Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Compulsory voting?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:21 PM
  #31  
Blue by You's Avatar
Blue by You
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
From: In the fast lane
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Even if I accepted that all no-voters were abstainers rather than predominantly morons (with a minority of abstainers) then these abstentions tell the politicians absolutely nothing of any value.
Whereas a vote for 'None of the Above' would tell them plenty.
'None of the Above' should be on the paper whatever.
This isn't about the addition of a catch-all addition to ballot papers. It's about compulsory voting
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:27 PM
  #32  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Blue by You
This isn't about the addition of a catch-all addition to ballot papers. It's about compulsory voting
Compulsory voting cannot occur in any way unless 'None of the Above' or similar is an option.
And if it is then please explain why having to select 'None of the Above' at the Village Hall, by post or online rather than doing nothing (or abstaining as you call it) is such an affront to your democratic rights?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:29 PM
  #33  
Carnut's Avatar
Carnut
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
From: I'll check my gps
Default

Its not going against democracy and peoples freedoms. We are told every day how fast we can drive, what we are, and are not, allowed to say to others and so on. People need order and to be given direction in a civilised society. Giving people responsibility and holding them to account doesn't undermined anything.


In a ideal world no one would need to be told what to do.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:31 PM
  #34  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Carnut
Its not going against democracy and peoples freedoms. We are told every day how fast we can drive, what we are, and are not, allowed to say to others and so on. People need order and to be given direction in a civilised society. Giving people responsibility and holding them to account doesn't undermined anything.


In a ideal world no one would need to be told what to do.
I take it you are agreeing with me?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:32 PM
  #35  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

Originally Posted by Carnut
Its not going against democracy and peoples freedoms. We are told every day how fast we can drive, what we are, and are not, allowed to say to others and so on. People need order and to be given direction in a civilised society. Giving people responsibility and holding them to account doesn't undermined anything.


In a ideal world no one would need to be told what to do.
An ideal world is one where we cull the stupid yes?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:32 PM
  #36  
Carnut's Avatar
Carnut
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
From: I'll check my gps
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
I take it you are agreeing with me?


Its my thread, so yes.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:34 PM
  #37  
Carnut's Avatar
Carnut
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
From: I'll check my gps
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
An ideal world is one where we cull the stupid yes?


We need a new Hitler.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:34 PM
  #38  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
An ideal world is one where we cull the stupid yes?
Eugenics would be the logical approach.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:35 PM
  #39  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

The people left would probably all vote without compulsion.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:38 PM
  #40  
Carnut's Avatar
Carnut
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
From: I'll check my gps
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Eugenics would be the logical approach.


I should think l would be selected for my big *****.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:46 PM
  #41  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

Originally Posted by Carnut
I should think l would be selected for my big *****.
That's sticking out of your forehead?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 06:51 PM
  #42  
Blue by You's Avatar
Blue by You
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
From: In the fast lane
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Compulsory voting cannot occur in any way unless 'None of the Above' or similar is an option.
And if it is then please explain why having to select 'None of the Above' at the Village Hall, by post or online rather than doing nothing (or abstaining as you call it) is such an affront to your democratic rights?
If, as you suggest, the addition of a 'None of the Above' option would tell politicians what they need to know, how is that any different to a percentage of the electoral roll not appearing at the polls? It is after all just a matter of very simple maths to find out how many abstentions there have been.
Making voting compulsory with a 'none' option achieves nothing more, and without doubt cannot be described as a part of a democratic procedure.
It is, however, the stuff of dictators.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:01 PM
  #43  
Martin2005's Avatar
Martin2005
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Default

The problem is disenfranchisement.

We don't need mandatory voting, we need better, more engaging politics and politicians.

Mandatory voting might make you feel better, but it won't address the route cause of voter apathy - whilst chcuking away some esssential freedoms.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:06 PM
  #44  
Martin2005's Avatar
Martin2005
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Default

Originally Posted by Carnut
Its not going against democracy and peoples freedoms. We are told every day how fast we can drive, what we are, and are not, allowed to say to others and so on. People need order and to be given direction in a civilised society. Giving people responsibility and holding them to account doesn't undermined anything.


In a ideal world no one would need to be told what to do.
If the government told you that you HAD to go to the shops on a Tuesday but no other day, you'd be rightly outraged, even though it might just help 'order and direction' in our busy and chaotic world.

I don't need the feckin government telling me what I have to do. I lend them my vote if and when I choose.

