Should voting be made compulsory

[alchemi2]

It's local election time here in England and no doubt once again the turn out to vote will be below 50%.

For about 30 years, since i got interested in politics, i have had various discussions with friends about how to increase the number of people that actually bother to go out and vote.

We generally fall into two camps, Strangely the majority of those who are politically active and always vote. And those who never or hardly ever vote are against the the idea of compulsory voting.

Those of us who generally go vote and are politically aware but not really active, agree with the idea of compulsory voting.

The Against argument generally centers around freedom of choice and the need for people to be politically aware and informed before voting.

The For argument generally takes the view that if people had to vote they would be more politically aware and the various parties would have work harder to gain their votes.

Naturally there would be a box to mark as none of the above.

As many of you are politically aware and non English, I thought it would be intresting to hear your views on the subject.

[Dunenewt]

No, because then people will vote for stupid parties, just for the sake of voting, or vote for parties like the BNP.  Yes, I know according to the Political Compass my views seem to be closest to those of that party, but I definitely do not like them.

[Dragoon Knight]

Yes, I believe that voting should be made compulsory.  There's no breach of freedom of choice, as you would have the option to choose none of the candidates, but I believe there should be changes to the whole system as well.

There are two factors that stop me from voting at the moment.

1) My vote does not count.  This is the conundrum that pisses off at least two of my friends.  I say that my vote will be one amongst thousands of others, and therefore won't make any difference.  They always argue back that it does make a difference if everyone votes, and that if everyone thinks like I do, then it's all the more important to vote anyway.  Unfortunately for them, my reasoning will always win out - people are not currently forced to vote, meaning that my individual action means nothing unless combined with a significant number of other people voting as well (e.g. if I could convince 100 people to vote along with me).  Until voting is compulsory, and every vote really does count, I won't bother.

2) I know nothing about politics, or what little I do know is influenced on the biased ramblings of each individual party.  What we need is an independent, publicly funded (but not government backed) body which takes the views and policies of each party and summarises them in easy to understand terms.  This would remove a lot of the ambiguity and make voting accessible to everyone.  As long as this was done in conjunction with a change to compulsory voting, it would definitely interest me.

So yeah, that's pretty much my view on the whole issue.  Now to run and hide before Dante kills me.

[Dante]

1. The point of voting is to express one's desire for the form of governance one wishes to live under. Even if your prefered choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, you should vote for them anyway because the slight statistical increase may be that last little push needed to get them a seat, or a better result next time, or simply to be noticed more by others.

Votes always count.

2. Sometimes a little legwork is required. It's really not difficult to stay abreast of the important political situations, just buy a newspaper. Preferably two conflicting ones.

For example, the current Mayor of London. There's only one realistic choice, and that's to re-elect Livingstone. How do I know that, and why do I think it when I'm not a huge fan of his? Newspaper interviews and the record of the competition.

Having said that, I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. Because if it was, chances are good that Boris Johnstone would get in, and that would be a farce. Not a funny farce either, like some people try to claim. A funny farce would be Mr Bean. Johnstone would not be funny.

*glare*

[Dunenewt]

1. The point of voting is to express one's desire for the form of governance one wishes to live under. Even if your prefered choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, you should vote for them anyway because the slight statistical increase may be that last little push needed to get them a seat, or a better result next time, or simply to be noticed more by others.

Votes always count.

2. Sometimes a little legwork is required. It's really not difficult to stay abreast of the important political situations, just buy a newspaper. Preferably two conflicting ones.

For example, the current Mayor of London. There's only one realistic choice, and that's to re-elect Livingstone. How do I know that, and why do I think it when I'm not a huge fan of his? Newspaper interviews and the record of the competition.

Having said that, I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. Because if it was, chances are good that Boris Johnstone would get in, and that would be a farce. Not a funny farce either, like some people try to claim. A funny farce would be Mr Bean. Johnstone would not be funny.

*glare*

I don't see what's bad with Boris Johnson being voted in as the Mayor of London.  The only thing I really like about Ken is that he likes Newts.  I really hope Red Ken loses.

[Dante]

Ssssssssssss..... Ok, we're in for the long haul.

Lets start with this article from the Guardian, describing Boris Johnstone's stance on Islam. It also menions that he is the first major candidate for London Mayor ever to gain the official support of the BNP.

Another article from the Guardian, this one briefly mentioning the Green policies of the major candidates. Turns out "Livingstone has forged an electoral pact with the Green party ahead of Thursday's vote and has a raft of measures which he hopes will improve London's environment if he is re-elected including a massive investment in cycling across the capital.

...

The mayor claimed Johnson's environmental policies would do serious damage to Londoners' quality of life. "At the start he tried to hoodwink Londoners with his opposition to a new Heathrow runway, but his minders couldn't keep the true Boris under wraps throughout, and last week he revealed that his "big idea" for London is to build a new airport in the Thames Gateway."

