2015 Election

[Arreks]

The least smelly turd, at the end of the day, is still a turd.

 

I don't really see Not-voting-in-protest and voters apathy as having too distinct a difference. It's all down to attitude..

Apathy: Why vote? Voting is pointless. The system won't change if I vote.

Protest: Why vote? The system is corrupt and if I vote I continue its existence. The system won't change if I vote.

 

Both voter's apathy and the protest null-vote both stem from the same dislike of the current system.

 

But it's definitely true that "not voting" isn't something the government seems to care about - nearly 17 million people didn't vote last year and no one batted an eyelid. What about if 17 million people spoiled their ballots instead? whether or not they'd take notice isn't something we can know for sure but if a person is fed up with 'the system' then surely they'd want to try and do something to change it rather than doing something which doesn't seem to be working?

 

I didn't vote last year because I was one of those "I don't like this system" people and I still don't like the system, however I know that by not voting - I'm actually just appearing as some 20 year old slob who doesn't care rather than a person who doesn't like the system..

Edited April 20, 2015 by Arreks

[localzuk]

but as far as I can see even if 95% of people spoiled their ballots the candidate with the most votes would still win even though 95% of the voters had effectively told them to get lost. granted it might send a message but im not sure as candidate a still won it would be much of one or that anything would change

 

Not really true. The election could be declared null and void by the courts.

 

By not voting you are just ignored as you could just be lazy.

[sted]

Not really true. The election could be declared null and void by the courts.

 

By not voting you are just ignored as you could just be lazy.

 

on what grounds though some people still voted for candidate a and he got more votes than any other candidate so I cant see anything to contest

[JRowley]

on what grounds though some people still voted for candidate a and he got more votes than any other candidate so I cant see anything to contest

 

However the vast majority of people would rather have none of the candidates available, the candidates that received votes would have received such a small proportion that it wouldn't be representative. You could lodge an election petition and have the whole thing declared void and the election rerun. That doesn't mean the outcome would be any better however.

 

Problem is that realistically these days you would never have this at a local or national level, for void votes to actually mean something you are talking about needing in effect a democratic revolution to take place. The closest I suppose to this in the modern day was Iceland which effectively crowd-sourced a new constitution, though even that appears to have failed despite having a successful referendum on it.

[CAM]

Let's say we have a population of 1,000,000 and 500,000 voters turn up to the polls. The remaining 500,000 never made their voice heard and there is concern about the turnout being low and a bit of political chatter about only half the population voting, but attention will be turned towards improving voter engagement. The winning party's margin of victory will only take into account 500,000 people, let's say 260,000/500,000 votes (just over half).

 

Now let's say 500,000 voted and 200,000 didn't bother turning up. This leaves 300,000 spoiling their ballot papers. Questions are not being raised anymore about the 200,000 not voting but the 300,000 voters who actively rejected the candidates. Conversation will now turn towards why 3/8ths of the voters rejected the candidates in the election and the closer you push the spoilt ballots to half the voting population, the closer you get to no confidence in the current government (and possible civil disorder if things get reeeeeal volatile). The winning party's margin of 260,000 will take into account 800,000 people instead of 500,000 making said margin much much smaller. 260,000/800,000 votes, less than half of all votes by a fair margin!

 

That's why there is no excuse to not register to vote. Spoilt ballots affect the figures and can provoke shouts of no confidence at the people in power!

Edited April 20, 2015 by CAM

[Garacesh]

However the vast majority of people would rather have none of the candidates available, the candidates that received votes would have received such a small proportion that it wouldn't be representative. You could lodge an election petition and have the whole thing declared void and the election rerun. That doesn't mean the outcome would be any better however.

 

Problem is that realistically these days you would never have this at a local or national level, for void votes to actually mean something you are talking about needing in effect a democratic revolution to take place. The closest I suppose to this in the modern day was Iceland which effectively crowd-sourced a new constitution, though even that appears to have failed despite having a successful referendum on it.