As F1 said earlier, the big issue is the electoral system - that, more than anything else, disenfranchises people by its very nature you end up with utterly pointless votes. Change that, then I'd be open to ways of encouraging more people to vote.

Last edited by Martin2005; Feb 10, 2015 at 07:08 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:23 PM
  #45  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Blue by You
If, as you suggest, the addition of a 'None of the Above' option would tell politicians what they need to know, how is that any different to a percentage of the electoral roll not appearing at the polls? It is after all just a matter of very simple maths to find out how many abstentions there have been.
Making voting compulsory with a 'none' option achieves nothing more, and without doubt cannot be described as a part of a democratic procedure.
It is, however, the stuff of dictators.
Why is it that you are so against having to vote? Do you regard having to select 'None of the Above' as depriving you of your symbolic abstention? Or maybe you aren't on the Electoral Roll because you want to be anonymous. Have you got something to hide? After all, it is nothing if not a minor inconvenience once every 5 years if G.E. only.

And please explain how simple maths can differentiate between the abstainers (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above') and the simpletons (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above')?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:25 PM
  #46  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Martin2005
The problem is disenfranchisement.

We don't need mandatory voting, we need better, more engaging politics and politicians.

Mandatory voting might make you feel better, but it won't address the route cause of voter apathy - whilst chcuking away some esssential freedoms.
That is over-egging it somewhat.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:26 PM
  #47  
ALi-B's Avatar
ALi-B
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Default

Originally Posted by Martin2005
Once you use the law to make someone vote you are subverting the democratic process.
Hmmm, reminds me of the census act. £1000 fine if you don't take part.

Thats mandatory, and a hell of alot more boxes to tick.

Oh, and of course its illegal to not fill in a voting registration form. So we have the right not to vote, but not the right to be unregistered
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:31 PM
  #48  
ALi-B's Avatar
ALi-B
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Default

Current politics won't change until they are told and forced to realise that the majority of the public think they are crap.

All they are doing is trying to win a majority of those who are arsed to vote.

If the 60-70% of those that don't vote had their hand forced....Politicians would soon realise they'd need to pander to a totally different demographic!
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:31 PM
  #49  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Why is it that you are so against having to vote? Do you regard having to select 'None of the Above' as depriving you of your symbolic abstention? Or maybe you aren't on the Electoral Roll because you want to be anonymous. Have you got something to hide? After all, it is nothing if not a minor inconvenience once every 5 years if G.E. only.

And please explain how simple maths can differentiate between the abstainers (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above') and the simpletons (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above')?
FFS
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:36 PM
  #50  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

You ever heard of flippancy, or was the opportunity too good to miss?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:50 PM
  #51  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

You ever heard of backtracking or am I being too harsh?
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 07:56 PM
  #52  
Blue by You's Avatar
Blue by You
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
From: In the fast lane
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
And please explain how simple maths can differentiate between the abstainers (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above') and the simpletons (who might just as well vote 'None of the Above')?
This suggestion (flippant or otherwise) completely nullifies your entire argument in defence of compulsory voting.

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Why is it that you are so against having to vote? Do you regard having to select 'None of the Above' as depriving you of your symbolic abstention? Or maybe you aren't on the Electoral Roll because you want to be anonymous. Have you got something to hide? After all, it is nothing if not a minor inconvenience once every 5 years if G.E. only.
As you seem so intent on completely ignoring the basic premise of the argument based on basic democracy I shall refrain from fuelling your irrational 'flippancy'.
My argument against compulsory voting is well made and founded on basic democratic principles.
I have said my piece and stand by that.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 09:25 PM
  #53  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Blue by You
This suggestion (flippant or otherwise) completely nullifies your entire argument in defence of compulsory voting.


As you seem so intent on completely ignoring the basic premise of the argument based on basic democracy I shall refrain from fuelling your irrational 'flippancy'.
My argument against compulsory voting is well made and founded on basic democratic principles.
I have said my piece and stand by that.
The only part of my previous post that was flippant in any way was the section highlighted by my friend. The rest in its entirety was completely serious and your standpoint is still flawed as far as I am concerned.
Not voting under the current system is acceptable, although whether an individual does so with purpose or ignorance is unknown.
Not voting when 'None of the Above' is an option, whether compulsory or otherwise, is ignorant in all cases.

