The AV referendum - 5th May

[Captain Tancredi]

For what may be the only time in my life, I find myself agreeing with a comment Harriet Harman made on Sky last night- tacking the referendum onto the local elections was a mistake because it made it a referendum on the coalition and Nick Clegg in particular. To be honest, after only two changes of government since 1979, I think we've reached the stage where people simply can't imagine our political system as being better, more accountable or more representative- everybody knows (or thinks they know) that the Tories are corrupt self-aggrandising liars and Labour are financially incompetent inverted snobs.

I don't see compulsory voting as the answer- in our political culture I suspect that a lot of people would, if forced to vote, go for a joke candidate or a local independent, and things being as they are, the joke candidate would eventually get in. If we're drifting back towards a two party system in England, then it'd be interesting to see if this leads to more electoral pacts at a local level- we're forever being told how parlous Labour's finances are, so why do they waste money fielding candidates in solid Tory areas in the Home Counties when they'll never win? Whereas they could give the Lib Dems a clear run at the Tory majority and save themselves a lot of money.

[Awesome Wells]

Obviously, the proviso for "none of the above" would be included - or "no preference" in the case of a referendum like today's.

As for the idea that a turnout of LESS THAN HALF THE ELECTORATE is in any way good, well, that baffles me.

If people don't want compulsory voting -- and with the "none-of-the-above" option, I can't see any reasonable objection to it -- then surely an electronic ballot has to be considered. Everything else in the world happens on the Internet -- why can't we vote online as well?

[Rob McCow]

There's a good reason why they don't do voting online - it's too easy to go wrong. There'd need to be a magnificently secure system so that people's votes couldn't be traced and given the government's track record with IT, that's not likely to happen.

Despite modern tech, pencil and paper is still best.

Actually, the ancient Athenians had the best system, where they'd have two opaque jars (Obols) representing each option. Voters would walk up between them with a stone hidden in their hand. They'd put both hands in the obols and drop a stone in either one or the other. The Obol with the most stones in it at the end would be the winner. Simple!

[SiHart]

You always have a none of the above option- you can spoil your paper. You've made the effort to vote and then shown that you don't like any of them.

[Rob McCow]

I'm completely furious about the result, but it was only to be expected!

[Awesome Wells]

The Prime Minister has said that the nation has voted a "clear and resounding" no to AV after only 31% of the voting electorate said yes; yet the Tories only gained 5% more of the vote at last year's general election, so I wouldn't really be crowing if I was him.

Then again, if I was him I'd have shot myself in the face years ago.

[Larry]

I genuinely don't understand this whole "you should be forced to vote" business. Si.

agreed, people who say we should have "compulsory voting " should also explain just how they are going to get those people who refuse to vote to vote. Are they going to send the police round to frog march people kicking and screaming down to the polling stations and then what fine people for not voting.

The whole point of living in a democracy is that you have the right not to vote and it would be totally wrong to force people to do so,

[Awesome Wells]

Did the police have to drag you, kicking and screaming, to fill in your census form?

The point of compulsory voting isn't to force you to make any kind of preference you don't like, understand or care about; it's simply to ensure you turn up, on polling day, and vote. There would be an option for "none of the above" on your ballot paper if you didn't want to choose any of the candidates standing and if you were that disgruntled, you could write "bollocks" on it before folding it and shoving it into the box. Quite simple, really.

[SiHart]

Voting is compulsory in Australia you know.

[Andrew Curnow]

I didn't know that!

I'd never even thought of making it compulsary until Dave mentioned it yesterday, but I must say I'm not averse to the idea.

[Anthony Williams]

Actually, even though I believe that everyone should vote, it's totally against freedom of choice to make it compulsory to vote. They say that people fought and died to ensure that we had the right to vote. But they also fought and died for our freedom and freedoms - which include the freedom to choose not to vote.

Ant x

[Paul Clement]

They say that people fought and died to ensure that we had the right to vote. But they also fought and died for our freedom and freedoms - which include the freedom to choose not to vote.

I've never believed that. They fought for many reasons, but I really don't believe that was really in the forefront of the minds of many who went off to fight. That's more of something people say after the event.

[Jason Thompson]

A question does occur:

Why do we say they fought and died for our freedom to choose not to vote, but not for our freedom to choose not to pay extortionate taxes, or not to have to fill in a census form every ten years, or to basically do whatever we want? There are a lot of things in life that are compulsory, restricted, or prohibited, but which no-one argues against on those grounds.

When it comes to choosing the government of the country, why should every eligible citizen not have to vote? You can always spoil your paper if you really want to say something. We're not talking about a regime where you not only have to vote but you have to fear reprisals if you cast the 'wrong' vote, just about getting everyone in the country to take some interest in how the place is run.

