who isn't going to vote?
I would say the vast majority of my mates and work collogues do not exercise their right to vote. I always have even if I am unsure who to vote for. To be honest I have never really had an idea who to vote for.! I suppose I got this from my old man who hates people who waste their vote.
I will vote but I always get the feeling I am p!ssing into the wind.Posted 7 years agoChrisLSubscriber
Can someone start a campaign to get a 'None of the above' box added to the ballot sheet? It would a landslide.
So what would happen in a constituency where "None of the above" won? Would it have no representation in national government or would nominations for new candidates be re-opened and a by-election scheduled?
I am not going to claim that politicians are blameless but the current level of cynicism regarding politics is very depressing. I wonder how many principled, decent people consider standing for parliament but then decide not to because they don't want to be automatically reviled by so much of the populace simply for wanting to make a difference?Posted 7 years ago
I'm afraid no representation is the only fair option.
Anyone (give or take) can stand for parliament after all. You do not have to accept the candidates put forward by existing political parties, or indeed the fringe nutters. But if you really, really think you are qualified to say none of the above on a ballot paper with 20 names on and you can't/won't articulate a policy platform and put yourself forward then I'm not convinced that the system need necessarily bend over backwards to ensure you are represented by somebody. A lack of representation would build up enthusiasm among most of the electorate in a constituency for electing someone pretty rapidly I suspect.
EDIT: That's a collective "you", for the electors of a constituency. It's hard to imagine a majority for NOTA though. A huge proportion of those not voting is laziness, apathy and disorganisation rather than an active rejection of the franchise on principle.
I wonder how many principled, decent people consider standing for parliament
Lots, I reckon. Mug's game at the moment. 😐Posted 7 years agoconvertSubscriber
You see, if I was convinced that most modern politicians were in it to make a difference, I'd feel differently about it. The 3 main candidates I have to choose from are early to mid 30s, no real experience of "life" and on the surface look like they are in it as way to jump to the top of society. Too many politicians give the impression they are in it for the power and position rather than an urge to help shape the world in a particular way.
My grandad was an old school union man, coming up through the ranks working in the industry he went on to be a national union leader in through the 70's. He stood for parliament but didn't get in. I remember going around his house to smoky rooms full of rather over passionate fellow members full of fire in their bellies. There was a lot in retrospect not to like about the old boy, but you had to admire his passion and determination to see the world change for what he thought was the better. I want a bit of that in my modern day equivalents.Posted 7 years agoahwilesSubscriber
ChrisL – Member
So what would happen in a constituency where "None of the above" won?
easy, the candidate who came second would become MP, but he/she would thereafter be addressed as 'the dis-honourable useless tw*t'
I wonder how many principled, decent people consider standing for parliament but then decide not to because they don't want to be automatically reviled by so much of the populace simply for wanting to make a difference?
i don't think that's a problem, most decent people would never get the oppurtunity to stand for MP, they'd be stabbed in the back by the machiavellian power addicts long before they got that far.Posted 7 years ago
the problem with spoiling the ballot paper is it can and probably will be reported by some news agencies as less of a protest and more of incompetence of the voter
I've never been aware of it being reported in such a way. I have always assumed that 'spoilt ballot papers' were protest votes, based on the assumption that even a complete idiot, can probably manage to draw a cross in a box.
And anyway, if sufficient numbers of people wanted to spoil their ballot papers in protest against 'all of the above' how TF could 10, 20, or 30, thousand spoilt ballot papers be dismissed as voter incompetence ?
The reality is, that the "none of the above" brigade lacks widespread support amongst voters.Posted 7 years ago
you had to admire his passion and determination to see the world change for what he thought was the better. I want a bit of that in my modern day equivalents.
Trouble is, we don't seem to want the sort of change these days that is forced forward by the kind of people who were in union politics in the 70s.
It's really hard to come up with an issue that divides big slabs of the country and that gets people that fired up. It is simply not possible to come over all fire and brimstone on the issue of whether financial services should be subject to tripartitie regulation by the BoE, Treasury and FSA or whether that function should be performed by the BoE alone. People who stand for parliament need to care, but the people electing them generally don't really. There is a fairly genuine consensus across a very wide centre ground, with substantial agreement about how, actually, this is supposed to work.
