Comments on: Should voting be compulsory?

By: » Links of the … how long’s it been?

» Links of the … how long’s it been? — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:38:05 +0000

[...] Two great posts from Lords of the Blog. Compulsory voting – with (and only with) a box for ‘declared abstention’ – has been a hobby-horse of mine for some time. Not just for our (elected) representatives, but for all of us. Reading these convinces me even more. But would the electorate wear it? [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:39:36 +0000

Totally agreed that forcing voting would be counter-productive and mask the real problem.

Why not trying alternative forms of representation. For instance, why can’t I vote on everything my MP votes on directly? Why can’t I delegate arbitrary individuals to vote for me on certain issues? Why do I only get the choice of A vs B very similar policy packages every 4 years?

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:53:01 +0000

Adrian Kidney: There was some benefit in being a young, attractive male candidate. I did raise the question of whether, if photographs were permitted, the Returning Officer would be empowered to refuse the use of photographs that looked nothing like the candidate or, indeed, were of someone else!

By: Adrian Kidney

Adrian Kidney — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:00:40 +0000

From what I remember, Lord Norton, didn’t they find that the photogenic candidates did best?

By: Alex Bennee

Alex Bennee — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:00:26 +0000

I take my responsibility fairly seriously when it comes to voting and
ensure I get out and vote every local, European and general election.
I almost go as far as to admonish people who complain about politics
but haven’t voted, usually encouraging them to spoil their ballot if
they really don’t think any of the offered candidates is up to the
job. It’s imperfect as spoilt ballots can be spoilt for a variety of
reasons and are generally not well reported.

Of course people staying away from the vote is also hard to interpret
as well as straight Yes/No questions (witness the current hand
wringing over the Irish referendum vote). I think if we were to make
voting “compulsory” several things would have to be in place.

It would have to be illegal for employees to not make provision
for their employees to vote on polling day.
There should be fairly wide exemptions for illness, unforeseen
circumstances, family emergencies and the like.
There should be a “None of the Above” option that on gaining a
majority indicates the will of the electorate is for new
candidates

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:58:59 +0000

It is a tie so far, then, in the views expressed! Brenning: one can have a ‘none of the above’ response (as is provided for in some systems) without voting being compulsory; if ‘none of the above’ has a majority then there is a fresh election. ladytizzy: your last point relates to something on which I may do a separate post. Researchers at the University of Strathclyde have been investigating whether putting photographs of candidates on election ballots may affect voting behaviour.

By: Brennig

Brennig — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:08 +0000

To answer the question in one word: Yes.

But there has to be a rider, forcing people to vote Yes or No to a question where there are a number of shades of grey is very wrong.

Therefore compulsory voting must (not should) be accompanied with an opt out – i.e. a physical ‘None of the above’ box.

And – logically extended – if ‘None of the above’ is the majority then the election must be declared null and void.

If the objective of the electorate is to return a candidate by majority voting, and if they are unable to meet that objective there must be another election.

To frame this argument in a legal perspective: If a High Court jury of 12 returned a result where:
9 jurors felt unable to return either guilty or not guilty verdicts
1 juror declared guilty
2 jurors declared not guilty

… would the High Court judge be happy that just two out of 12 made the decision on the defendant’s guilt/innocence?

Or would a retrial be ordered (my understanding is that majority decisions are not normally allowed in the instance of such low numbers)?

And yet this is the ludicrous system we have in the UK: if one were to add ‘votes against’ to ‘abstentions’ for the last two general elections the result is clear; that a substantial majority of the British public did not vote for the party that was given power.

A ‘none of the above’ opt-out gives the public a third option. Instead of voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ the voter can say ‘None of these’ – which is a vote against all of them.

That’s what the public need – a meaningful voice, not one spoken through strangulation.

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:47:20 +0000

To the immediate question: of course not. When someone can prove the majority of the electorate can attribute a single unique item to any party manifesto, I may look further into the idea.

The means of voting is not the primary issue here. ‘Sharing the proceeds of growth’ has little meaning to those not already politically engaged and serves to confuse in a similar manner as the Labour manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU constitution.

I’m not overly happy that parliamentary elections are rarely based on the original basis of voting for the best person for the constituency. Having moved from that to party affiliation and now to who is the most telegenic it’s a matter of time before David Beckham puts his package to the public vote.