It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: UK Suggests Compulsory Voting!

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Geoff Hoon has announced plans to make voting compulsory in the UK following the 61% turn out at the general election. People could face fines if they do not vote. Mr Hoon said "a move towards compulsory voting is necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy".

 



news.bbc.co.uk
The proposals, which would give voters a "none of the above" choice, follow the 61% general election turnout.

While it is compulsory to be registered as a voter, it is estimated that more than 2.5m people had failed to do so, meaning turnout was even lower, said Mr Hoon.

"Rather like the introduction of seat belt legislation - if it's something that is required of people, actually they adjust to it very quickly".




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I agree that more people need to vote, but to make it compulsory is ridiculous.

I know lots of people that dont have a clue when it comes to politics so how would these people vote?

Ridiculous idea that needs forgotten about quickley!




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Well I am certainly in favour of the "none of the above" box on ballot papers.
What choice do we have? Two main parties who and a bunch of also-rans to give the illusion of choice, but who will never exert any real power.

Voting for the percieved lesser of two evils is not really a choice, IMHO.


JAK

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

BBC.Co.Uk
The proposals, which would give voters a "none of the above" choice...


It would be interesting as to what a 'None of the above' majority vote would result in.

Would it be taken as no party inparticular and the public just offered a hastily conviened coalition or that the general public really do not view those cadidates/parties as electable and so be the starting point for huge changes for the 'the mother of all parliaments'?

Jak



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Lets look past just the voting, what does it take to vote?

Maybe this is a push to "find" everyone.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Voting is compulsory in Australia for anyone over the age of 18, who is an Australian citizen.
And from what i can see, it doesn't work. Sure, you whip down to the polling station and get your name crossed off the list, but when are in the booth you can just put a huge scribble or even nothing at all and then place your "vote" in the ballot box.

Or you can ignore the whole thing, stay home or go out...whatever, and just pay the fine which i think is $50 (Aus).

Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
this is a brilliant idea,

i have been saying for a while now that we should have compulsory voting, it would be much better


It would be nice to see a PR system aswell



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Making voting compulsory increases the amount of uninformed voting. The uninformed are more likely to vote incumbents in if they are content with their life.

Its well known that in a voluntary system, voters only go to the polls when they have something to say to their leaders. This is usually when they have a problem with the incumbent. Therefore the chances of the incumbent being voted out of office (or with a seriously reduced majority i.e. Labour '05) is greater.

The government wants to offset the vocal voter by drowning out their vote with the masses of uneducated and content sheep who outnumber the informed voter many times over.

Get ready for Big Brother politicians, the real PR politics is coming. Popularity contests and the best looking will be voted in, those with a voice will be marginalized even further then they are through prejudice.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Infinate I agree that Proportional Representation is much needed. Until PR is introduced true democracy and a valid representation of what people vote for will not be achieved.

I have mixed feelings on this. The right and freedoms that voting allow are much underrated in most western democracies. People have fought and died to give and keep the right to vote alive for us. I have talked to some people still alive (though few left year on year) who fought in the jungles of Asia and spent time in POW Camps seeing their friends and brothers die for our right to vote. They are soo disilusioned by the way they are treated by society but what angers them most is the lack of interest, and understanding that the generations following them have had towards politics.

I can understand given our priviledges and the debt we all owe these brave men and women, the drive and call for this. However I also doubt if this is being done for the right reasons (though as called for by the opposistion party in the UK with no lilihood of them gaining power in the UK again for some time to come, I am not inclined to see it as something fishy as in control/monitoring of the population (which I would if suggested by the current party in power)) but probably just a headline catcher and vote winner for that party.

If it was made cumpulsory maybe it would raise awareness of political issues and educate the population at the moment who havnt been taught or decide not to know about it.

The only way I would really feel happy about this would be if you could vote anomously, though of course that takes away the whole point.

Yes its a good idea. Yes if legislation is brought in to do this though that could be used for other reasons than its stated objective. Yes of course we should be made to vote its our right, it makes the world we live in today and we owe one hell of a debt to our elders both alive and dead. No you should never allow the state to make an action cumpulsory on a person.

? too undecided to venture a stand but very interesting.

Elf



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Sorry its far from a good idea. the logic behind it is so contradictory its not worth even trying to explain to anymore not smart enough to see how this is not a good idea.

Its a step down the line of forcing people to do what you want, down the slope of you must vote, you must vote for one of the political parties, you must vote for one of the big three parties only, you must vote for my party only.

If people dont want to vote thats up to them, it means they are happy with thier life, or they cant see anyone worth voting for.
Leave them alone.

Too many 'little Hitlers' around in my opinion.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Well actually they dont have to vote for the big 3 if they dont want to. Even if the "none of the above" was not an option on the ballot you could just tick all the boxes and send a null vote. Its the ignorant voter, not the conscientious objector, that this bill seeks to control.

Those halfwits who really dont care about politics but will be forced to vote any way are the prize here. I can see it now, they turn up to the polling booth, given a ballot and only recognize the incumbent party - "Labor" - from telly and then vote for it.

It will also increase your voter return for blitzing the media with political party broadcasts. Those with the higher advertising budget will be voted in. Its really a step backwards.

Why dont they address the causes of voter apathy (lack of interest, public distrust of politicians) to increase voter levels? Rather than forcing those who dont care to vote (hopefully for them).

[edit on 4/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Those with the higher advertising budget will be voted in. Its really a step backwards.


I want to put an emphasis on this.

When you make voting cumpulsary, you force people to put some attention on politics becasue if they figure they have to do it, they're going to want to learn more about it. Or not. And that's where you're going to see the effect. People who try not to pay attention and end up voting for the loudest politician, or the most plastered on the wall.

