvellous way of demonstrating to the politicians what we really think of them.  Without it, the turnouts are just going to get worse and worse I fear.

[jake-the-peg]

What makes you all so sure we live in a democracy?

Have any of you ever got a chance to vote for a Prime Minister? Did you ever get a say in who would be in the cabinet?

We are governed by ministers who act within the framework of legislation that MPs mostly rubber stamp - MPs who are not in the government have very little power, which means we have very little power.

This is quite visible now - I greatly doubt that Tony Blair's personal standing would be sufficient for him to win a presidential style election and yet he is likely to be re-elected because he can effectively manipulate his party.

I think we have a very poor shadow of a democracy but we have nobody but ourselves to blame because as a country we seem terrified of constitutional change dressing our fear up and calling it tradition. When challenged all the little heads pop up and say "it's not perfect but it's better than they have in many countries you know"

It's not perfect - it's better than many countries - but it's still just not good enough!

[elgroucho]

I would make voting compulsory for all currently eligble adults, but would include the none of the above option of course. This is the only way of getting the true feel for people's opinions and would stop people claiming a mandate from a small turnout. There is no way Ducati's suggestion should be brought in as it would be way too subjective and would frankly waste even more time and money trying to come up with a way round the perceived problem. All are equal, and all should have a say.

 

For anyone who is still unsure, a hung parliament is when no part has an overall majority of MP's i.e. no party has more MP's than all the others combined.

[Ducati]

Fair enough guys, I am duly humbled: thank you to everyone who answered the question (and ya boo sucks to the idiot who didn't).

[THECORBYLOON]

woofgang a "hung" parliament is one where no party has an overall majority in the Commons.

[SteveDerby]

I think that going down the road of making voting compulsory would be a very dangerous move. We live in a democratic society, and part of the freedom we have includes the option to vote for who we want to, or if we choose to, not to vote at all. I agree that more needs to be done to improve turnouts at elections, but isn't the problem a case of :
1) Having really only a choice of Labour or Tories (because no-one seems to be willing to give the Liberals a shot at running the country) and
2) The fact that Labour and Tory polices are practically the same in most areas of government, and therefore it doesnt make much of a difference.

I think this time round, Mr Blair may have a nasty surprise, because now all the facts have come out about Iraq and the distinct lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction (which he said was the reason for going to war), its going to be very hard for him to convice the electorate that he can be trusted.

[hobart]

I understand the sentiment - it depresses me watching programs like "The Politics Show" today, where someone claimed that they would vote Labour because "well, the Liberals are a bit dodgy, and the Conservatives are even more dodgy", but if you're going to live in a democracy, then you've got to accept that.

The real concern is people who get their entire political view from the newspaper that they read. This gives the editors an awful lot of power, and you can be reasonably certain that whoever the Sun backs will end up winning the election.

[kazza12345]

hmm i used to agree with democracy, untill i realised that if i had a vote, then so did all the thick people who believe what they are told ....

personally at the moment i would like a box at the bottom with "none of the above"

[kazza12345]

I also agree with the person above who said that along with the right to vote, comes the equal and opposite right not to vote, and both are valid choices (thankfully) in this country