The AV referendum - 5th May

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I just don't agree that forcing apethetic people to go and vote when they don't want to, and having them tick an "I don't give a toss" box, is achieving anything at all. It's just forcing people to do something you believe they should be doing just so you can feel better about it, whilst ignoring the fact it's achieving nothing. Rather than being democratic it's a bit fascistic if anything.

My attitude isn't about being defeatist, it's about how I don't think it's right to be forcing people to do something just because you think they should. Part of living in a democracy is that you have to be big enough to stand by and bite your tongue when apathetic, stupid people make decisions you despair of.

[Jason Thompson]

I just don't agree that forcing apethetic people to go and vote when they don't want to, and having them tick an "I don't give a toss" box, is achieving anything at all.

Again you continue to assume that 100% of those who did not vote this time around would tick the 'I don't give a toss' box.

whilst ignoring the fact it's achieving nothing.

How do you know it is achieving nothing? I keep hearing this and yet no-one can back it up. If you have your view of not caring entered formally, then that is in itself achieving something. As it is, 35% of the eligible voters did not vote in the 2010 general election, and their reasons are not recorded or know. It is assumed it was due to apathy, but there is no official record of what 35% of the population actually thought.

My attitude isn't about being defeatist, it's about how I don't think it's right to be forcing people to do something just because you think they should.

So the census is wrong? Taxation is wrong? Speeding fines and parking tickets are wrong? Speed limits are wrong? Licensing laws and age restricted sales are wrong? The legal requirement for children to attend school is wrong? What are they if not a way of forcing people to do something that someone thought should be done? Why are they OK but the mere suggestion of compulsory voting is treated as if you've just suggested giving Nick Griffin control of the world?

Part of living in a democracy is that you have to be big enough to stand by and bite your tongue when apathetic, stupid people make decisions you despair of.

Sorry, but I think that's a load of rubbish. Part of living in a democracy is being allowed and encouraged to make your voice heard when you disagree with decisions, not sitting back and accepting that stupid people have the final say.

[Awesome Wells]

I just don't agree that forcing apethetic people to go and vote when they don't want to, and having them tick an "I don't give a toss" box, is achieving anything at all.

If every single person who doesn't vote through apathy genuinely has no preference or opinion about the country and society in which they live and how it's run, then you're right. If even one person votes the way they would have voted under the old (i.e. current) system if they could only be arsed, then it has achieved something.

Everything else in your post was just too ridiculous to dignify with a response.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

So the census is wrong? Taxation is wrong? Speeding fines and parking tickets are wrong? Speed limits are wrong? Licensing laws and age restricted sales are wrong? The legal requirement for children to attend school is wrong? What are they if not a way of forcing people to do something that someone thought should be done? Why are they OK but the mere suggestion of compulsory voting is treated as if you've just suggested giving Nick Griffin control of the world?

Yes, obviously I'm advocating a return to total anarchy.

With all due respect, your examples are rather ridiculous. Other than the rather tenuous link of the word "compulsory", you can't really be drawing some sort of parallel between "not forcing people to vote in elections" and "letting people off scott free for breaking a law designed to save lives" or "doing away with the system that funds our entire social infrastructure leaving us all to fight each other like dogs". As for the census, well that's another matter, but I seem to remember plenty of people asking the same question a couple of months ago when it was census time. And I don't think it is a legal requirement for children to attend school.

Anyway, if pretty much 1 in 3 people didn't vote in the last general election then I think it's safe to assume it's because they didn't want to. Granted, there will have been a few who had an unexpected emergency or family crisis to deal with, but that is never going to account for 1 in 3. The rest of them obviously just didn't want to vote. Maybe they were totally apathetic and would rather watch Coronation Street, or maybe they really cared about democracy and wanted to vote but couldn't see a candidate worth voting for. Sure, it would be NICE to know why they didn't vote, just as it might be nice to know what your neighbours look like whilst having sex, but that doesn't mean you should legislate against the closing of curtains.

Maybe I'm just insane in thinking that the right not to vote, nor to have to account for why you didn't vote, is almost as important as the right to vote in the first place. I think you need more of an argument than "well it might be interesting to see what happens" to overturn that right. I'd agree that part of living in a democracy is being allowed to make your voice heard if you don't agree with decisions, but it's ALSO being allowed to sit back and say nothing if you so wish. Without that last part then it's not really a democracy is it. By all means try and encourage an interest, and maybe a 65% turnout is an indication that more needs to be done in that respect, but forcing interest at gunpoint (metaphorically) is no sort of answer.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Everything else in your post was just too ridiculous to dignify with a response.

