open Democracy News Analysis - Compulsory voting and fixed term elections, - Comments

age of conan gold on "Compulsory voting and fixed term elections"

age of conan gold — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:40 +0000

I think you've overstated this: As you say, people who don't vote are more likely to be from different 'life circles' to those who do. It seems at least possible to me that compulsory voting would increase the chances of parties getting in power who appeal to bigotry, racism, sexism, fundamentalism and so on.

Still, I guess I'm for, although I suspect that there are better methods of increasing voter-turnout.

eve isk on "Compulsory voting and fixed term elections"

eve isk — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:50 +0000

Compulsory voting? Seems a little against the concept of liberty. Sure you have the right to vote, but you equally have the right not to vote.

George Court on "Compulsory voting and fixed term elections"

George Court — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:10:46 +0000

As a 14 year old very into politics I believe voting should be made compulsory. But first we must find out why people are not voting and try to address them. Some people don't vote because they can't be bothered, they live in a "safe seat," they believe all politicians are liars etc etc.

People should be bothered, voting is the one time every 5 years to change the way the country is run. Millions of soldiers died fighting Hitler to preserve democracy and freedoms, by voting you ensure they did not die in vain and we are in danger of wasting their sacrifice if turnout stays at the appauling level it is now.

Arguments about safe seats is flawed, the turnout in so called safe seats is around 50% if not lower. If everybody voted in that seat the result could be completely different.

As for politicians being liars, not voting won't stop them, get out and vote for a different candidate.

Also if you don't vote and you don't like the fact that the elected politicians lie you only have yourself to blame but at least if you vote you can speak against a particular politician you don't like with legitimacy.

Compulsory voting works in Australia it can work in Britain

Suzy Dean on "Compulsory voting and fixed term elections"

Suzy Dean — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:32:51 +0000

Fiona’s argument that most people would want the compulsory vote is more than a little sketchy. Firstly, 78% of people at the Fabien conference may have wanted the compulsory vote but there were only about 60 people at the event, so it is hardly a good indication of what the general public as a whole would want. Secondly, if most people do end up supporting the compulsory vote, which I don't doubt that after a bombardment of its benifits by government on the public they will, this would simply be an indication of public guilt. The fact is that the political elite have for so long pointed the finger at the public for not voting that the public have internalised the idea that the fault is with them for not voting, rather than politics for being uninteresting.

The compulsory vote is dangerous. Fiona argues that “if everyone knows that they are obliged to fill in a ballot paper and vote, some may prove more diligent in finding out more about what the parties and candidates stand for and what their policies are.” Yet, it must be considered that if voting is compulsory, people will not put much thought into their vote, even if they do. Moreover, people may vote more for parties, but they will be voting for ideas that were previously not good enough to vote for under a voluntary system where the only way people would vote is if they were inspired enough to do so. So, the quality of politics will remain low, even if voting statistics show the contrary, thus leaving nobody any the wiser on whether the state of the political landscape has genuinely improved or not.

Like Fiona, I also want to listen to politicians who can inspire and I also want to see renewed participation that will breathe life into our fading democracy. But , unlike Fiona, I’m not willing to settle for a quick fix that undermines the very foundations of democracy, by introducing a compulsory vote. I’d rather wait, debate and persuade to build a meaningful democracy rather than force what will ultimately be a meaningless vote on to people and hide what is the defining political problem of our times. Fiona and many others are now travelling down the road that they are worried about others going down. They are looking at ways to run the country in less bothersome ways that one loaded with meaningful ideas and genuine engagement. The compulsory vote ultimately unhinges what it means to be a citizen in a democracy by crushing the idea of democracy as being ‘by the people, for the people’ to being democracy ‘by the politicians, for the people.’

required on "Compulsory voting and fixed term elections"

required — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:41:06 +0000

Law, by its common-sense and decent definition, is the agreed use of violence to protect us from the harm of others. The bottom line of ANY law is that we can use lethal force to enforce it.

