Ethics of not voting

[Gnomegarden32]

I live in a very safe Labour seat in a city well known for hating the Tories, ie there is no chance in hell of my constituency turning Tory, especially not this time. If there was I would go and vote Labour.

I am considering not voting as I am just so ANGRY with Starmer and the Labour party - the total contempt for women, the way Rosie Duffield has been treated, the refusal to lift the 2 child benefit cap etc etc. However, it feels very very wrong not to vote, even though it won't make any difference where I live. Just wondered if anyone has any thoughts on this?

There are no other good options to vote for in my area, I've checked...

Hence why I'm a vocal campaigner for PR!!!

^https://www.change.org/MakeVotingMeaningful^

As my lovely 78 year old dad said to me back when I was 21 and flippantly declared that I couldn’t be bothered to vote…

”women died fighting for your right to vote. You don’t have to pick a side but you can spoil your vote and still be heard.”

Definitely go ahead and spoil if you’ve no confidence in any of them, that’s what I did back then and that’s what I’d do know if I lived in Uk!

A spoilt ballot paper is just a waste of time all round. Votes are what count.

People fought for the vote so that it could be used to make a difference to the lives of the newly enfranchised. Don’t imagine you honour them by taking the piss out of the whole system.

I have no problem with people who don't vote because they are lazy. They can pay the taxes for my benefits and be glad about it.

I have a lot of problems with people who don't vote because of their own stupidity. Because whilst they too can pay for my benefits with their taxes (the ones that pay tax, that is) they don't half whine on about it. To the extent it can be hard to hear the grown ups.

A waste of time to whom? Surely if you want to express your dissatisfaction with all parties, this is the way to do so? Perhaps that’s changed in the 20 years since I’ve been gone then, that’s what we were encouraged to do.

It’s a waste of time for everyone from the tellers to the presiding officer and absolutely everyone waiting for the result. There are all sorts of forums for expressing yourself. Voting is for making a choice. I don’t want people to delude themselves that a spoilt ballot is a good way of making a point.

I am not sure I agree with this. I have been a teller, a presiding officer, and participated in the count. I don't consider it to be a waste of time that someone chooses to spoil their paper.

Spoilt papers are counted, and are the only method the electorate have to vote for 'none of the above'. It shows they took the time to go to the polling station and consciously do this as opposed to just not bothering to vote.

I do agree that it is largely a wasted vote though, as it doesn't actually prevent anyone from being elected. But they are counted.

I’ve spoilt my ballot in the past. I wrote ‘None of the above’ on it!

I’m passionate about the right to vote and couldn’t bring myself not to do it but after lots of soul searching couldn’t in all good conscience vote for any of them.

As PP has said, at least spoilt ballots are counted and there’s some sort of record that a number of people showed up even though they couldn’t stand any of them!!

I think it's fine to spoil your ballot if you don't want to vote for any of the alternatives. The candidates or their agents do look briefly at each of the spoilt ballots, but only to see if any of them could be counted as a vote in their favour.

If we wanted one single quick change that could improve democratic engagement, it would be a two pronged move.

1. Add a "None of the above" option to the ballot slip.

To win a candidate must secure a majority of the electorate - not just votes cast.

Personally I would be quite happy to leave any position that could not be filled by the above process empty. If people were really bothered they would eventually have to work out someone to represent them.

(I would also have an an elected second chamber taken from the run-offs of the main election. So one election - two representatives.)

I like the idea of the whole electorate counting in the standings, and I have previously wondered about the benefits of the popular vote.

Currently, I want to retain the existing system though, as the chances of Reform gaining 321 MPs in the next election is extremely low.

I don't want any electoral system skewed to suit the mores of the day.

I do want an electoral system - with a constitution - that delivers power in relation to the electorates wishes. Because right now, as we know, it's possible to have 100% power with much less than 50% of the voters behind you.

Politics should really be a league not a knockout.

That's what I used to think, but I am prepared to compromise my principles if it means it keeps Reform out.

That said, there is a part of me that thinks "let them in, it would show the electorate what a that Farage is, and how playing stupid games wins stupid prizes. Like Brexshit did".

But then, I come to my senses and fear for the generations who are younger.

Are you sure!!!?

As of early January 2026, Reform UK are polling at or near the top nationally in most major UK opinion polls.
National polling snapshot

• Reform UK: typically 24–28%
• Labour: around 18–22%
• Conservatives: around 17–21%
• Liberal Democrats: roughly 10–13%

^In several recent polls, Reform are 1st or joint 1st, often with a clear lead over both Labour and the Conservatives. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53692-voting-intention-ref-27-lab-19-con-18-7-8-dec-2025^

Labour won the 2024 GE with just 33.6% of the vote.
Reform UK are not to be dismissed as a real contender.
Do so and risk them winning!!!!!