Now here's an article from the Independent on the candidates, their policies, personalities, and behaviour. Boris come across as likeable but inept, while Ken appears capable in all respects (nice summary, no? Read it anyway, I like this one).

Another article from the same newspaper, this one an opinionated piece against Johnstone. I rather liked the comment on Livingstone and Johnstone: "If Londoners replace him tomorrow with the political love-child of Margaret Thatcher and Billy Bunter, we will have four long years to stop seeing the funny side."

Back to the Guardian again.

And finally, the article that got me interested in this whole election that's happening on the other side of the country thing: this one from the Independent. Yes, maybe it's opinionated of me, but if even half of its data is accurate then Livingstone is the only viable candidate.

[Dunenewt]

You've linked to the websites of two websites I can't stand, the Guardian, and the Independant, so I'm afraid I am unable to follow your links.  Livingstone is almost as dislikeable as George Galloway in my eyes.  Having been to London at the weekend, and seen how awful it was there, Ken can't be doing much right.  London needs constant upgrades for its infrastructure, which includes its airports, to keep its status as one of the leading cities in the world.

[Dante]

What it needs is to look after its people, and set an example to the rest of the world of what a leading city should be.

As for refusing to read the infomation because you dislike the source...

That's pathetic.

[Dunenewt]

I just find those papers to have such a bias, I never see the point in reading them.  Then again, I read the Daily Torygraph...sorry, Telegraph.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/elections/london/08/issues/html/issues.stm

There's a good link which compares all the candidates on different issues.

[Dante]

And here's the official website for the BNP.

ZOMG, I read a website I don't agree with! :O

[alchemi2]

I can't agree with the point of view that if you make people go vote, that they will then automatically vote for the most extreme or outrageous candidates.

Many people don't vote out of pure apathy, if they had to most would vote for whoever represents their interests the most.

I genuinely believe that compulsory voting would shake up the system, as you would see more parties/independents emerge, especially in local politics, also the major parties would possibly have to be more open about their policies.

Proportional representation may also be a way forward in making people realise that their vote does make a difference but it would also open the way for minority extremist parties to gain elements of power which may or may not be a good thing.

On Dragoons point of his vote making no difference, there are probably thousands not a hundred who share that view so stay at home and don't bother to vote, so if you all got off your backsides and did vote you would then make a difference.

[Khan]

Having been to London at the weekend, and seen how awful it was there, Ken can't be doing much right.  London needs constant upgrades for its infrastructure, which includes its airports, to keep its status as one of the leading cities in the world.

I'm hurt 'newt  :'(

I'm against compulsory voting mainly because I know that in Australia, where my mother grew up and voting is compulsory, the majority of people who are slightly politically aware would vote communist merely because they resented voting and they thought their votes didn't count. People who want to vote and be politically active will do it anyway and those who can't be bothered to research politics as it is wouldn't really have any incentive to do it if it mandatory, they would simply spoil the ballots or vote randomly, which is hardly representative.

I do have to agree with 'Newt though the independent is a horribly biased paper, but I do read it, especially if they give away free stuff.

[Egeides]

Just looking at votes is simplistic but still, it is a "claim" of the rest.

I have trouble seeing a country with most of its active population not voting as a democratic one (although it can have democracies' typical structures or else just as well-built). If by some odd circumstances, only 20% voted and they tended to be the most fortunate, wouldn't it be equivalent to a rule of few as was decried by 18th Century revolutionaries?

Again simplistically, I think that a country maintaining less than 50% turn out at voting booths should "lose" its democracy status for another one.

Dante:

Mr.Bean might actually be much appreciated. He would give some character to everything he touched :P

[alchemi2]

The BBC are saying the average turnout of voters was just 35%

Which means parties like the BNP have picked up a greater share of the vote and picked up a number of local government seats.

To me that reinforces the dangers of apathy within politics because the extremists will always get out there and vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/08/html/region_99999.stm

[Edric O]

Yes, voting should be compulsory. The idea that it might cause people to vote for crazy parties is ridiculous - Australia has compulsory voting and its political landscape is very much the same as you'd expect to find in any Western democracy.

The people who don't vote aren't stupid or misinformed. They just don't think voting is worth it, usually because they don't think their vote will make a difference. But every vote is important, even if all the candidates are horrible. A population who refuses to engage in democracy will soon lose that democracy.

Having said that, I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. Because if it was, chances are good that Boris Johnstone would get in, and that would be a farce. Not a funny farce either, like some people try to claim. A funny farce would be Mr Bean. Johnstone would not be funny.

You are absolutely right about Ken and Boris. Ken isn't the best mayor in the world, but he has a solid and successful track record. In particular, he has done a lot to encourage public transport and make it cheaper (or even free in the case of pensioners and children). Unfortunately he has no legal powers to tackle inequality, poverty or exploitation directly, but he's doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal to help disadvantaged communities.

By contrast, Boris' policies can be divided into two categories: Those that are idiotic and those that are slightly reworked versions of Ken's ideas.