And yet I still get a vote just like everyone else. Democracy in a nutshell.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

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.

Did I mention what a good point that was. Amazing how politicians interpret statistics.

31% = Epic fail
36% = Mandate to rule

[Andrew Curnow]

One could also claim that 6.5million watching Doctor Who is only about 10% of the UK population, which makes our show less popular than putting the bins out...

I have to say, although I don't really have that strong a feeling one way or the other, I don't think ZH is making any unreasonable points, and particularly this:

"Anyway, if pretty much 1 in 3 people didn't vote in the last general election then I think it's safe to assume it's because they didn't want to. Granted, there will have been a few who had an unexpected emergency or family crisis to deal with, but that is never going to account for 1 in 3"

seems to be a good point. The majority of that 1/3 are clearly deciding not to vote, and we can probably derive as much from that as from them ticking a box to say so.

Yes, having a vote is actually quite something; being able to choose entirely of your own free will which candidate(s) to vote for is also a great freedom; but if you don't want to, why should you?

[Andrew Curnow]

Also, I don't agree with this:

Sure, it would be NICE to know why they didn't vote, just as it might be nice to know what your neighbours look like whilst having sex, but that doesn't mean you should legislate against the closing of curtains.

Clearly you've not met my neighbours.

[Jason Thompson]

And I don't think it is a legal requirement for children to attend school.

All children between the ages of 5 and 16 MUST be part of a full time education, whether in a school or by home schooling. It IS a legal requirement for parents to ensure their children receive a full education.

[Rob McCow]

People should certainly be encouraged to vote. Can you remember any positive campaigning telling people how important it is to vote? I don't think there has been any for years.

An independent body needs to remind people of their civic duty to get involved in the way the country is run - if there isn't one already.

[SiHart]

There was one in Bracknell this year- we had posters and information at the library.

[Si Hunt]

There's ALWAYS material telling you how important it is to vote. In the run-up to any election we get leaflets through the door screaming "Have your say!".

What puts me off is that in every election every party is telling you they know best. It comes down to tediously choosing which friendly face is putting forward the best argument with the lurking suspicion that who-ever gets in will do roughly the same thing anyway.

Si.

[Larry]

having campaigns to "encourage people to vote" seems fine but I very much doubt it's going to get people out of their houses and down to the polling booths. if 1 in 3 people are not voting the government should be asking or finding out why people don't vote. - although I voted last week had it not been for the A.V referendume I may well not of voted at all. The reason being I look at the council and I ask my self just exactly what are they doing for me as a disabled person and what they are doing to improve the local community and I feel the answer is nothing I then think well what's the point in voting.

[Si Hunt]

Even I can see the obvious counter-argument that last statement invites Larry!!

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

People should certainly be encouraged to vote. Can you remember any positive campaigning telling people how important it is to vote? I don't think there has been any for years.

The Green Party MP made a broadcast this time around simply encouraging people to vote. Her argument was a bit stupid though, along the lines of "you didn't vote last time and look what happened, we got a coalition," even though that was clearly to do with the distribution of the votes, not that absolut number. She might has well have blamed the Japanese tsunami on not voting as well. I don't know why political broadcasts can't just tell us the truth, and why they agree with one side of an argument, and then let us decide. It's always just lies and manipulation and name-calling. It's quite sickening really.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't know why political broadcasts can't just tell us the truth, and why they agree with one side of an argument, and then let us decide. It's always just lies and manipulation and name-calling. It's quite sickening really.

Now that I am in complete agreement with. All election campaigns these days seem to consist of us being told why we shouldn't vote for other parties ('look what happened last time' style) rather than why we should vote for them. That's backwards!

[Rob McCow]

That was one argument in favour of AV. It may have lead to more positive campaigning, as parties had to secure more than 50% of the vote, rather than one vote more than their opponents (i.e. to be the second least popular party).

[Zbigniev Hamson]

It could have also led to more backstabbing campaigning too (if it affected campaigning at all).

[Rob McCow]

It could have lead to all kinds of things - or not - but we'll never know. We all know what the current system gives us and we're stuck with it!