To not understand why people won't go and vote?

[MilkNoSugarPlease]

Sure this has been done to death but after a conversation with a friend I was curious

If you won't vote, WHY?

I dont understand the logic of "one vote wont make a difference" of course it will! if everyone had that mentality then noone would vote!

So I'm asking, if you won't vote, why not?

Just not voting is lazy and a cop out. It makes you invisible as a citizen and means you have no right to comment on what happens subsequently.

gaelicsheep I'm confused.

If someone genuinely thinks "they're all the same", then what is the rationale for them voting? If they don't believe anything will change, then it is completely sensible not to vote.

Apathy is mostly the fault of the politicians for being too afraid to offer more of a choice.

It is because they all largely occupy the same political ground, and many see their visions of the future as pretty bland as a result.

I certainly don't think it is the fault of the uninspired voter.

If the two main parties were UKIP and the Greens instead of Tories and Labour, then I bet turnout would be astronomical.

Personally, as a centrist voter (though definitely centre-right leaning), I am quite glad that politics is mainly fought on the centre ground. However, I grudgingly accept that apathy and low turnout will result.

If you genuinely don't know who to vote for, then make the effort, go to the polling station, get your ballot paper and say so!

gaelicsheep

Do you really think anyone cares about the number of spoilt ballot papers?

Personally, I would rather make it clear that I hold a view and am not just being too lazy to be bothered. Voting - or at least bothering to turn up at the polling station - is a civic duty.

Oh, I agree - the thought of not voting myself fills me with dread.

However, I won't rush to judge or condemn people who don't vote. It's their choice, I respect it and even understand it.

I don't condemn them, I just think they're daft to not express their view.

You see, I disagree.

Not voting is a democratic view. It says "I don't care".

If you genuinely don't care, then not voting is the right choice to make.

If you do care but are exasperated and hate all the choices, then spoiling your ballot paper might be more appropriate (though pretty meaningless).

But not voting as a democratic view lumps you in with all the "can't be bovvered" types out there, of which there are many.

gaelicsheep, not voting is a political statement, it is "a plague on all your houses". Peter Hain wants to introduce compulsory voting. The reason is that they are very embarrassed about low turnout. Low turnout means that they are not appealing to the interests of the public, they are not meeting the public's concerns. They want to hide this fact by making voting compulsory. A low turnout means that the winning party cannot claim legitimacy, because the majority of the country did not back them. Low enough turnout would force them to bring in proportional representation where every vote counts. Safe seats would be out of the window and turnout would soar. They don't want proportional representation because it would upset their cosy system and allow new parties to challenge them. Not voting makes a bigger statement than spoiling your vote, because on results day the turnout is a major factor in the news, together with the percentages that the parties achieved. Spoilt votes are given hardly any attention, and in fact they help the parties because they are turnout and do not count as low turnout.

gaelicsheep, I don't think we're going to agree on this

I do agree with all the people who said that the solution isn't to make voting "easier" by allowing internet/text voting, or lowering the voting age - though I wouldn't mind changing polling day to a weekend. The solution to low turnout is to make the consequences of voting more appealing.

To be honest, if going to a polling station once every five years (or voting by post if that is not possible) is too difficult, then you have much bigger problems than who to vote for.

claig

I agree that not voting is a form of political statement, but it definitely isn't an argument for proportional representation!

Just compare turnout in countries with proportional voting systems to ours. It is lower in so many cases.

In any case, if you want to change the voting system, why not vote for a party which agrees? Pretty much any party other than the Tories (and large numbers of individual Labour MPs) will do.

yes but these parties never get in

Any of the parties supporting out and out proportional representation (Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, BNP, SNP, Plaid Cymru) could very conceivably hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament.

And you still haven't addressed my fundamental point: there is no correlation between turnout and the voting system - as demonstrated in countless other countries.

cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/4/527

study stating higher turnout under proportional system.

I don't hold my breath for the big boys allowing the minnows to bring in proportional voting

Hmmm, interesting.

Thanks for the link, seems I might be completely wrong on that.

A lot of people who don't vote have given up, they don't think their vote will count, they would vote for smaller parties but there's no point because in their constituencies only the major parties can get in. These voters have been disenfranchised by the system, and the main parties, who pretend that they love democracy, don't give a damn about these disenfranchised voters. They are not interested in bringing in real democracy, because they would be the losers. If they can quote high turnout figures, they can con everyone that the current system is great. That's why the hate low turnout, because it exposes the sham.

Message withdrawn

hear hear longfingernails

Just not turning up is not making a stand or proving a point, the spoiled ballot papers get counted and they do know how many people made the effort to turn up,
Taking the time to turn up then queuing up, just to spoil a paper, makes a bigger stand then not bothering in the first place!

I could be wrong here claig, but I think it would be a pretty massive bit of news if there was a high turnout, but the elected party still only had a tiny fraction of the public vote.

For example, just some rough figures here (apologies, but i'm not a statistician) turnout was approximately 60% (thereabouts) at the last two elections. Labour won the last election with around 34% of the vote. So around a third.

If everyone who didn't vote had turned up and spoiled ballots instead, that election figure would have looked closer to 20%, or a fifth of the population. That really isn't a majority at all, and that sort of headline could prompt some serious campigning which no one could ignore.

TottWriter, but isn't it the same thing? They have only been elected on 20%, which is no majority. I have seen them on TV being questioned about their legitimacy to impose sweeping changes on society on such a low mandate. I remember articles by some of them saying that they are embarrassed to go around the world preaching the virtues of democracy to dictators, only for the dictators to point out "if it is so great, why do so many people not take part?". If you watch Dimbleby on election night, he always mentions what the turnout is, he doesn't mention spoiled votes, they don't appear on the radar. They want the fig leaf of high turnout, to justify a system that suits them. I hope that one day we will get serious campaigning that will really enfranchise the people, make sure that every vote does counts, and lead to a healthy democratic system where everybody's opinion is heard.

High turnout with a high proportion of spoiled papers sends the biggest message of all IMO. It says we are blardy unhappy with what's on offer here and we have made the effort to say so! Low turnout is an implicit acceptance of the status quo (which I think is generally the case tbh).

I think it's similar to unions calling a strike. If only two people turned up to vote for the strike, then the union would not be able to call a strike. The government would not accept the legitimacy of the ballot.

When millions turn out to vote for a government, and millions of votes are spoiled, the winning party just laughs it off and says that the voters were confused about which box to tick correctly.

There'd be no doubt on my paper, believe me!