With the proviso that one of the options is none of the above.

Youth/people spend so much time on Facebook and social media sites doing research about which is the best youtube trend and are more than happy to vote for reality TV programmes why not put some of that time into reading about what parties are doing?

I don't think online voting or via a phone is a good idea, if it is to be made soooo convenient l suspect some will just hit any old button to meet requirements.

It could have a rocky start but over time could introduce a culture of voting with good intentions, ie for who you think is best.

ps could stop pandering to certain sections of society, for example the elderly who have a higher chance of voting over the young. If the young HAVE to vote they'll have to consider their needs more IMO.

 

In principle I'm not averse to the idea provided:

a) 'None of the Above' is an option as you said
b) the voting age stays at 18

and the killer,

c) the constituency boundaries are changed as per the Conservative proposals

Without these compulsory voting is ultimately pro-Labour and the system is skewed their way far too much anyway.

 

How does compulsory voting of any kind fit with a democratic society?

 

If 'None of the Above' is an option and you can vote Online then you're arguing for the sake of it. Hardly a great hardship is it?

 

Not to underestimate our youths, but I'm guessing if they can be bovvered they will "like" whoever their mates "like" without considering what they are actually liking.

 

Hardly arguing for the sake of it. By requesting that someone declares an opinion, even if that opinion is not to vote, you are forcing the issue.
Democracy allows you the grace of witholding your vote.

Surely you want people to vote because they have a preference and opinion.
The very last thing you need is a vote cast because
a) it's compulsory, and
b) because (in brief) the voter doesn't have to put any effort into it.

It's absolutely laughable to think of some pre-occupied phone nerd tapping blindly away on farce tube when a pop up appears asking them to cast a vote.
PING, vote cast, duty fulfilled, job done, now where was I in my important chat about Eastbenders?

 

Precisely

 

That might well be true to start with, but in the longer-term I'm sure at least some of them will come to realize it's in part their own fault if the government of the day does things they're not happy with..

 

But then you have the likes of Russell Brand who with 9 million twitter followers and nearly a million youtube subscribers and over 3 million Facebook likes telling our youths not to vote.

 

Sod compulsory voting. If there is nothing to vote for don't bother! Brand is right frankly!

The FPTP system also needs getting rid of.

Further to that the ballot paper should be amended to include 10 multiple choice questions about the country relevant to the election. Get any of them wrong and your vote is binned!

Oh and any vote for Cameron or Miliband should result in you getting shot as you leave the polling station as you're clearly too stupid to be here!

Only one of the above is a joke, I will leave it to you to decide

 

I trust this isn't the joke clause 'cos I luv it

 

Brand should be arrested for radicalising impressionable minds over the internet with his videos.

 

Yes that's the joke... nah I'm kidding.

I actually think that would be a very sensible addition to the ballot paper. If you have no idea of the issues you are voting about then your vote should not count!

It prevents the stupid from having a vote and that would be a very good thing!

 

(like)


IMO, in time, voting would become more of our culture and in turn be taken more seriously.
Plus, as mentioned in my op for me it would have to be no internet or phone voting, there could obviously be those who when going to vote, instead of having a last think about who to vote for could instead get annoyed and tick any old box but pushing a button on the phone could be worse.


I also think one of the big plus points would be that parties would be forced to make policy for all instead of pandering to the oldies or big business etc.

 

One example of this happening was the Mayor of Cirencester. Got elected initially on a college-backed protest vote and is now Mayor. He's 20.

 

Probably a another example of social media/the net ****ing things up.

 

ive said this for years

but id do it only for those who work,
dont pay dont get a say,
unless retired or ill,
the rest its compulsary, within three months party policies would change to benefit working people.

 

We should have an x-factor style competetion (Politicians Have Talent? ). Get Simon cowell in on it and Dermot to host it.

Then open it as a phone-in vote to judge their popularity.




.....then nullify the right to vote for anyone who does bothers to vote in one of these types of shows. That'll prevent many idiots from voting when the 'real' election comes along

 

Oh well looks like I'm going to be unpopular again...

Conpulsory voting is a daft idea on just about every level.

Once you use the law to make someone vote you are subverting the democratic process.

This is a free country with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, how does compelling people to vote fit with those basic rights?

I also take exception to people musing about which groups of people should and shouldn't be allowed to vote. I pretty sure if you asked members of the general public about Subaru drivers they'd probably be a bit squeamish about them be 'allowed' to cast a vote.

 

[QUOTE=f1_fan;11623811

It prevents the stupid from having a vote and that would be a very good thing![/QUOTE]

 

You're just reinforcing the case for it there!

 

Martin in "sensible point" shocker

Although I take exeption to those entirely reliant on benefits having a say.

And pretty much anyone from Birmingham

 

Oh good, I've joined the 'sensible point' club!!

When do you plan on joining

 

I haven't had a Subaru for 5 years and doubt I will again.

Anyway, I just don't get why you and others feel compulsory voting is so anti-democratic if 'None of the Above' is an option. Is having the right to be bone-idle a pillar of democracy?

 

Absolutely

You are also making a huge assumption - choosing not to vote isn't necessarily a sign of laziness

 

Society gets more like that in the film 'Idiocracy' every year.
Perhaps if we change 'None of the Above' to 'Not Sure' then he'll get elected by default.

 

Sorry but if you have not a clue what you are voting about then your vote should not count

As for the Subaru drivers comment .... good idea

 

The question then would be how many of those who choose not to vote are making a conscious decision on the basis that they find no common ground with any of the voting options available.
The remainder are categorically idiots.

 

Yes, because as you say, it is a right. And exercising your right to withhold your vote doesn't make you lazy necessarily. Any vote, poll or election is likely to have a proportion of abstentions and it's regarded as a part of a democratic procedure.

 

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.