O/T - The Alternative Vote Referendum

[marky No.1]

Why can't Peter/Heinz talk about anything other than politics? I am sick of people posting non-productive crap on this board.

Peter can't really comment on the Football too often, but maybe when Plymouth, Crawley, Bournemouth, Exeter, Brighton, Brentford and maybe even Southampton or Portsmouth join us he will be able to give his substantiated views

[Keith]

Indeed, it is believed that Geraldine Smith would probably have retained her seat under AV. I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of that, but AV could significantly alter what happens in marginal seats and would also make 'safe' seats significantly less safe.

If AV would have handed Geraldine a safe seat, then that's the best argument yet against AV!

I would love to see a bigger and better turn out at all elections, but I'm against forcing people to vote. It is a freedom of choice issue. But, if you don't vote, don't moan.

Obviously I won't get a vote regarding this, but I'm just about against AV and pro-FPtP. The main reason is that I think the Lib Dems would increase their share of MP's, giving them more power as 'King Makers'. They've proved themselves to be Tories in all but hue, so I'd be against them holding the balance of power even more frequently. Under FPtP, I predict Lib Dems being annihilated at the next election.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

If voting becomes compulsory (very little chance of that happening) there would hopefully be a box to tick marked "none of the above". Mind these would win most of the seats

[Posh]

I agree with everything you said, apart from this bit. I vote without fail, and it annoys the hell out of me that people don't. But it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote or not. They would argue that they didn't ask anyone to die for that right. Selfish attitude as it is, it still is their right. What value does a vote have when it's been forced? Threats to make people vote will, without a doubt, lead to thousands, many thousands of wasted votes on candidates who otherwise wouldn't get a look in. It is possible, and I'd suggest probable that the very organisations suggested as not getting a look in, would in fact get closer. Yes they should vote, but we will achieve nothing by forcing them to do so.

I would love to see a bigger and better turn out at all elections, but I'm against forcing people to vote. It is a freedom of choice issue. But, if you don't vote, don't moan.

I can see where your both coming from but I disagree. Compulsion is a fundamental part of being part of a society just as much as choice. Having said that most of the key factors in life that make us a society are subject to compulsion. If you fail to undertake those compulsory steps then you're punished. For example, you can't drive a car until your 17, you've passed a test, bought insurance or paid for road tax - there is no choice other than avoidance which is punishable or not to drive; if you want to work then you must pay tax; if you want to travel abroad then you must have a passport. In all these cases to be part of a community be it road drivers, workers, travellers you are compelled to do something. (Everyone was compelled to complete the census by the way).

I believe that to be part of a country, which relies for its very existence on laws then you have to be part of the process of appointing those lawmakers. And with every everything above you should be compelled to do so or opt out through the process. E.g. If you don't want to vote for someone then turn up at the ballot box and tick 'none of the above' with the option to add a comment. At least then we'll clarify reasons for non-voting and exclude laziness and ignorance. The only exemptions should be those people not mentally capable of making a decision or communicating one and in those cases they are usually under a duty of care. If you don't then get a fine or my preference be given a 'notice to quit' by the country to depart to one which they wish to participate in.

[Keith]

But you can choose not to drive, work or travel if you aren't interested in those things. Politics is the same. It would be better making blood donation compulsory for healthy people, that would be more beneficial to 'society' as a whole than forcing people who are disinterested to vote.

[Posh]

But you can choose not to drive, work or travel if you aren't interested in those things. Politics is the same. It would be better making blood donation compulsory for healthy people, that would be more beneficial to 'society' as a whole than forcing people who are disinterested to vote.

Hence why I said if you want to be a driver, traveller etc as opposed to a member of society. And also why I mentioned the census, which is compulsory for every citizen. If you want to watch television you need a TV licence. If you want to live in this country you should need to attend a polling station form and complete a ballot paper. To me the people who avoid the former are often the ones who avoid the latter. Their reasons aren't good enough. I've seen enough spoilt ballot papers to know there are enough people who know the importance of expressing their democratic rights.

[Keith]

it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote...

I think wijit summed up my opinion succinctly. We'll chalk this one up to being another of our agree to disagree...



















...even though you are wrong...
















...again...

[Sammy h]

One vote wont make a difference...

[marky No.1]

One vote wont make a difference...

True, but when 22,999,999 other people like yourself think the same way

[shrimpnsave]

it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote...

I think wijit summed up my opinion succinctly. We'll chalk this one up to being another of our agree to disagree...



