 

Quite right. Null votes are, I presume, taken to mean "I don't care" (or even just ignored altogether), regardless of their real intention. A spoiled ballot is (if spoiled properly) an irrefutable "I do not support any of these parties' ability to govern this country". The problem is we've all had it drilled into us that a spoiled ballot is 'meaningless' and will not be considered nor taken any notice of.

 

I would like to spoil my ballot, I toyed with the idea last election, too, but I don't think I will because I know the vast majority of other disgruntled voters won't. Even when I'm fully aware of the social conditioning and the psychological effects of the 'losing battle', I still fall prey to them.

[Nibiru]

I shall spoil my ballot paper. Ive been a lifelong Lib Dem voter but never again.

[Garacesh]

That's why there is no excuse to not register to vote. Spoilt ballots affect the figures and can provoke shouts of no confidence at the people in power!

I'd much rather there be an official box for 'VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE' but no government ever would push for that to be a thing. It might be a policy of a new small political party trying to earn votes, but it would never be a thing.

[JRowley]

Quite right. Null votes are, I presume, taken to mean "I don't care" (or even just ignored altogether), regardless of their real intention. A spoiled ballot is (if spoiled properly) an irrefutable "I do not support any of these parties' ability to govern this country". The problem is we've all had it drilled into us that a spoiled ballot is 'meaningless' and will not be considered nor taken any notice of.

 

I would like to spoil my ballot, I toyed with the idea last election, too, but I don't think I will because I know the vast majority of other disgruntled voters won't. Even when I'm fully aware of the social conditioning and the psychological effects of the 'losing battle', I still fall prey to them.

 

It would actually be surprisingly simple to solve the problem, simply add a none of the above box as an option. Then see what people actually think when given an actual option. But as is usually the case we couldn't get such a thing added as government would decide it for us rather than allowing us to vote on it, and they would decide not to do it because they are afraid of what people really think.

[Garacesh]

It would actually be surprisingly simple to solve the problem, simply add a none of the above box as an option. Then see what people actually think when given an actual option. But as is usually the case we couldn't get such a thing added as government would decide it for us rather than allowing us to vote on it, and they would decide not to do it because they are afraid of what people really think.

 

None of the above, no confidence, null vote, whatever you call that box, it means the same thing. And no government would ever approve it.

[JRowley]

None of the above, no confidence, null vote, whatever you call that box, it means the same thing. And no government would ever approve it.

 

Indeed, and that is the problem and why people do not vote.

[CAM]

But that raises it's own problems, what do you do if None of the Above gets the majority? It would be a free pass for the incumbent government to remain in power as caretakers until a new election is finally called during which time few of the parties will have changed in any considerable fashion. You'll end up with another no confidence vote a few months later.

 

Currently, if there isn't enough votes for a majority a coalition is formed of two parties to work together on issues and obtain a majority of seats in parliament. If a coalition can't form, then a minority government takes place where the incumbent government doesn't have enough seats to push stuff through parliament without other parties vetoing it if they don't like it (making for quite an unstable seat of power!).

[Andrew_C]

As I see it, the real problem with our system is as follow. And yes, I have taken it to its (il)logical extreme.

 

100 constituencies of 1000 voters each:-

 

- in 51 of them, Zaphod polls 500, Ford 1, and Arthur 499

 

- in 49 of them, Zaphod polls 1, Ford 500, and Arthur 499

 

Zaphod* "wins" despite having approximately 1/4 the total votes. Ford has 49 MPs, only having about 1/2 Arthur's votes. And Arthur** has squat.

 

That leaves half the population thinking "Hmmm; something stinks...!"

 

 

 

*Clearly Zaphod is the best candidate, for all the reasons Douglas wrote.

