Voting

[Seeker]

Local turnout in Grimsby was 22%. Pathetic. Should voting me mandatory?

If democracy is important to us, the least we can do is vote, it's not much of a burden.

[Craig380]

Clearly, democracy isn't important to a significant proportion of the population.

To some extent, I can understand why many people are apathetic: the relentless bad news, services falling apart, continual revelations of sleaze and cheating, the ridiculous performative posturing of the current Government.

[garynortheast]

The cherry on the cake for me was reading that Bozo Johnson was turned away at the polling station for failing to produce suitable photographic evidence of his identity. This is the idiot who made it mandatory to produce said proof of identity. Sweet irony.

[Biker Biggles]

I don't think it should be mandatory as not voting is actually a political act in itself. It says to the powerful that they can largely not bother with those who don't vote and concentrate their policies on those who do hence the ongoing rise in state pension spending. Older people tend to vote and younger people tend to not bother in general so resources get directed towards those who influence elections. The moral of the story------Always vote but it doesnt matter much who for.

[Seeker]

I don't think it should be mandatory as not voting is actually a political act in itself.


Then add: "None of the above" or "Abstain" on the ballot papers. I suspect more people don't vote through apathy rather than making a political statement.

[Craig380]

The cherry on the cake for me was reading that Bozo Johnson was turned away at the polling station for failing to produce suitable photographic evidence of his identity. This is the idiot who made it mandatory to produce said proof of identity. Sweet irony.

I strongly suspect that was deliberate on Johnson's part, to garner publicity. He doesn't care that it makes him look stupid or arrogant: all he cares about is column inches.

[Biker Biggles]

Then add: "None of the above" or "Abstain" on the ballot papers. I suspect more people don't vote through apathy rather than making a political statement.

Indeed, or you can spoil your ballot if you feel strongly about it which would be a political statement too but mandatory voting would be illiberal in my view. There is already too much authoritarianism in the world.

[Seeker]

Indeed, or you can spoil your ballot if you feel strongly about it which would be a political statement too but mandatory voting would be illiberal in my view. There is already too much authoritarianism in the world.


It's a tough call but to protect against authoritarianism you need a functioning democracy and if only 1 in 5 people are voting it's not functioning as it should.
We live in a society which protects us, heals us, supports us when we can't work and all it asks of us is that we vote (and obey its laws of course).

[Sir Trev]

I imagine the turnout around me was very low yesterday, but we only had the Police and Crime Commisioner to vote for this time. Can anyone truly say this position is worthwhile or makes a difference where they live? I stopped reading the local rag when it became 95% adverts and don't do Friendface, so if the current incumbent did anything for me or my community I have no knowledge of it...

[Ruffy]

It's a tough call but to protect against authoritarianism you need a functioning democracy and if only 1 in 5 people are voting it's not functioning as it should.
...
A few thoughts (based on the UK system as I experience it):


Sadly, too many (probably including myself at the moment) see our system as badly dysfunctional anyway, more due to the system itself than the choices of players within that system. It's become intrinsically authoritarian - the 'state' seems incapable of listening to and incorporating the views of many that voted for and against it on individual issues and proposals. A different elected government doesn't necessarily change that outcome, it's akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Party politics can run badly contrary to the principle of representation. When an elected official is systematically compelled ('whipped') to vote with party-line rather than in line with the gathered consensus of those who elected him/her, then we lose much of the point of why we vote.
'Democracy' is not the same as 'majority rule'. The definition has been corrupted to an extent and tribal politics that emerges as a result is often unhelpful. It's only a short hop to mob-rule when we favour volume over value. As Asimov suggested, democracy does not means one's ignorance is worth the same as another's intelligence.
We need to evolve an alternative way, where good ideas flourish, not just popular ideas. I suggest we need to define something that better compels all those elected to work collaboratively together to deliver the policies voted for by the electorate. (Coalition is not necessarily a weak or troublesome concept.) Maybe something that has greater separation between the legislature and the executive, whilst retaining the independence of the judiciary?
Winning an election needs to be more like agreeing a long term service contract than simply winning the keys to door of the office of power: Any mandate won is to deliver the manifesto expressed before the election, so that should be the key performance comparator afterwards.

All just my opinion. And I realise the practice is far harder than the theory.