I wish more people would consider that before calling for new laws...

If, on principle, someone refuses to vote for any of the candidates, they are quite likely to at least be tempted to refuse to pay the fine. At which point "we" would hit them with an even bigger fine or attempt to imprison them - resistance to that could and would result in the use of force up to and including lethal force.

In other words we could end up killing someone for refusing to "engage in politics" and vote for Scum or Filth, or perhaps the small party of Wacky.

We are told, with the usual rock-solid assurance of politicians, that fines for failing to comply ("You have 4 seconds to comply. You have 3 seconds to comply..") will be "small". Why over there someplace it's only about 7 or 8 quid, see? And whilst over in that place they can imprison you, THEY usually don't bother to enforce the law WE so desperately need, so that's alright then.

We are also told that hey, no worries, there will be a little "None of the flthy wacky scum above" selection but that rather flies in the face of reality where politics is concerned. Give it somewhere between 5 minutes and 50 years and that selection would vanish. Why? For the exact same reasons we "need" to be forced to vote, the EXACT same arguments, except now it would be a done deal and removing that little bit would be easy peasy.

MacTaggarts comments were frankly hilarious, despite the seriousness of any new law (see force issue above). She asked people if voting were compulsory, ie under the threat of police force, would they vote? Amazingly many support her and assured her that should a jack-booted police officer shove a gun in their face they would indeed vote. Ah, democracy at its finest!

With another equally ditzy blindspot of common sense she assures us that of those that vote, ie voters, most were, awesome this, in favor of forcing other people to be voters just like them. Who would have thunk it?

Here's an idea - put it to the vote and count every single non-vote as a clear and emtphatic "No!", that way you'll be getting the voice of the non-voters too.

You know, that democracy thing?

Face it, in truth the none of the above box would soon vanish, punishments would be as high and punitive "as necessary" to force a suitably high level of compliance ("you have 2 seconds to comply..") and as usual, those proposing a new law never seem to consider the negotiation, amendments and fanaticism that will, certainly in time, accompany it.

What this REALLY is, is that the government fully knows that more and more people are questioning the very concept of government, its spaghetti of laws, its monopoly over the legal system and pandering to special interests and the wealthy.

"None of the above BECAUSE THEY'RE A POLITICIAN!" is a perfectly rational response to the charade and farce we're subjected to every now and then. No real leader wanting REAL changes will ever be endorsed by the mainstream media and political parties, so we'll never get a chance to vote for them. Instead we are to provide faux-legitimacy to the current and previous scum via being forced to pick among them which ones we "like"?

I don't want a "None of the above are suitable to have such over-riding, over-reaching parasitical interference in my life" choice, I want a "A pox on all their houses" choice, a vote to REDUCE government, not pick a winner-takes-all parasite among parasites.

A "Nobody" choice rather than a "Not one of these people" faux "choice".

The government knows full well that is exactly what so many "absent" votes mean. We're disengaged with politics because we're disengaged with politicians. We loath them and no, we don't wish to encourage them and certainly don't wish to legitimize em.

Compulsory voting and fixed term elections,

OurKingdom — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:46:25 +0000

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): One consequence of the appalling, drawn-out spectacle of the political class getting its knickers in a collective twist as to whether an election should be snapped is that people will want them to be fixed term. It was a mistake of Brown's not to give us a date in two year's time. But without rules how can anyone disguard the opportunity of choosing one's own timing - it is just too tempting? It is also more than tempting not to vote for the lot of them, as increasing numbers are doing, especially younger citizens. At a recent Fabian conference called Democracy Day, Fiona MacTaggert MP set out the case for compulsory voting. An aghast Suzy Dean sent openDemocracy a strong attack on Fiona which you can read here. Fiona has replied with eloquence, facts and draws on her experience as an MP. Read the exchange and comment on it here. I have also done an introduction for oD's global readership, which connects the issues to the dLiberation debate on Europe as well. Do we need some constitutional rules?