Best was to increase voter turnout?

[KenDodd]

I think give everyone £10 cash for showing up and putting their ballot papers in the box. It might encourage poorer people to vote who are usually the most overlooked.
Yabu - terrible idea
Yanbu - great idea.

[KenDodd]

My biggest worry would be that it might attract armed robbery.

[PrettyShiningPeople]

YABU. It would create entirely the wrong motivation for voting.
There is also the small matter of it costing about half a billion pounds.

[onalongsabbatical]

YABU. Some things should NOT be motivated by money. We need to find ways to encourage people to care about politics, not vote because someone's going to sling them a tenner. People will vote just for the tenner and we'll find a few Monster Raving Loonies getting in! No no no.

[MustardScreams]

Just make it compulsory, you shouldn’t have to be paid to vote!

[Likethebattle]

Stop have ejections and referendums so often. I’m bloody sick of them!

[slipperywhensparticus]

Compulsory with a none of the above box

[onalongsabbatical]

@MustardScreams Yes, I'd like to see it made compulsory. It's not a popular view though...

[fedup21]

Which other countries impose penalties if people don’t vote?

[CherryCheezcake]

I think having candidates that voters can believe in, and relate to, might go some way to increasing turnout

[KenDodd]

Some things should NOT be motivated by money.
Completely agree. But this ignores the fact that money DOES motivate. Loads of research out there that cash even increases things like breastfeeding rates, weight loss, exam results. Lots of things that also shouldn't be motivated by cash.

[KenDodd]

Which other countries impose penalties if people don’t vote?
I think Australia does.

[KenDodd]

we'll find a few Monster Raving Loonies getting in!

I think that horse has bolted already.

[daisychain01]

It might encourage poorer people to vote who are usually the most overlooked.

Cringe.

Those weird and pesky poor people

[KenDodd]

People who are against it can I ask why? Is it just the moral and cost implications of it?

If so, I do agree with you. I also think cash would work to increase turnout quickest and most dramatically. It's a pragmatic decision. I don't suppose people would aren't politically engaged will suddenly become politically engaged though, even if they do put a cross in a box. I think that's most of us anyway though, the population as a whole generally aren't politically engaged and vote tribally.

[KenDodd]

daisychain01
Renters are much less likely to vote than homeowners. Politicians have even been known to argue that they have less stake in society.

[Shelvesoutofbooks]

Anonymous voting register for everyone. Lots of people I know don't register to vote because they don't want their names easily googled and like details private

[Ringdonna]

If someone doesn't vote then their vote should automatically go to the candidate representibg the government of the day.

[StCharlotte]

Make it compulsory - you can always spoil but you should bloody turn up. Massive fine if you don't.

[PrettyShiningPeople]

Loads of research out there that cash even increases things like breastfeeding rates, weight loss, exam results. Lots of things that also shouldn't be motivated by cash.

Ok, take breastfeeding as a comparison. Assuming the mother is healthy, you can’t really argue that there are any negatives to a baby from breastfeeding, but you can’t say the same about the outcome of being paid to vote.

There is no benefit to society in paying people to vote.
You know it’s a terrible idea!!

[KenDodd]

PrettyShiningPeople
Do you think it would increase turnout?
If so
Do you think more people voting is better?

[KenDodd]

I know it's not something that would ever happen. My point is that it would work though.

[DefConOne]

Bacon sandwiches would do it. It’s how they bribe us to get the flu job at the hospital I work at.

[Redshoeblueshoe]

My problem is people think everyone should vote.
I take it that includes everyone with dementia, do you not see a problem with this ?

[user1497207191]

Better quality candidates who have real plans particular to their location.

We've had a succession of London Elite parachuted in from central office who havn't a clue about the local people, local area, local problems, etc. They hand out leaflets all about national politics that contain zilch about local issues. It's a real turn off. About time that candidates should only be eligible if they have genuine links with the constituency, i.e. live or work in the area for the past 3 years or so. I've often voted for independents because they actually stand for something relevant to the locals - despite being fundamentally a tory, I've also voted Labour when a particularly excellent local Labour councillor stood for election - trouble was that once elected she buggered off to London and we barely saw her again, so she got booted out the time after!

[EnthusiasmIsDisturbed]

Yabu

We have be choice to vote or and it should stay that way

If people choose not to that is their choice if they are too lazy to bother again then that is their choice

Would it change British politics if people had to vote (with a choice of non of the above) I doubt it