Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that voting should be compulsory, with a £1000 fine for failing to cast your vote.

153 replies

HecatesTwopenceworth · 22/05/2009 08:49

Bloody voter apathy drives me crazy! If you don't vote you have no right to moan about the state of things. 17.5% turnout in Salford.

17.5%

Outrageous.

I think that voting should be compulsory, but there should be an additional box on the form to allow you to abstain, if you do not wish to give any of the candidates your vote, and that you have longer to vote - so there are sessions over several days, to allow people time to vote around their commitments.

But not voting should not be an option imo, even if your vote is I Wish To Not Vote (cos you're all bastards)

Go on. Hit me...

OP posts:
InternationalFlight · 22/05/2009 10:11

And this is from someone who would LOVE to vote but still doesn't understand how to choose whom to vote for.

LittleMissNorty · 22/05/2009 10:15

The number of spoilt papers is announced along with the result. A high number would indicate people were pissed off.

Isn't not being on the electoral register against the law?

KingRolo · 22/05/2009 10:17

It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone had to vote though wouldn't it?

The results would be very different. I'd expect to see fewer votes for the three main parties and more for local community pressure groups.

The main three parties would be forced to respond by rethinking the way they have traditionally represented their constituents.

KingRolo · 22/05/2009 10:21

We could have a MN party!

FAQinglovely · 22/05/2009 10:21

well I have a 25 minute walk (there) and another back to my local polling station. I'm sure that's the same for everyone else in this area too. Not a problem for me my DS's can cope (just about) with a 2.4 mile trip - but many others won't be able to. Ridiculous distance that they're expecting people to travel to cast their vote! And that 25 minutes is a pretty quick walking speed too.

OrangeFish · 22/05/2009 10:25

You also can vote by post, as long as you ring them and request the service. All the info on how to request this, is in the paper about voting that comes through your letterbox (the one that lists your names)

Jux · 22/05/2009 10:26

I see the point of not voting being a democratic right.

IMO it doesn't matter what you write on the paper to spoil it not that only a local volunteer will see what you've written. Spoilt papers are counted nevertheless and the number announced. I think that sends a very strong message: this many people bothered to turn up and didn't vote for any of you.

Voter apathy is an excuse that allows the gov to think that no one cares. Spoilt papers demonstrate that people do care.

Ivykaty44 · 22/05/2009 10:26

There are two lists for the ER, this is due to a court case back in 2002 where a man took it to court becasue it was illegal not to be on the ER but - they then sold the lsit to private companies.

Now you get a box to tick to show that you do not want your name on the list that is sild to private companies and thus if you want to track someone down using the ER then you need to actually go to each district council office and search through all the address in the area - as the list are address based not alphabetical.

There are far more district councils than county councils so it could mane a very very long search.

I always tick the box as it reduces the junk mailing stuff and keeps me private to some degree.

InternationalFlight · 22/05/2009 10:33

Ivykaty, thanks, it's interesting to know how the law was changed.

But I actually found my first child's father's address through the electoral roll, myself - I knew roughly where he was, so had a look at the council offices. It took me about 10 minutes.

muffle · 22/05/2009 10:33

Oh but imagine the mess they would make of trying to enforce it and the cost of pursuing people for fine payment - many people who are too apathetic to vote might well not be able to afford £1000 and then what would happen? Ultimately, harmless people, including mothers etc., would end up in prison for non-payment of fines and that is NOT what we need.

Why the hell should people have to vote if they don't care? If they allow whoever is voted in to govern them, it's nobody's problem really is it..?

InternationalFlight · 22/05/2009 10:36

One might argue that women died for our right to CHOOSE not to vote...although I wouldn't personally, as I think that kind of diminishes the whole seriousness of the cause.

I suppose my point is that it's bloody difficult to understand what sveral mildly disingenuous politicians are trying to get across...who to believe, who to trust...

I find it hair raising.

CatchaStar · 22/05/2009 10:58

No I don't think people should be forced to vote.

Sometimes circumstances don't allow you too. What if there's an emergency that holds you up for the day, and you can't get to the place you need to to vote? What if it's a mother who's child had become very ill? Are you going to have them fined because their child's wellbeing was more important to them? Would you have them buried in paperwork for a few months whilst they argue agianst the fine they've been given?

It's not as simple as 'just fine them if they don't vote.' Also, some people just aren't intersted, I know plenty of them. There are also people like me who fail to understand who to vote for when most of the parties are just plain awful. This is just my opinion of course. For a few poeple I know, they don't vote on principal because they feel they shouldn't have to choose and vote for which party is the less terrible one.