Yeah, as you say, nice try.

This is how James Cleverly got knocked out of the Tory leadership race – his supporters tried to be smart-arses but really they were being played by Jenrick's team.

Jenrick's team put a lot of work into persuading Cleverly-supporters that he was bound to win the round so they should vote tactically for Jenrick to knock Badenoch out. We know how well that worked... <facepalm>

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-leadership-contest-jenrick-badenoch-cleverly-b2627773.html

Voting is perhaps the most pointless thing we do, most actions we take from scrstching an itch, to having a glass of wine at the end of the day are to enhance our lives in some shape or form.If you trot off to the polling booth or stay at home will make no difference whatsoever to the country its politics or anything. I dont need to read the thread to know though that on an individual level people think its really important to them because they use it to reinforce their own self image.
Loads of people for instance will vote for the most likely candidate to defeat Reform.,not be cause they especially espouse the LD or Green candidate , but if Reform win they can say to themselves,well I did my bit to keep them out and whatever they do its nothing to do with me.
Vote or dont vote, it will make no difference.

Your individual vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference in a General Election.

However, I've counted votes in council elections. In a small number of rural wards, fewer than 20 ballots were cast per ward. So it's easy to see how single vote there could make all the difference.

Occasionally, a Council seat is decided by a coin toss:

Monmouthshire council election decided by toss of coin | South Wales Argus

Reform UK candidate in court battle after losing election in bizarre ‘name out of the hat’ draw | The Independent

I disagree that spoiling your ballot is a waste. Yes, it probably won't achieve much if a minority do it; but if enough people did it, it certainly would - especially if people make it clear that they're deliberately spoiling it because they don't believe any candidate/party worthy of their vote, rather than just drawing a rude picture on the ballot or making it arguable that you didn't understand how to cast your vote.

I know it's highly unlikely to happen; but do people really think that, if, say, 20% of all ballots were spoiled, it wouldn't seriously put the frighteners on the main parties?

I completely get why people choose to very reluctantly vote for the candidate/party whom they consider 'least bad', but there is no way whatsoever to make this clear that it's anything other than a 100% enthusiastic 5-star endorsement of that candidate and all of their party's policies. It's also a complete betrayal of the basic principles of democracy imho.

If somebody invited you around for a meal and offered you the menu choice of either dog poo or vomit, would you genuinely think over which you might detest less and say "Ooh, I'd love the poo/vomit, please!", rather than swiftly making your excuses to leave and stopping off at the chip shop on the way home? Because that's how the parties consider all of the votes that they receive.

Yes, I am sure. It is statistically a really low chance that Reform would be able to field candidates in every constituency and win 321 new candidates in addition to the current five.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is massively unlikely. I'm pinning all my hopes on it continuing to be unlikely as the electorate have already proved themselves to be unwise in their choices. Just look at the Brexshit result and the fact that Reform are doing so well in the polls. Then again, Margaret Thatcher also didn't do so well at this stage of her first government and then went on to win the next election.

The labour party are at least making in roads into theory manifesto promises, I just wish they'd stop managing by committee (with us being the committee).

👆 'their manifesto promises' - bloody speel chuck

Your individual vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference in a General Election.

If you are prevented from voting by official incompetence, there is no redress. Because a vote is worthless.

Something to bear in mind if you are trying to encourage more people to vote.

Turnout is measured so in that way abstention is measured. Turnout goes down when people don’t perceive much difference between the parties eg under Tony Blair. Politicians remain indifferent as long as they get in. Occasionally, someone targets the disengaged and turnout goes up.
There are many things that have no impact if one person does them but, for good or ill, an impact if lots of people do them: vaccination, fare dodging, queuing.
Not voting, including spoiling your ballot paper, only makes sense if you’re happy for any of the candidates to get in.
If you really feel you have a choice between a modern-day Hitler, Stalin and Idi Amin then maybe it’s time to stand yourself.
I come from the more pragmatic ‘let’s get these bastards out’ tradition. I have always felt the need to try to prevent someone getting in. I’ve never regarded voting as some sort of holy duty in itself.

Your individual vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference in a General Election.

It will if you live in a marginal constituency. The smallest majority in the last GE was 15, where eight people voting differently would have changed the result. Where I live it’s Tory central and my vote is worthless, despite that I continue to trudge down to the polling station. I spoiled my paper when I got there in 2019.

There was one infamous election in the USA (I think it was a state thing or local mayoral race, rather than electing the president!) Where it was neck and neck between two candidates.

One candidate thought it would be a courteous little gesture to cast his own vote for his opponent. His opponent didn't reciprocate the gesture, voted for himself, and he won by one vote!

Seems a good advertisement for secret ballots then.