** Could be read as Lib-Dem or Green this year I'd guess.

[tmcd35]

The main problem is the executive is made up of members of that chamber and the parties hold a three line whip over their members. This means the chamber is practically incapable of serving it purpose - which is holding the government to account. If our parliamentary system was properly reformed to remove the executive to a separate elected body, remove the whipping system from both chambers, and actively encouraged independent candidates running, then there would be no need for a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper. Especially with more equal constituency sizes and AV or STV voting.

 

But all that is pure fantasy. We've more chance of getting 'none of the above' on the ballot paper than proper, meaningful constitutional reform.

[JRowley]

As I see it, the real problem with our system is as follow. And yes, I have taken it to its (il)logical extreme.

 

100 constituencies of 1000 voters each:-

 

- in 51 of them, Zaphod polls 500, Ford 1, and Arthur 499

 

- in 49 of them, Zaphod polls 1, Ford 500, and Arthur 499

 

Zaphod* "wins" despite having approximately 1/4 the total votes. Ford has 49 MPs, only having about 1/2 Arthur's votes. And Arthur** has squat.

 

That leaves half the population thinking "Hmmm; something stinks...!"

 

 

 

*Clearly Zaphod is the best candidate, for all the reasons Douglas wrote.

** Could be read as Lib-Dem or Green this year I'd guess.

 

FPTP in a nutshell, completely broken and dated idea of democracy.

 

Nice example.

[sparkeh]

As I see it, the real problem with our system is as follow.

And here are a lot more problems: What is First Past The Post

[Garacesh]

I would prefer a option to vote for the king/queen, to return power back to where it belong. Maybe if there was such options, or if too many people didn't vote or spoilt the ballot paper it was handed to the crown then that would be progress.

 

No. Power in the hands of one is always a bad idea. Sure, we have a PM who is seen as the power figure of the country, but the PM acts on behalf of a much larger collective (parliament) and no matter how bad it gets (for now at least), there's still some kind of democratic coverage and some (albeit rather small) variation in the make-up of parliament. We have ~300 MP's who are repeatedly accusing of lining their own pockets. Give all the power to one family of ~10-15 people? It will only get worse.

[flyinghaggis]

Personally I think spoiling your ballot paper is as daft an idea as not voting. As has been said before politicians will take not bothering to vote as a sign that you're happy with things the way they are and spoiling your ballot paper as an indication that you're too stupid to put an X in a box! They won't see it as any kind of 'protest' against the system.

 

Surely between all the parties you can find someone broadly in agreement with your ideology or at least someone close enough to it to drag politics in the direction you want! At least if you vote for a specific party/candidate that has no chance of winning your vote is at least counted and noticed.

Edited April 20, 2015 by flyinghaggis

[Garacesh]

Personally I think spoiling your ballot paper is as daft an idea as not voting. As has been said before politicians will take not bothering to vote as a sign that you're happy with things the way they are and spoiling your ballot paper as an indication that you're too stupid to put an X in a box! They won't see it as any kind of 'protest' against the system.

 

Surely between all the parties you can find someone broadly in agreement with your ideology or at least someone close enough to it to drag politics in the direction you want! At least if you vote for a specific party/candidate that has no chance of winning your vote is at least counted and noticed.

 

Horseraddish.

 

Spoiling a ballot may be a bit daft, but a protest vote is different. And they can't assume you were "too stupid to put an X in a box" but as this page about protest votes discusses the reasons a vote is not counted (primarily 'Intention unclear') whereas a protest vote makes your intention very clear. Yes, it might be ignored now due to too small a majority. It might be ignored next election for the same reason. But, like any movement, if enough people get behind it, it gets seen.

 

As for voting 'for the party with no chance of getting in', what's the point in that? If they've no chance of getting in, then your vote isn't going to make a difference. Your vote may be counted, but it certainly isn't noticed.

[pcstru]

Personally I think spoiling your ballot paper is as daft an idea as not voting. As has been said before politicians will take not bothering to vote as a sign that you're happy with things the way they are and spoiling your ballot paper as an indication that you're too stupid to put an X in a box! .

