There was a brief debate last night on an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on whether or not we should have compulsory voting. Lord Snape argued the case for. The general tenor was against. I conceded that there are arguments for making voting compulsory but I was with those who argued against. Voting should be regarded as a civic duty rather than a statutory obligation. I am also wary of the argument that it is a way of tackling non-voting. If some people don’t vote because they are alienated by the system, forcing them to vote may not be the best way of endearing the system to them.
The debate of amendments continues to be well informed.
I think Lord Snape may be confused – or is it me?
Lord Strathclyde has let it be known at the despatch box that the choice for the AV system is not arbitrary but one endorsed by the Electoral Commission and backed by (unpublished?) evidence from focus groups and sample polling. The Electoral Reform Society too is of the same mind it seems.
I believe the proposed arrangement is that a voter will be allowed to make a single preference vote rather than being forced to make three. To force people to vote would most likely cause them to endorse candidates like ‘Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow’ by way of protest.
No matter what, voting for the ‘Official Monster Raving Loony Party’ would assist someone to achieve the essential 50% required. Indeed David Edward Such himself might realise his ambition and finally be declared MP for the constituency being fought for.
Will candidates still loose their deposit if they pull less than 2.5% of the vote? Under the AV system no vote is actually wasted so is it really fair for someone to loose the deposit?
Ref : What is the Alternative Vote?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch
Unfortunately Screaming Lord Sutch died in 1999 and whilst he may have allowed himself a wry smile at getting into the commons sometime after death, I don`t think the Electoral Commission`s rules allow it.
No to compulsory voting for umpteen different reasons !
David Edward Such: Ideology: Satire, Existentialism.
The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom. Wiki: Existentialism.
R.I.P
Ref: Official Monster Raving Loony Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party
Indeed David Edward Such himself might realise his ambition
========
Unlikely. He’s dead.
Senex: All votes under AV do not count. If your candidate comes second and fails to leapfrog the first candidate, then nothing happens to those votes and they are ‘wasted’ (in your terms).
So the terms of loosing your deposit remain the same then? I have not heard this mentioned in debate.
Levels of deposits need to be dropped or abolished to encourage participation.
High deposit levels are designed by the parties to exclude participation by others.
After all the Lords keep harping on about how wide spread their knowledge is. (ie. Failed MPs, no hairdressers) this is one area to address.
Although I agree compulsion to vote would be an unhealthy development, I do think more could be done to register “protest” votes.
Yes, a person can spoil their ballot, and that is recorded by the returning officer, but not many people really understand how it works.
I wonder if formalising the spoilt ballot into a “none of the above” box on the ballot paper would have an impact on voter turnout – even though, naturally, the formalised spoilt ballot doesn’t contribute to the end result.
The returning officer could then announce a spoilt ballot figure, for those that couldn’t be counted due to mistakes – and a formalised “none of the above” result, then announce the qualifying results for the candidates.
Such a record of protest might encourage more people to go to the polling stations, as their protest is then formally recorded.
IanVisits: That is a very fair point to which I have previously given thought. If voting is compulsory, you would need to have a ‘none of the above’ option, but there is no reason why one could not have that option under the existing system. There would be no compulsion, but it may indeed provide an incentive for some to vote.
Voting isn’t a civic duty, it’s really more of a ritualistic offering to the demigods of the Democratic religion.
Making it compulsory would have interesting effects on people’s perception of the ritual. It might make them question why they seem to get so little out of something that’s held to be so important. Or it might make them realise that it is all just a sham and that their participation is mostly decorative. Either way, it would be fun.
mcduff@beta57.com: It is possible that they may actually get into the habit of voting.
But would it make their votes any less meaningless?
Making it compulsory would have interesting effects on people’s perception of the ritual. It might make them question why they seem to get so little out of something that’s held to be so important.
In reply to Mcduff; it certainly would make them question why.
A tenner on the DSS or off income tax would be sufficient for them not to do so.
A more interesting option. How about the choice of none of the above, in particular in light of an AV vote.
If you still fail to get over 50%, then no MP is elected, and that MP’s vote is automatically cast against all legistlation.
At the end of the day, there is no option that is perfect. See Arrow’s paradox.
Hence moving to one person one vote for issues resolves the problems.
Plus its cheaper.
Lord Blagger: Much of that is what I was saying in response to IanVisits. If ‘none of the above’ garners 50% or more of the vote, then one could provide that no one is elected.
If ‘none of the above’ garners 50% or more of the vote, then one could provide that no one is elected.
==============
I was agreeing with you. My take here, is that no MP is elected, but the vacant seat automatically votes no for all new legislation.
We have compulsory voting in Australia for state and federal (but not local) government elections. Election day is always on a Saturday. And it works fine. Perhaps because it’s a Saturday, there is an element of a ‘festival of democracy’ about it. You see your neighbours, waiting in the queue, and can talk to the candidates, if you want to, or their proxies, standing at the gaily decorated little stands with the ‘how-to-vote cards. At the end of the day, when the result is announced, we surely have more of the feeling that the result represents what people think than if 50% had been AWOL.
The one thing that would increase the vote exponentially, would be payment for doing so, either on a social security claim or an income tax form.
Everybody included. It would not have to be compulsory.
Job’s done.
If you keep a hotel and somebody books a room, the one way of being absolutely certain that the guest will turn up, is by taking a sum in advance as deposit, even if it is only five pounds.
The coin of the realm works wonders.
That method never fails, nor would it at the ballot box.
I actually agree with you Lord Norton. I am one of those who is aleinated from the System. I personally do not even like modern mentality baed aroudn it, that venerates Democracy as a self evident good as if somehow a Vote by the people magically makes everythign right, or that it even reflects the Will of the People. Given that its just majority wins the day usually theres usually a sizable number agaisnt, and even if tis a two way race we end up with 51% agaisnt 49% all too often.
I find the whole idea rhat this is the best and most noble system available idiotic.
I prefer the older order in which we had a balanced Governemnt of Unelected Lords, elected Commons, and unelected Soverign.
But, in which the Queen and Lords woudl have real, though not unlimited Power.
I think this balanced worked best.
Then theres the facvt that even the Tories aren’t what they use to be.
If I were back home and forced to vote, how woudl that make me appriciate the System more?
It’d be rather liek the Churhc decidign to fill its Pews by makign a Law that everyone must attend. it’d do the trick to fill the Pews but it’d not make new Christians and woudl ultimatley defeat the enture point of the Church.
The same is true of Voting.
Forcing peopel to vote is simply illogical.