But I have to disagree with your claim that compulsory voting would help Boris. On the contrary, it would help Ken, since Ken's support is strongest among working class communities where the current rate of voter abstention is highest.

Livingstone is almost as dislikeable as George Galloway in my eyes.

Well he doesn't have the most charming personality in the world, but the last time someone was elected based on his personality and humour we got George W. Bush...

Having been to London at the weekend, and seen how awful it was there, Ken can't be doing much right. London needs constant upgrades for its infrastructure, which includes its airports, to keep its status as one of the leading cities in the world.

Um, yeah, and there are numerous upgrades in progress - for example on the Victoria and East London tube lines - which Ken has initiated. Yes, they can be disruptive (the East London line is closed completely), but they are badly overdue.

And what exactly was "awful" about London, anyway?

Many people don't vote out of pure apathy, if they had to most would vote for whoever represents their interests the most.

I genuinely believe that compulsory voting would shake up the system, as you would see more parties/independents emerge, especially in local politics, also the major parties would possibly have to be more open about their policies.

I agree completely.

Proportional representation may also be a way forward in making people realise that their vote does make a difference but it would also open the way for minority extremist parties to gain elements of power which may or may not be a good thing.

There has been a lot of panic about the BNP possibly getting a seat on the Greater London Authority, but we must remember that a single seat on a council doesn't really give you any power to speak of.

Yes, proportional representation might give "extremist" parties more seats, but unless they can join a coalition those seats will not grant them any power. Besides, as much as I hate the BNP, I cannot support the view that we should rig the elections against them, which is what advocates of first-past-the-post are really saying.

I'm against compulsory voting mainly because I know that in Australia, where my mother grew up and voting is compulsory, the majority of people who are slightly politically aware would vote communist merely because they resented voting and they thought their votes didn't count.

I didn't know there was a significant communist vote in Australia... but in any case this is a point in favour of compulsory voting. :)

[alchemi2]

Proportional Representation is in my view the fairest system of voting, despite or perhaps because it will allow both extremes ends of the political spectrum to pick up seats within government system, which then helps highlights the weakness within their policies and helps to educate the public away from them.

[Andrew]

I try to bring people with me when voting, or make sure they are informed there is a vote that day. I don't care who they vote for. I've brought several people before who were not planning on voting. Whether it was provincial/federal.

If you don't vote, you can't complain about the government (whether you voted for them or the opposition or someone who lost).

I think there should be a vote about whether voting should be mandatory. :)

That should get the non voters out to vote, and if they don't then they will be forced to in the future.

Proportional Representation is in my view the fairest system of voting, despite or perhaps because it will allow both extremes ends of the political spectrum to pick up seats within government system, which then helps highlights the weakness within their policies and helps to educate the public away from them.

We had a plebiscite on that recently whether to use it or not. 64% voted no, and it would have needed 60% yes to pass. People fear change.

[SandChigger]

NO, voting should NOT be compulsory.

Half of the population is of less than average intelligence.

Letting them have the potential to vote is bad enough, MAKING them vote is just plain stupid.

[Andrew]

NO, voting should NOT be compulsory.

Half of the population is of less than average intelligence.

Letting them have the potential to vote is bad enough, MAKING them vote is just plain stupid.

Umm, even stupid people vote.

link to image :)

[Edric O]

NO, voting should NOT be compulsory.

Half of the population is of less than average intelligence.

Letting them have the potential to vote is bad enough, MAKING them vote is just plain stupid.

First of all, what makes you think that the people who vote today are the intelligent half of the population?

Second, it is better to be ruled by stupid people than by an evil genius.

[Egeides]

First of all, what makes you think that the people who vote today are the intelligent half of the population?

Second, it is better to be ruled by stupid people than by an evil genius.

This looks flawed, in the sense of, erm... "Is that communist idealism?" ;)

SandChigger does not look much in favor of democracy's main tenets (while it's the debate's presumption). Maybe it doesn't exclude compulsorily having to manage one's own (social) affairs -a form of "voting"-, especially if it's looked at from a Japanese perspective.

[Khan]

I didn't know there was a significant communist vote in Australia... but in any case this is a point in favour of compulsory voting. :)

There isn't, at least that vote doesn't lead to any significant power anyway. But if that is the result of compulsory voting what difference does it make?

[Dunenewt]

I do like some of Ken's ideas, but I don't think he makes a good Mayor of London.  I think he would be far better in a Government Cabinet.  Not literally before anyone makes a pun, as in being a minister.

However, even Tessa Jowell is admitting defeat.

[Edric O]

She wasn't so much admitting defeat as preparing herself for the very likely possibility of a defeat... but yes, Ken probably lost. I really think he should run again in 2012 after Boris screws up the Olympics, but he might decide that he's too old to do this again.

I'm hoping that the inevitable Tory general election victory in 2010 will spell the end of New Labour and Blairism.

[Dunenewt]

Boris has won!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/london/08/html/mayor.stm