...even though you are wrong...
















...again...

There is no right and wrong in life,there is only opinion................

[Curly]

However change needs to tied to compulsory voting. It is a joke that people in this country don't undertake their democratic duty. People died for the vote and are still dying around the world today for the right. Ignorance, stupidity and a lack of responsibilty, reasons much of our society is suffering is the reason. We shouldn't pander to their ignorance we should force people to vote and offer none of the above as an alternative on the ballot paper. We should then work to overhaul the electoral laws and provide a better system.

In spite of agreeing with myself to never bother posting here again, this got me.
I agree with everything you said, apart from this bit. I vote without fail, and it annoys the hell out of me that people don't. But it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote or not. They would argue that they didn't ask anyone to die for that right. Selfish attitude as it is, it still is their right. What value does a vote have when it's been forced? Threats to make people vote will, without a doubt, lead to thousands, many thousands of wasted votes on candidates who otherwise wouldn't get a look in. It is possible, and I'd suggest probable that the very organisations suggested as not getting a look in, would in fact get closer. If you didn't want to vote, you would naturally be against AV (which is just a very poor effort to appease those who want Proportional Representation, after all), it would be a natural thing to vote for those who were against it from the start.
Forcing people by law to vote, really is barely better than not allowing them to do so in the first place. Yes they should vote, but we will achieve nothing by forcing them to do so.

I agree, i believe those who don't want to vote shouldn't have to, it's your right to vote or not to, both have merits.
If i want to vote for The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, then via AV, The Liberal Democrats gain a seat, i would feel cheated, as a different set of loonys have usurped my vote, leaving me fullfilled yet disappointed and confused.
Let's see how AV translates into football terms,
There is no point in supporting Morecambe as they can't win the champions league, so we (The FA) have decided that every Morecambe fan supports Man Utd and they should win every year.
The strain on the NHS budget, in supplying billions of gallons of Gaviscon to every household,
could indeed bring this fine institution to its knees.

[Plain Peter]

And your point being? Sorry but you really are so full of your own self-importance and pomposity that it makes you look such a prat.

Sorry, but I don't do statistics, lists, loads of percentages, or long paragraphs that I don't understand. I just switch off, which is probably why many people don't bother voting.

[Plain Peter]

Why can't Peter/Heinz talk about anything other than politics? I am sick of people posting non-productive crap on this board.

Wow

[Plain Peter]

Peter can't really comment on the Football too often, but maybe when Plymouth, Crawley, Bournemouth, Exeter, Brighton, Brentford and maybe even Southampton or Portsmouth join us he will be able to give his substantiated views

...and Brizzle Rovers, and Swindon.
Cancel all the foreign jaunts next season

[Plain Peter]

Perhaps there should be another referendum running in tandem with this AV thing.
It would be called 'Should voting at National and Local Elections be compulsory?'
Either 'Yes' or 'No'.
Would the millions of normally can't be bothered types bother to turn out to make their democratic voice heard?
If they never then they could have no complaint with the result!

[SupermarketShrimp]

And your point being? Sorry but you really are so full of your own self-importance and pomposity that it makes you look such a prat.

Sorry, but I don't do statistics, lists, loads of percentages, or long paragraphs that I don't understand. I just switch off, which is probably why many people don't bother voting.

So you don't do facts, just pick a soundbite out of thin air and then complain when it's a load of old tosh?

[Plain Peter]

So you don't do facts, just pick a soundbite out of thin air and then complain when it's a load of old tosh?

We can all put together these things, and get wildly different results.
'Variations of the facts', 'selective facts', 'economy with the truth', there's all sorts of 'facts'.
It doesn't mean to say they're facts, but many people act like slaves to them.
Personally, I go for a gut feeling about a lot of things I think important.
If I'm wrong I don't look for a scapegoat, because Doris isn't a goat

[morecambe mick]

Perhaps there should be another referendum running in tandem with this AV thing.
It would be called 'Should voting at National and Local Elections be compulsory?'
Either 'Yes' or 'No'.
Would the millions of normally can't be bothered types bother to turn out to make their democratic voice heard?
If they never then they could have no complaint with the result!

Perhaps there is a fair argument that says if you don't/can't be bothered to vote, then your (non) vote should count as a no to compulsory voting

[Plain Peter]

Perhaps there is a fair argument that says if you don't/can't be bothered to vote, then your (non) vote should count as a no to compulsory voting

It'd be either 'Yes' or 'No'.
If you don't vote then it could also be fairly argued you don't give a toss either way, so why should a non-vote be treated as a 'No' to compulsory voting?
Split it 50/50.