I will be voting, but I hate that I feel as though I'm just picking the lesser of two evils, if that makes sense?

fourkids · 22/05/2009 11:03

there is no point in people voting if they don't feel strongly about a particular candidate/party. The random votes would skew the results. Also, with this in mind, I am not sure of the exact detail, but I think that statistically the position of the candidates on the paper determines to some extent the number of ticks they get, for example the one at the top (might not be...might be second or third or something) tends to get more. This swould be exacerbated if more people who didn't care had to put a tick in a box.

The opposite end of that argument would be that you should have to give a reason (yeah, yeah, i know that's unworkable in real live ) to demonstrate that you actually understand who you're voting for and why! Rather than that you are voting for a particular party because seven generations of your family have done so, but you have no idea what they actually intend to do!

mayorquimby · 22/05/2009 11:07

yabu, i vote but inherent in the right to vote is the right to not vote.
if you go along the lines of people lived and died for our freedom to vote, then they also died for our freedom to choose to not vote.
also i can imagine why the british system of first past the post might put a lot of british people off voting, i mean lets say you are going to vote for an independent, unless in exceptional circumstances you are pretty much wasting your vote.this leads to tactical voting and then people just decide whats the point if i have to vote tactically rather than for who i actually support.

in fact i hate this attitude of everyone has to vote/anyone who doesn't vote doesn't have the right to complain. it's that kind of facist attitude that the electoral system is there to prevent.
what about people who vote for the party who wins?are they allowed to complain?i mean they are the ones who put them in power, surely they have less right to complain than a person who didn't vote so therefore took no positive steps to put these people in power.

mayorquimby · 22/05/2009 11:12

also what would be the point of forcing people to vote? do you think it would really spur apathetic people into liveing,breathing and educating themselves on policies,the parties and politicians? or do you think it would just bring politics down to the lowest common denominator, as politicians would know there'll be a large number of people who are only voting because they are forced to so they will all be vying for the most appealling headline.

NotPlayingAnyMore · 22/05/2009 11:22

I have voted at every opportunity but if someone isn't interested in voting, chances are they aren't interested in politics at all and so I'd rather that - instead of making an uninformed choice - they didn't vote at all either.

smugaboo · 22/05/2009 11:45

Oh that old chestnut - "inherent in the right to vote is the right not to vote" - or inherent to democracy is the right to choose to vote.

What is this pick and choose democracy? We allow our civil rights to be eroded, daily, on so many levels. We accept regulation of our private lives. Yet holding up this right to choose to vote as some kind of linchpin of democracy in which to measure our freedom against seems somewhat artificial.

That argument has always struck me as being more symbolic than indicative of us exercising true democratic freedoms.

mayorquimby · 22/05/2009 11:58

it's an old chestnut because it's true.
forced democracy is not true democracy. it's like a forced apology, it's not genuine and it means nothing.

dizietsma · 22/05/2009 12:08

Agreed, OP. The two main parties would never implement it though, they not it's not in their interests. So long as you can vote for "none of the above". Or spoil your ballot.

It's like proportional representation, it would improve our democracy to the point where those with a vested interest would have their power base threatened. So it will never happen.

If we'd had even one sucessful revolution we wouldn't have this archaic, anti-democractic system with an utterly corrupt entrenched political elite. Well, ok, maybe we would a bit (thinks of America), but a slightly more accountable corrupt political elite.

smugaboo · 22/05/2009 12:14

Why isn't forced democracy true democracy? I had no choice being born/living in a democratic nation. Did you?

Just because democracy is imposed does not detract from its essential values. Do not think that just because we live in a democratic nation we choose the way we want to be governed. We do not.

onagar · 22/05/2009 12:19
KayHarkerDoesNotSimper · 22/05/2009 12:21

I agree with compulsory voting, but yes, only if there is an option for 'none of the above'.

I value my voting privileges, but I do despair at the thought of putting my x against many of the parties that stand round here.

onagar · 22/05/2009 12:23

I want to vote for MPs being picked like Juries are now. From people who don't really want the job. It's not as though any of are trained to do what they do, but they all want to RULE so badly they will do anything to get there.

smugaboo · 22/05/2009 12:29

Onager, so true. They always say that that the people who should be politicians are the ones who don't want the job.

mayorquimby · 22/05/2009 12:34

diziestman, i wouldn't wish prstv on a country if i was you. it has lead to us having weak political leaders who wish to blur party lines and not address any controversial issues for fear of not getting a the second or third preference votes from other party supporters. it has also lead to independents wielding a disproportionate amount of power in the dail and holding the government to ransom essentially.
i do like frances two-round system however.

and i didn't mean the imposition of the system itself meant it was not true democracy, i meant that forcing individuals to partake in the voting system by cumpolsory voting would mean it was no longer a true democracy as it would no longer be a right to vote it would be essentially a summons.