[Jason Thompson]

I've never believed that. They fought for many reasons, but I really don't believe that was really in the forefront of the minds of many who went off to fight. That's more of something people say after the event.

I agree. They fought and died for our freedom from a political system in which we would not have a vote at all, not to ensure we all had the right not to bother taking our place in the democratic process.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

The problem with politics is often all the choice you get is whether you want Coke or Pepsi, when you really want Ginger Beer.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I see the SNP is powering for "more economic powers" which for some reason I read as "more money from England".

[Paul Clement]

I see the SNP is powering for "more economic powers" which for some reason I read as "more money from England".

That's funny, I see that as meaning the exact same thing. Cynical are we?

[Zbigniev Hamson]

When it comes to choosing the government of the country, why should every eligible citizen not have to vote? You can always spoil your paper if you really want to say something. We're not talking about a regime where you not only have to vote but you have to fear reprisals if you cast the 'wrong' vote, just about getting everyone in the country to take some interest in how the place is run.

How is it possible to make something compulsory without fear of reprisals? If it's compulsory, but nothing will happen to you at all if you don't do it, then it isn't really compulsory is it. And I've never understood how spoiling your paper is "saying something" or "making an effort" - all it is is making a piece of paper that some counter will take one look at then chuck to one side tutting. It's not going to make any difference, no-one's going to care or even know about it. Waste of time.

[Philipnet]

And I've never understood how spoiling your paper is "saying something" or "making an effort" - all it is is making a piece of paper that some counter will take one look at then chuck to one side tutting. It's not going to make any difference, no-one's going to care or even know about it. Waste of time.

Some counter will take on look at it and put it in a pile on the side.
Once all votes have been counted this and all the other piles 'on the side' are presented to all the candidates.
Then each candidate sees/hears what's on the spoilt ballot papers.

I know, I've been there .

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Hmm, interesting. Still won't make a difference though Just write to them if you actually want to say something, at least then they're somewhat obliged to address it and write back to you.

[Jason Thompson]

How is it possible to make something compulsory without fear of reprisals?

I think you missed the point there. I said reprisals for casting the wrong vote, not for not voting. Obviously there have to be reprisals for not doing something that is compulsory, but that could be a fine. Have you seen the news from places like Zimbabwe, where people have had to fear physical violence for not voting or casting the wrong vote? Or (at the risk of losing credibility for mentioning them by name) somewhere like Nazi Germany, where your family and friends might disappear for not supporting the party? Making voting compulsory does not undermine the democratic process at all: it just gets people involved in it.

And I've never understood how spoiling your paper is "saying something" or "making an effort"

Spoiled papers are still counted, and the mere fact of making it compulsory to vote will ensure people actually get to the polling station and have to do something rather than sitting on their arses letting the whole process pass them by.

[Jason Thompson]

Still won't make a difference though

How do you know that? How do so many people who say this know that it won't make a difference? You don't. You assume. Maybe it won't. But maybe it will. But sitting on your arse not voting cannot possibly make a difference, whereas actually doing something can.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

That's funny, I see that as meaning the exact same thing. Cynical are we?

Hmmm - SNP are pushing ahead for a referendum on Scottish Independence. I guess they'll be claiming all the oil in the North Sea belongs to them again ...

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Spoiled papers are still counted, and the mere fact of making it compulsory to vote will ensure people actually get to the polling station and have to do something rather than sitting on their arses letting the whole process pass them by.

I'd still like to know how you'd enforce it, or what punitive measures you would recommend for people who didn't vote. Or what any of that would achieve. You might be able to lead a horse to the polling station but you can't make him put any thought into what box he ticks if his heart isn't in it.

[Jason Thompson]

I'd still like to know how you'd enforce it, or what punitive measures you would recommend for people who didn't vote. Or what any of that would achieve. You might be able to lead a horse to the polling station but you can't make him put any thought into what box he ticks if his heart isn't in it.

It may surprise you to know that I hadn't thought it out in that much detail, but I do know that there are places where it is compulsory to vote, so I don't see why it should be such an abhorrent idea. You seem to just be in the defeatist 'it won't do any good' camp for any suggestion other than 'leave it as it is'.

It's easy to think that people don't vote because they don't care, but I would be willing to bet that there are those who don't vote because they can't be bothered with the process of getting to the polling station or filling in a postal vote rather than because they have no views on the way the country should be run. Getting them to make the effort to go to a polling station would be half the battle. I am not suggesting that compulsory voting is going to be a magic cure-all, but one of the things always harped on about at every bloody election is low voter turnout. Get the buggers there and let's hear what they have to say. Stick an option for 'I don't give a toss' on the ballot paper if necessary.

The system as is is crap. Go and check out how many parties were contesting seats in the last general election, and then do some maths and see just how few votes any winning party could potentially have got in with. Then tell me they have any claim to be speaking for 'the majority'.