And that's not an educated voter. Hell, the population as a whole isn't educated near enough where it should be. The only reason you want a non-educated voter to vote is numbers or 'illusion.'

Illusion in this case is making everyone vote so that their role ends and the governing body can make their decisions and do whatever the hell they want with the write off option of, "well you voted, didn't you?" With all the issues on voter fraud in America this past election, I'm convinced the election was rigged merely to give the Administration an implicit answer to those who were pissed about the war and failed intelligence reports.

You want to make your politicians even slimier........give them the option for a smug retort every time you have a problem.......



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Compulsory voting... will that mean politicians will have to campaign to the poor people and other "2nd class citizens"?
It seems to me that many elections are won because people don't vote. Sure there are many individuals who vote but their one vote can't beat an organization's vote (such as a church or corporation heads).

Personally I'm torn on the issue. On one hand compulsory voting will in away force politicians campaign for every person's vote. On the other hand I think in a free country you should have the freedom to vote or not.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
this is a brilliant idea,

i have been saying for a while now that we should have compulsory voting, it would be much better


It would be nice to see a PR system aswell


Are you kidding? Isn't the phrase alone 'Compulsory voting' a contradiction in terms?
I'm not registered to vote (mainly due to not wanting people to be able to find me or get my information as easily as I frequently do for others using services like 192.com) and I don't wish too, as I think there is little point voting in our 'democracy', where every choice is onto a loser.
They can fine me if they want, how they'll find me to do so is a different matter.

'Compulsory voting', don't make me laugh............




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I myself like this idea.

If we make people have to vote, through fines, we might just see the possibility that more local and independents get into power. One of the main reasons people do not vote is due to the fact they feel as though the Governments won't do anything for them.

If they don't now, those people can and will vote someone who will do something for them. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction - one which will move us away from Party Politics which are so un-democratic I myself hate to see it..



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
In the 9 years I have been eligible to vote I have voted a grand total of Zero times! Why? Because I dont want to. People bang on about this "right to vote" What about the right not to vote? Why should i compromise and be forced to vote for the lesser of two(or three) evils? Blow me is my answer to this.
Maybey if we could vote interactivly on the TV like what was sugested a bit back my lazy ass might be a bit more inclined to just press a button on the tv remote after doing eeny, meeny myny, mo. Or maybey if the monster raving loony party was still on the go I might vote for them.
British politicians are bigger crooks than you will find in the slums of our city's in the UK, there if forever a scandal about MP so and so caught with a rent boy, or MP swindler embezles cash or PM teflons wife caught doing something shady, the scandal never ends. Who in their right mind wants people like this to help run our country??? My vote will not even have the slightest impact in helping to get these lot out so I reserve the right not to vote.
On a brighter note I dont stay in the UK at the moment and dont have to pay tax to keep these scumbags in flashy cars and expensive second homes.

Thats just my little blurb on this subject, but remember people the right to vote is yours to do with as you wish!



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
People need to see a good reason to vote, which a lot don't, hence the problem.

The solution isn't to force people into voting, that isn't a democracy. The solution is to make people want to vote through their own free will without fear of persecution or prosection.


Persecution

1. Act of causing others to suffer, especially those who differ in background or lifestyle or hold different political or religious beliefs.



Prosecution

1. the institution and conduct of legal proceedings against a defendant for criminal behavior


How can you pretend to have a democratic society when you have a law which states one has to vote?

Fine, force my hand and I'll vote BNP.. Still interested?

I'd just like to remind anyone that wants to say anything against this that:


Persecution

1. Act of causing others to suffer, especially those who differ in background or lifestyle or hold different political or religious beliefs.


Of course I wouldn't, though saying that if anyone forces me to vote when I don't wish to, I will vote for someone like that out of protest, or else spoil my ballot paper. I'll vote when I see a decent alternative.

Even if I just want to be an ignorant pig and not bother with my glorious right for which I should be grateful, then that's my choice - after all, this is a great democracy.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
If people do not see a decent alternative why not do something about it? Why not go find a party who you think are decent or attempt to stadn yourself?

You're either a part of the problem or the solution. Sitting back and allowing the problem to happen makes you as bad as the people who control the "problem".



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
If people do not see a decent alternative why not do something about it? Why not go find a party who you think are decent or attempt to stadn yourself?

You're either a part of the problem or the solution. Sitting back and allowing the problem to happen makes you as bad as the people who control the "problem".


I don't disagree, however you can't say that prosecuting people is a solution, that is ridiculous. If you stand for what you believe in (and that's a democracy) then prosectuting people for not voting is a complete contradiction of what the whole thing is about. Can only I see that? maybe I should just slink off somewhere and everyone is lost becasue it's as simple as 2+2 = 4 to me.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
But when you have a higher turnout you tend to get more independent candidates. In the short-run it might seem that you are taking away their liberty not to vote, but they still have the option of "none" if they dislike any of them.

I see this as one step towards moving away from Party Politics and hopefully to a form of true democracy, either one without Party Politics or Direct Democracy. The only two real ways people can ever have their say in such issues.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
You're either a part of the problem or the solution. Sitting back and allowing the problem to happen makes you as bad as the people who control the "problem".


I guarentee that there are millions of people who are employed, are satisfied with the social outlets that are in place, have faith in every established authority because they have never known otherwise, who all don't see a problem.

Until that vast majority gets equalized with those disgruntled, then the 'problem' ain't going anywhere, regardless of mandatory anything........and judging by the technology currently available and the difference in educational level between those who spend all their time working to pay the bills and those who have their bills payed for them, the current system is going to be in place a long time...........

And that's the problem I see....everyday we as the subjected constantly get re-distracted by the story of the day. As long as our perception is being led, we're going to always be a step behind.

btw, AgentSmith........2+2=4

[edit on 4-7-2005 by MemoryShock]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join