But your vote is yours to do with as you wish. It is about what YOU think, not about what the politicians think.

[Theblacksheep]

As for voting 'for the party with no chance of getting in', what's the point in that? If they've no chance of getting in, then your vote isn't going to make a difference. Your vote may be counted, but it certainly isn't noticed.

 

Voting for 1 of the 2 parties that have chance of getting in, is part of the problem.

 

We don't vote for who we want, we vote tactically to kick the last useless lot out. Until that cycle is broken nothing will really change.

[tmcd35]

The cycle won't change until we get a different voting system, which will only happen after successive coalition and minority governments. In Norwich North, were I am, the only party's with a chance are Labour or Tory. In Norwich South the Greens actually have a fighting chance. In Norwich North voting tactically is the only real option (although I did vote LD last time, it will be Labour this time). In Norwich South they have the chance to vote with their conscience (if they like Green policies), and I hope they do. As much as I don't fully agree with the Greens, I do hope they pick up Norwich South, and I hope UKIP get a good half-dozen or so seats, because only then will the voting system have a chance to be changed to something fairer for all.

[Garacesh]

Voting for 1 of the 2 parties that have chance of getting in, is part of the problem.

 

We don't vote for who we want, we vote tactically to kick the last useless lot out. Until that cycle is broken nothing will really change.

 

Nowhere did I suggest voting for one of the two parties that have a chance of getting in. I suggested that if you didn't, and instead voted for the small-time party that you believe in, your vote is counted but certainly isn't noticed, due to their tiny following and near-invisible effect. And even if they do enact something good, the 'big' party will just take the credit for it. However, the protest vote is more against the crooked system itself rather than against the parties, though I, too, am sick of party lies. However to vote in the system encourages its prolonged existence. The more I speak about it, the more I'm thinking I will protest vote, regardless of whether it 'makes a difference' or not.

[speckytecky]

Same sort of thing is happening round here - Wiltshire and out through Bath / Bristol. Very strong Green candidate Author / Bristol Uni Lecturer Phil Chamberlain in North Wiltshire standing for the second time against James Gray who severely blotted his copy book prior to the 2010 election by the way he treated his then wife who was ill at the time but still got elected! This time round the Green is right on top of his campaign so may hopefully break through. The excellent MP Don Foster isn't standing and the Greens have a very strong candidate there Dominic Tristram. The Greens also have really good candidates in particularly the ever swing seat of Bristol West and Somerton & Frome where the Lib Dem legend David Heath won't be standing for reelection. I'm hugely impressed by the caliber and commitment of the Green Candidates I have met, Phil Randall in West Wiltshire, Tina Johnston in Chippenham where Lib Dem Duncan Hames is fighting hard to keep his seat against a massive (and I suspect massively funded) Tory newbie who has been parachuted in to fight the seat. Interesting times and without a doubt one of the most exciting elections I have witnessed. In my own patch of Devizes - a so called safe Tory seat the Greens have fielded a heavyweight Doctor of Economics - Emma Dawnay who is going down a storm at the hustings - indeed the Tory turned up late for one husting and isn't going to another - specifically on the Environment, as she has some sort of Tory event to attend instead! If nothing the 2015 election is going to trigger the massive reform our electoral system that it so desperately needs.

 

The cycle won't change until we get a different voting system, which will only happen after successive coalition and minority governments. In Norwich North, were I am, the only party's with a chance are Labour or Tory. In Norwich South the Greens actually have a fighting chance. In Norwich North voting tactically is the only real option (although I did vote LD last time, it will be Labour this time). In Norwich South they have the chance to vote with their conscience (if they like Green policies), and I hope they do. As much as I don't fully agree with the Greens, I do hope they pick up Norwich South, and I hope UKIP get a good half-dozen or so seats, because only then will the voting system have a chance to be changed to something fairer for all.

[elsiegee40]

Election 2015: "Misstakes and mispellings" - BBC News