And, to all those who rattle off the excuse of 'They're all the same anyway so what's the point', that deserves nothing but contempt. Your vote has been well-earned (maybe not by you) and should be used whenever possible.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:15 PM
  #54  
Martin2005's Avatar
Martin2005
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
The only part of my previous post that was flippant in any way was the section highlighted by my friend. The rest in its entirety was completely serious and your standpoint is still flawed as far as I am concerned.
Not voting under the current system is acceptable, although whether an individual does so with purpose or ignorance is unknown.
Not voting when 'None of the Above' is an option, whether compulsory or otherwise, is ignorant in all cases.

And, to all those who rattle off the excuse of 'They're all the same anyway so what's the point', that deserves nothing but contempt. Your vote has been well-earned (maybe not by you) and should be used whenever possible.
The right to choose not to vote was equally well earned.

I really don't understand the point of insisting (by law) that people vote.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:23 PM
  #55  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
The only part of my previous post that was flippant in any way was the section highlighted by my friend. The rest in its entirety was completely serious and your standpoint is still flawed as far as I am concerned.
Not voting under the current system is acceptable, although whether an individual does so with purpose or ignorance is unknown.
Not voting when 'None of the Above' is an option, whether compulsory or otherwise, is ignorant in all cases.

And, to all those who rattle off the excuse of 'They're all the same anyway so what's the point', that deserves nothing but contempt. Your vote has been well-earned (maybe not by you) and should be used whenever possible.
No worries then I'll vote for Miliband

You can treat it with all the contempt you like, but it does not change the fact they are all the same and this has been proved over the last 35 years beyond any reasonable doubt.

Put simply they are lying cheating self serving pigs at the trough who don't deserve my vote or me even stirring to get off the couch and come and spoil my ballot paper.

When they do something for the genuine good of the country rather than the good of themselves, when they stick to major manifesto promises, when they stop fiddling their expenses, when they stop wasting our money on illegal wars and stupid public enquiries only needed because of their ineptitude and that only ever conclude with the phrase 'lessons will be learned', when they stop trying to buy the popular vote with the promise of referendums that will never happen, when they implement ****ing Leveson like they promised... well then I'll get off my backside and vote for one of them! Until then they can go and stick their ballot papers where the sun don't shine and I don't mean Manchester!
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:40 PM
  #56  
ALi-B's Avatar
ALi-B
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Default

Originally Posted by Martin2005
I really don't understand the point of insisting (by law) that people vote.

Much like the current law dictating that you must register to vote....


....Even if you don't want to vote
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:41 PM
  #57  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Martin2005
The right to choose not to vote was equally well earned.

I really don't understand the point of insisting (by law) that people vote.
Let me put this to you: when those who vote have their votes counted, those votes WILL decide directly (or indirectly if a hung parliament, but nowt we can do about that) who next will govern this country. The Government will be a 'box' on that ballot paper. It may be that one finds little to relate to in any of the party manifestos, but they are different and ultimately one manifesto will be less disagreeable than the others. And on that basis, better that one votes for the least bad than nothing at all.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:43 PM
  #58  
c_maguire's Avatar
c_maguire
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
No worries then I'll vote for Miliband

You can treat it with all the contempt you like, but it does not change the fact they are all the same and this has been proved over the last 35 years beyond any reasonable doubt.

Put simply they are lying cheating self serving pigs at the trough who don't deserve my vote or me even stirring to get off the couch and come and spoil my ballot paper.

When they do something for the genuine good of the country rather than the good of themselves, when they stick to major manifesto promises, when they stop fiddling their expenses, when they stop wasting our money on illegal wars and stupid public enquiries only needed because of their ineptitude and that only ever conclude with the phrase 'lessons will be learned', when they stop trying to buy the popular vote with the promise of referendums that will never happen, when they implement ****ing Leveson like they promised... well then I'll get off my backside and vote for one of them! Until then they can go and stick their ballot papers where the sun don't shine and I don't mean Manchester!
Have you told Farage, he's banking on your vote.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:52 PM
  #59  
f1_fan's Avatar
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
From: .
Default

Originally Posted by c_maguire
Have you told Farage, he's banking on your vote.
I presumed you would understand from my prose that I was referring to the main parties of the last 35 years..... clearly I overestimated your intellectual capacity for the bleeding obvious. Sorry about that!
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2015 | 10:57 PM
  #60  
madscoob's Avatar
madscoob
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 2
From: u cant touch this
Default

would be funny as firk if they forced us to vote though.
and NONE OF THE ABOVE GOT ELECTED
Reply



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.