to think that a strike ballot with less than 50% turn out should not be considered valid?

[wannaBe]

so NUT members have voted in favour of strike action

\link{http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13761147\here}

According to that article, 9 out of 10 members voted in favour of strike action, so essentially that would be a figure of 90%, no?

Except that only 40% of those balloted actually voted, which means the "9 out of 10 teachers voted for strike action" figure is actually a lot closer to 3.6 out of 10 (36%).

Hardly an overwhelming support for strike action.

So clearly 60% of NUT members either don't want to strike or don't care enough to vote on it.

Surely a ballot result with such a low turn out should not be considered valid or carry any weight.

And fwiw this is not about teachers - I've had the same opinions about tube drivers/BA staff etc when voting in the past, it's just that this particular one has been so low as to be laughable.

TeaAndToast6 - but do you think that a 20% positive vote is a mandate for war in my example?

in your example, I think 70% of the electorate who can't be bothered to get off their armchairs and go to the polls, is the problem.

It is wrong to say the result should be given to what you think the majority would have asked for if they'd bothered.

You have to respect the will of the electorate who actually use their vote.

So with 20% they would have a mandate for war, as you have to respect the will of the electorate.

I'm not being Jeremy Paxman-esque (promise), I'm genuinely curious because I can see both sides, and interested in how far "majority rules" should go.

What would you think of the option, in the case of a strike specifically, those who didn't bother vote weren't allowed legally to go on strike? (You'd have to offer a "Don't care" option on the ballot I suppose).

I'm a member of ATL and I have no intention of striking. Over my dead body, and all that.

I'm only in a union for the legal cover.

or perhaps "those who didn't bother to vote aren't allowed NOT to strike?

Again, why should you get to choose which side the worthless idlers should be assumed to be on? That's my key problem with assigning a value to the non-voters. Which I believe is what Cameron is after.

Alternatively, if the govt had a vote "let's not go to war" and only 20% voted, should we assume that 80% want it?

War is actually a poor example, as we never do get asked to vote on it, and we're fed a diet of lies to soften us up for whatever the politicians want to do, and they can't afford to be seen as Not Supporting Our Brave Boys.

How about 'those who don't strike to defend pensions don't get their pension if the strike succeeds'. Any takers?

Striking is abnormal; being at work is the norm. So unless 50% of those eligible to vote vote Yes it should be a No.

And strikes about the right of individuals which can be determined through the Tribunal system should be illegal regardless of the vote.

can see what side of the fence you're on Andrew

Obviously you've never had a bad employer nor known anyone who has.

Lucky you.

TeaAndToast68 - Why should users of the Tube be deprived of the services they've paid for over the sacking of an individual who has exercised his right to apply for reinstatement? If the Tribunal finds for him he will get it back, if he does not he will get more compensation, if he loses he gets nothing - just like me. Why should I be affected by his and LU's private disagreement?

equally fewer people voted against it

the way votes have to be cast is an issue - postal votes don't get the same response as work place ballots etc

if people where so anti striking though they would vote no :)

so we have to go on what people wanted, who voted

Not to behave as if the non-voters had voted one way or the other depending on our prejudices.