You probably get the real conviction guys still in the BNP and UKIP, and the Green Party. Barnbrook and Griffin must wake up every morning convinced that they've another shot at saving Britain today and that if people only listened to them then it could happen.
Cameron and co are basically promising to do essentially the same things on broadly the same budget and in similar ways, but with delicate changes of nuance and priority and with fresh, shiney little faces. No-onegoes into politics in that climate because they want to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that the richest 5% of the population pays slightly, or to abolish surestart centres and the child tax credit. It's just not a passion that animates anyone. Instead, they come into politics because it's an interesting, highly challenging status job and more exciting than working at a bank.
Or, if they're properly mental they spend an entire political carrer explaining with great passion and enthusiasm that the blacks should go home, or that the British economy should be replaced with a peasant agricultural society and a lot of wind-farms. And they don't generally get elected in great numbers.Posted 7 years agokenneththecurtainMember
So even if you do happen to actually give a shit who gets into power, we all know one vote isnt going to do anything, so what's the point?
The best argument in this thread I've seen so far for voting is that theres a small chance you'll cost the BNP 500 quid. Even that is unlikely enough that it's probably not worth the hassle.Posted 7 years ago
we all know one vote isnt going to do anything, so what's the point?
This isn't correct, so I rather hope we don't all know it. 🙂
Your vote (in common with every other vote cast in your constituency) decides who will represent that constituency in parliament, and legitimises their presence there.
Seriously, you can't see the point of voting unless your vote is the only vote that counts? Or you think it's actually rigged somehow?Posted 7 years agogusamcMember
Do I think it's rigged somehow ?
"More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour – but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England."
For every million who voted Labour they secured 37 MPs, for every million who voted Conservative they achieved 22 MPs and for every million who voted Liberal Democrat they secured 10 MPs.Posted 7 years agoRichPennyMember
I always have even if I am unsure who to vote for.
Why? And what do you do, just go for a random box? If you accept responsibility for the political outcome, surely you owe it to yourself and everyone else to be sure what you're actually voting for?
I'm in agreement with Ivan and would have voted on previous occasions if PR was in place. I like the point about extremist parties losing their deposit, this actually inspired me to investigate further. I wouldn't want Arthur Pendragon to loose his cash though, so might have voted for him. Sadly, it's too late for me to register now, maybe next time.Posted 7 years ago
gusamc – that's not really "rigging" though is it? It's an electroral system that isn't designed to do what you feel it should do.
An election is rigged if votes are counted which are not cast, or are not counted or people are prevented from voting.
A system which returns a member elected with the greatest share of the vote in each consitutency is not going to replicate the results that would be achieved by a party list voting system which tried to translate national voting shares into parliamentary representation.
We may not like it, but to call it "rigging" is like calling disappointing sex "rape". 🙂Posted 7 years agobuzz-lightyearMember
Democracy needs voting to survive. The present voting system is unfair and puts people off voting. So vote to change to a fairer system and save our democracy from decline.
I am fortunate enough to live in an area where a Lib Dem (lady) can win the seat. By voting for her I'm doing my level best to give us a hung parliament!
A hung parliament result illustrates the problems of our system. Only by acknowledging the problem will politicians be aroused to fix it.Posted 7 years agoChrisLSubscriber
My grandad was an old school union man, coming up through the ranks working in the industry he went on to be a national union leader in through the 70's. He stood for parliament but didn't get in. I remember going around his house to smoky rooms full of rather over passionate fellow members full of fire in their bellies. There was a lot in retrospect not to like about the old boy, but you had to admire his passion and determination to see the world change for what he thought was the better. I want a bit of that in my modern day equivalents.
Sounds like he was a dirty party hack, who fought and backstabbed his way through the party machine so he could get a chance of catching the gravy train… Or at least that's how it may appear to a cynical outsider. You saw him as a person so know he had principles and can tell he was obviously in it for heartfelt reasons. Unlike modern candidates obviously, as you can easily see through any utterance of sincerity they produce.Posted 7 years ago
Now you see, I'm rather concerned about quite a few comments on here. The people who are quite clearly pro voting can't even read the comments posted by people who aren't, and they're the people choosing the next government.
