Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday:

[mthomas08]

Surely if you dont vote against a new building being built ruining your window view you have pretty much no right to complain when its built?

[Gatt]

I'm against spoiling since it doesn't get counted and is a waste of a vote (Thought at least they made an effort to get themselves to a polling station!) - hence Why I suggested the "Don't Know" (for Referendums) and the "None Of The Above" (For elections) boxes and to make it compulsary to vote - same as it is for the Census..

[teejay]

So don't vote then, according to the rules above I still aren't entitled to an opinion.

 

It entitles you to an opinion as you got off your backside and registered your indignation at not having a suitable option to vote for.

[sparkeh]

Surely if you dont vote against a new building being built ruining your window view you have pretty much no right to complain when its built?

Ok to further your analogy, a building is being built and you can vote whether the positioning will block out your sun in the morning or the afternoon.

When you are sitting in the dark will you think "This is ok as I voted for this"

[pcstru]

I fully believe that voting should be compulsary - with an option of a "Don't Know" or "None of the Above" box - these can then be taken into account and we would probably get a better picture of what we, as a people, want..

Well at least you get to the real issue rather than confusing and conflating voting with freedom of speech. No right to "complain" - what would be the proposal for that - cut out their tongue's, go round to their houses and smash up their keyboards!

 

So compulsory voting is the real issue when people say things like "people who don't vote have no right to complain" are really advocating compulsory voting (and if they aren't, then they are very confused about voting and freedom of speech).

Yes it is your choice not to vote, but by doing so you cannot then object to the result - that isn't very democratic (In fact i'd go out on a limb and say it's probably the exact opposite!)

 

/RANT

 

Sure you can. Even with a supposedly simple yes/no issue like AV, I might still rightly object to the result: I don't want, FPTP or AV, I actually want proportional representation. So why should I have voted and why if I didn't should I lose my right to complain that we don't have PR? That would be right proper barmy.

 

And that's the rub about compulsory voting - the limited choices. This is highlighted nicely in places where there are a rather limited number of candidates (say, one) but the ruling parties point to the 'vote' and say "ah, yes but we have the support of 97.8% of the population". We might not be limited to one candidate but I doubt that there is anyone apart from the candidates themselves who can vote for someone who's views match their own 100%. I might find that the candidate who I have most in common with (as a % of subject views) has one view that I find so repugnant I could never vote for them. Which leaves me with what - no choice but to vote for someone who's views in the main I don't agree with?

[teejay]

I'm against spoiling since it doesn't get counted and is a waste of a vote (Thought at least they made an effort to get themselves to a polling station!) - hence Why I suggested the "Don't Know" (for Referendums) and the "None Of The Above" (For elections) boxes and to make it compulsary to vote - same as it is for the Census..

 

They do get counted, they have to record the number of spoiled ballot papers. I agree the biggest improvement to democracy in this country would be a 'none of the above' option, especially if that option wins then it forces a by election with none of the previous candidates able to stand.

[sparkeh]

the biggest improvement to democracy in this country would be a 'none of the above' option

 

Seconded. I could get onboard with that.

[mthomas08]

Ok to further your analogy, a building is being built and you can vote whether the positioning will block out your sun in the morning or the afternoon.

When you are sitting in the dark will you think "This is ok as I voted for this"

 

Then again thats your job to get all the facts before you vote. If you dont know what your voting for then dont complain.

[sparkeh]

Then again thats your job to get all the facts before you vote. If you dont know what your voting for then dont complain.

 

But you didn't answer my question. Both options are bad for you but is it ok because you voted for it?

[witch]

teejay has it right: if you didn't want AV then you vote No - this is not a yes vote for FPTP as that wasnt in there at all. It has just confused the issue.

You should vote - a lot of people went through a great deal to get the right to vote.

Still don't get that if AV is so bad, why do the political parties use it to elect their leaders?

[mthomas08]

But you didn't answer my question. Both options are bad for you but is it ok because you voted for it?

 

Then choose one, if you got a route to take left or right you cant just stop the car and have a hissy fit. If they are both bad then suggest you pick one, stick names in a hat for all I care. If you dont like the choices then I suggest you start fighting for other choices and if they dont get voted in like AV then its tough the people have spoken.

[Theblacksheep]

But you didn't answer my question. Both options are bad for you but is it ok because you voted for it?

 

Something has to be WORTH voting for.

 

People/things should get votes because theres only two choices and none of them are suitable. I totally disagree that choosing something you have no understanding about (or picking names out of the hat) is any better than not voting. The people in power have relied on Mortons fork for too long, having an order of preference makes no difference.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Theblacksheep

[Gatt]

if you got a route to take left or right you cant just stop the car and have a hissy fit.