[captain sparkle]

maybe they should have included the referendum in the census form?

[Posh]

it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote...

I think wijit summed up my opinion succinctly. We'll chalk this one up to being another of our agree to disagree

"Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"

It's impossible to be democratic if you choose to opt out of democracy. They actually fail the established democratic system by choosing to opt out. If everyone or a majority did it we'd move towards tyranny. It also makes the system more corruptible as less people vote.

A few other thoughts. The current system creates bias. Turnout amongst the wealthy and the elderly is much higher than the poor and the young thus making their views impact more at the cost of others. Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law

Compulsory voting removes factors such as the weather which reduces turnout when poor.

Finally we're all in it together if we all voted. And it might lead us to care more.

Until the 1970s if you didn't own your own in part of the United Kingdom you didn't get a vote and if you owned your own business you got up to five votes. The inequalities of that system began the Troubles in Northern Ireland. That system seems deeply unfair but low voter turnout creates a discriminatory system cause by those who don't vote rather than those blocked from voting.

[wijit]

Perhaps there is a fair argument that says if you don't/can't be bothered to vote, then your (non) vote should count as a no to compulsory voting

It'd be either 'Yes' or 'No'.
If you don't vote then it could also be fairly argued you don't give a toss either way, so why should a non-vote be treated as a 'No' to compulsory voting?
Split it 50/50.

I didn't think it would be this hard to sink in, but there you go. If somebody doesn't vote there is no vote to count. Not 50/50, not didn't give a toss not anything. They don't bloody vote.
There is no vote to count either way, it really is simple, count the votes which have been cast and that's it.

[Posh]

Sorry meant to say 'own your home' in the last paragraph. Impossible to edit on an iPhone, particularly after wine.

[wijit]

it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote...

I think wijit summed up my opinion succinctly. We'll chalk this one up to being another of our agree to disagree

"Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"

It's impossible to be democratic if you choose to opt out of democracy. They actually fail the established democratic system by choosing to opt out. If everyone or a majority did it we'd move towards tyranny. It also makes the system more corruptible as less people vote.

A few other thoughts. The current system creates bias. Turnout amongst the wealthy and the elderly is much higher than the poor and the young thus making their views impact more at the cost of others. Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law

Compulsory voting removes factors such as the weather which reduces turnout when poor.

Finally we're all in it together if we all voted. And it might lead us to care more.

Until the 1970s if you didn't own your own in part of the United Kingdom you didn't get a vote and if you owned your own business you got up to five votes. The inequalities of that system began the Troubles in Northern Ireland. That system seems deeply unfair but low voter turnout creates a discriminatory system cause by those who don't vote rather than those blocked from voting.

I do like your input in this type of thread (genuinely!).
I'm going to try and go in order of your post, Mr Posh.
Do you not think that it is the height of democracy that people CAN opt out of democratic voting? This bit is really interesting, and as has been mentioned, we will never see eye to eye on this, and I see the point you're making entirely, but I just can't see the democratic bit about compelling people to do something they have chosen previously to not do.
I'll not bang on, but I do think we already have a degree of corruption already in the house without adding more to that equation and yes, I do know that might look hypocritical!
The turnout, I think, has a lot more to do with social conditioning and as a nation we should be approaching this in a different way than just simply compulsion. Otherwise for those groups you mention it could just present an even greater "them and us" scenario and again, put votes not normally cast to parties who pander to that rather than by genuine policies.
Your last paragraph is more interesting in that it points out the real inequalities of the past, but I would suggest that the troubles in NI are far more complex than just a voting system.
Good to read something that decent thought and knowledge has gone into though. You must've gone to a good High School.........

[Posh]

In order to close off the debate about compulsory voting I've found the attached, which gives an excellent independent overview of the subject. The case studies of countries using it and the sanctions imposed are interesting, particularly stopping people working in the public sector or refusing them passports. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=46

In answer to your question I think there's a confusion between the concept of a 'free society' and the choices that gives us including one not to vote and the type of government known as a 'democracy'. For example the system in Northern Ireland wasn't democracy it was a timarchy were property owners rule or other systems such as a monarchy where a bunch of parasitic types who get married on Fridays and screw up businesses like mine but rule the country. Under other political systems you might have a society with a large element of choice (as long as you don't kick up a fuss) and ownership of the means of production and wealth but not a form of meaningful voting. China is a good example.