To make it clear then, the people who are actively not voting are not doing so because they're lazy or stupid or want BNP to win, they're making a stand much as our grandfathers etc did to allow us to vote (where the hell does this come from anyway? You know Hitler was voted into power don't you?), if someone thinks all the candidates are useless, why should they be forced to vote?
I'm glad I live in a place where I have the option not to vote and I'm sorry so many people here wished it was different.Posted 7 years ago
It only undermines people claiming that our ancestors went out and fought for us to have the vote. Do you think people were queueing up at the recruiting stations demanding to be allowed to go and fight the hun because they might take their voting rights away?
I'd be careful about suggesting it's a good thing that Hitler got voted in by the way, people might take it the wrong way.Posted 7 years agoNickSubscriber
A lot of people won't vote because they can't be arsed. This has to be bad for democracy and it will mean that the minority, some might say motivated parties, will appear to do better, this could lend them some legitimacy in much the same way as Nick Clegg gained a heightened profile after the first TV debate. Having the BNP strut about because they got a larger proportion of the vote, or even worse get an MP elected, should bring shame on all those who decided not to bother voting.
Of course it has to be recognised that there are loads of reasons why people just won't bother (many of them discussed in this thread) and it has to be up to the parties to get these people out to vote.
That said, I reckon turnout this time will be up.Posted 7 years ago
Do you think people were queueing up at the recruiting stations demanding to be allowed to go and fight the hun because they might take their voting rights away?
Yes of course I do. In the 1930s thirties fascism was very much seen as a threat to democracy. And many people volunteered to fight fascism precisely for that reason. Had the nazis been committed to democracy and elections, then I see no reason at all why Britain would have declared war on Germany. Obviously any occupation of Britain would have been rendered meaningless, if the British people were to be still allowed to choose a sovereign government.
btw, I'm not sure what you mean by : "I'd be careful about suggesting it's a good thing that Hitler got voted in" …….why would I suggest that ? 😕Posted 7 years agoTalkemadaMember
my dissertation is due on the 6th. before the deadline i will be writing. after the deadline i will either be writing another essay, or getting pissed.
i doubt i will be voting…
Ah, the feckless youth of today; destined to become the moaning **** of tomorrow, blaming everyone but themselves for the nation's decline….
🙄Posted 7 years agoroperMember
I think you will find that most of the people moaning on this thread are the middle-aged wingers suffering from election fallout and getting their knickers in a twist because other people dare to have a difference of opinion and chose to express that opinion.Posted 7 years ago
If you really want your part of society to be a nicer place to live for the next four years, then forget about the election and try being nicer and more understanding of the people around you and be more constructive to your community.
btw, I'm not sure what you mean by : "I'd be careful about suggesting it's a good thing that Hitler got voted in" …….why would I suggest that ?
You know Hitler was voted into power don't you?
Then you said
Obviously voting makes a difference then.
Lots of people turned out to vote Hitler in.
hth.Posted 7 years agoalpinMember
gonefishin – Member
if so, can you vote on my behalf for the Greens Party?
I'm a bit concerned by this to be honest. If you're not in the UK but entitled to vote here then why did you not register for a postal or proxy vote? Alternatively if you're not entitled to vote in UK elections, then you don't get a say and really shouldn't be asking anyone to "vote on your behalf".
As for voting Green, frankly their stance on a lot of things can be described as anti-science so there is no way I'd consider voting for them
i wasn't aware until yesterday when i picked up the Times at the station that i can vote from outside the UK via postal voting. and i am saddened by and apologise for my ignorance (i'm not taking the piss here…).
i heard a green lady on the radio the other week and she seemed a lot saner than most of the other politicians you hear talking.Posted 7 years ago
when asked about the economy and how they'd rescue it, she said she'd rather see a society that puts more value on families, time spent together as a family and move away from money as an indicator of wealth. i was surprised to hear someone talking and matching my idea of a better world.
The topic ‘who isn't going to vote?’ is closed to new replies.