 

This is where the "Not going to vote" camp then stay in the car until other people vote for a new route, The "NGTV" camp then, faced with another choice - complain that they don't like this one either - and we go full circle..

 

Or am I being a bit too synical here?

[sparkeh]

If they are both bad then suggest you pick one, stick names in a hat for all I care.

Awesome way to run the country. I sincerely hope that most people don't vote in your reckless and uninformed manner (though I do fear that a sizeable section do).

This is where the "Not going to vote" camp then stay in the car until other people vote for a new route, The "NGTV" camp then, faced with another choice - complain that they don't like this one either - and we go full circle..

 

Or am I being a bit too synical here?

 

Possibly, though there's nothing wrong with a bit of cynicism

[teejay]

This is where the "Not going to vote" camp then stay in the car until other people vote for a new route, The "NGTV" camp then, faced with another choice - complain that they don't like this one either - and we go full circle..

 

Or am I being a bit too synical here?

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I've got Sat Nav...

[Gatt]

Possibly, though there's nothing wrong with a bit of cynicism

*Ahem..* - Just checking you were paying attention

[Disease]

I think you will probably find that te people who did notvote for 'insert political reason here' were in the minority of those who did not vote. Most of the people whodid not vote were probably drunk, on drugs, busy beating their wives/husbands/kids or just to bone idle to get up out of their chairs.

[Gatt]

I think you will probably find that te people who did notvote for 'insert political reason here' were in the minority of those who did not vote. Most of the people whodid not vote were probably drunk, on drugs, busy beating their wives/husbands/kids or just to bone idle to get up out of their chairs.

 

Think that just about covers it

[teejay]

Think that just about covers it

 

Not quite:

Breaking into the homes of those who've gone to vote

Working in A&E fixing the drunk/drugged up/beaten up wife,husband, kids

Have sold their postal vote

[mthomas08]

Or couldnt care less

 

Me, not afraid to say it, but then I dont complain about the result even if it was a Yes and criticise those who said No.

[pcstru]

teejay has it right: if you didn't want AV then you vote No - this is not a yes vote for FPTP as that wasnt in there at all. It has just confused the issue.

A no vote was necessarily a vote for FPTP - there were only two possible outcomes. I'd bet it won't be long before the first politician spins the "no" as tacit support of FPTP : "why do we need to discuss PR when the British people have already expressed a firm majority in support of FPTP".

 

Perhaps a different example would better illustrate the dilemma. Imagine we still have capital punishment by hanging. There is a referendum to change it to death by lethal injection - options yes or no for the change. Are you really suggesting that people who don't want the latter should vote for the former? And others are suggesting that those that don't vote have no right to an opinion on the matter? I imagine politicians would just love that!

You should vote - a lot of people went through a great deal to get the right to vote.

So they did; for the right of one person one vote. It is MY vote to do with as I like. The problem with compulsory voting, even in referendums, is that politicians like to ask leading questions like "when did you stop beating your wife". Meanwhile in local or national elections I find that no party actually represents my view on several large and important issues; I do tend to vote these days or wander down the polling station and at least spoil the paper, but I view compulsory voting as an abuse of my right (I have a right to drink beer, doesn't mean I need to drink beer to keep that right). And those who say "no vote no complaining" seem to ignore that complaining (voicing an opinion) is political engagement - perhaps more important than voting. Maybe the rule should be if you don't complain you have no right to vote or at least that would be just as silly a proposition.

Still don't get that if AV is so bad, why do the political parties use it to elect their leaders?

 

Well, we wouldn't understand it would we - not having gone to Eaton and all that.

[Gibbo]

Still don't get that if AV is so bad, why do the political parties use it to elect their leaders?

 

Because AV is useful there as all the candidates are on the same party. If there was a leadership contest I could easily vote in order of preference.

 

But for a national election there is no way I would put a second or third choice.

[Jamo]

Because AV is useful there as all the candidates are on the same party. If there was a leadership contest I could easily vote in order of preference.

 

But for a national election there is no way I would put a second or third choice.

 

Why not?

 

I could quite easily rank parties in order of preference. All it would have meant is that parties would have to appeal to all constituents and make sure that their voice is heard. FPTP is only a pain in the butt because if I vote for who I wanted to in my constituency then my vote would mean nothing, which means I am forced to tactically vote.

[Gibbo]

Why not?

 

I could quite easily rank parties in order of preference.

 

Because in my area the Labour man was "parachuted in" and the Lib Dem woman spread a campaign of lies.

 

And if you visit any Northern town and ask the public, they'll vote Labour and no-other either "because my father did, and so did his father" or "I'll never forgive Thatcher for closing down the knife and fork factories and the pits".

[Gatt]

**mumbles something about a big shiny chrome padlock**