|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 5, 2024 20:28:45 GMT
I know it's been asked before, but in view of dwindling turnouts should voting now be compulsory?
It seems wrong that a party or candidate with a tiny vote share should win simply because most voters stayed at home.
Take the London mayoral election as an example: Less than one in five of the electorate voted for Khan, the majority didn't vote at all.
And that's no mandate for anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 5, 2024 20:41:39 GMT
The people who vote are the people who care. They are the people who pay attention to the news and have an idea what's going on.
You then have a section of society who have no interest and no idea. Do I want them to be forced to vote? No, I don't, as they don't have enough information to base a decision on. By not voting they are delegating the decision to others, in other words they are agreeing to an outcome.
Interesting that you chose Sadiq Khan as your example, when he won comfortably. Would you be OK for the same principle to apply to the referendum?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 5, 2024 21:20:03 GMT
I'm not automatically saying no but what about those who have nobody on the ballot paper who represents their views?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 5, 2024 21:20:32 GMT
The people who vote are the people who care. They are the people who pay attention to the news and have an idea what's going on. You then have a section of society who have no interest and no idea. Do I want them to be forced to vote? No, I don't, as they don't have enough information to base a decision on. By not voting they are delegating the decision to others, in other words they are agreeing to an outcome. Interesting that you chose Sadiq Khan as your example, when he won comfortably. Would you be OK for the same principle to apply to the referendum? FFS the wanker never had enough voters to support a mandate of any meaning...And why not with a referendum you would still have lost...Its called the silent majority who are sick of all this shit.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 5, 2024 21:21:58 GMT
I'm not automatically saying no but what about those who have nobody on the ballot paper who represents their views? That would be a good case for a box with none of the above... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 5, 2024 21:26:51 GMT
I know it's been asked before, but in view of dwindling turnouts should voting now be compulsory?
It seems wrong that a party or candidate with a tiny vote share should win simply because most voters stayed at home.
Take the London mayoral election as an example: Less than one in five of the electorate voted for Khan, the majority didn't vote at all.
And that's no mandate for anything.
I think that very many of the postal votes are suspect and most people who use them are quite capable to make it to the polling booths. Its a different story if they are disabled or out of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 6, 2024 4:39:21 GMT
The people who vote are the people who care. They are the people who pay attention to the news and have an idea what's going on... Or just brainless tribal voters with no idea what's going on? Interesting that you chose Sadiq Khan as your example, when he won comfortably. Would you be OK for the same principle to apply to the referendum? I was waiting for that one, LOL!  But since you raise it, there's a world of difference between 52% of a 72% turnout and 43% of a 40% turnout. In the former, the majority of the electorate voted and the majority of those voted leave. In the latter, only a minority of the electorate voted and only minority of those voted Khan. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 6, 2024 5:48:40 GMT
The people who vote are the people who care. They are the people who pay attention to the news and have an idea what's going on... Or just brainless tribal voters with no idea what's going on? Interesting that you chose Sadiq Khan as your example, when he won comfortably. Would you be OK for the same principle to apply to the referendum? But since you raise it, there's a world of difference between 52% of a 72% turnout and 43% of a 40% turnout. In the former, the majority of the electorate voted and the majority of those voted leave. In the latter, only a minority of the electorate voted and only minority of those voted Khan. Big difference. Wasn't we all mate.......Funny how the lefty remainers can come up with the excuse that those who voted against them in the referendum didn't know what they were voting for yet they are fucking blind on what's going on in Londonistan, Scotland and Wales etc.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2024 6:20:19 GMT
I'm not automatically saying no but what about those who have nobody on the ballot paper who represents their views? When the establishment don't allow any views other than their own then you run into this problem. The proof is in the pudding. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 6, 2024 6:33:54 GMT
I so knew this was coming, when do we decide who is also allowed to stand so we can only vote correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 6, 2024 10:07:22 GMT
I know it's been asked before, but in view of dwindling turnouts should voting now be compulsory?
It seems wrong that a party or candidate with a tiny vote share should win simply because most voters stayed at home.
Take the London mayoral election as an example: Less than one in five of the electorate voted for Khan, the majority didn't vote at all.
And that's no mandate for anything.
That is the problem with low turn out by voters either for local elections or at a General Election , they don't give a clear picture or what many who fail to vote really think and feel or support |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 6, 2024 10:28:58 GMT
I know it's been asked before, but in view of dwindling turnouts should voting now be compulsory?
It seems wrong that a party or candidate with a tiny vote share should win simply because most voters stayed at home.
Take the London mayoral election as an example: Less than one in five of the electorate voted for Khan, the majority didn't vote at all.
And that's no mandate for anything.
That is the problem with low turn out by voters either for local elections or at a General Election , they don't give a clear picture or what many who fail to vote really think and feel or support Exactly Handy, for the life of me I cannot see why labour supporters are so cock a hoop over their party members who have been elected on the flimsiest of turnouts at the polling station.....It is not reflective of the full electorates wishes......And by elections are mostly used to punish/wakeup those who are in power... |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 6, 2024 10:45:41 GMT
I know it's been asked before, but in view of dwindling turnouts should voting now be compulsory?
It seems wrong that a party or candidate with a tiny vote share should win simply because most voters stayed at home.
Take the London mayoral election as an example: Less than one in five of the electorate voted for Khan, the majority didn't vote at all.
And that's no mandate for anything.
No, fuck em. If they can't put up a candidate we can trust then they don't deserve a vote. If they still get into power, which of course they will because one of the bastards has to win if they are all bastards, then they know they are ruling agaisnt the will of the people and should not expect an easy ride. If the vast majority do not vote then it leaves the door open for someone to come along who appeals to those who don't want an identikit politician. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 6, 2024 10:52:33 GMT
I pretty much agree with both of the above.
I can foresee Labour gaining a landslide on a tiny turnout - a majority government that the vast majority didn't vote for.
And that's not healthy for democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2024 14:39:39 GMT
I pretty much agree with both of the above. I can foresee Labour gaining a landslide on a tiny turnout - a majority government that the vast majority didn't vote for. And that's not healthy for democracy. I agree that democracy is unhealthy when the majority do not vote. I would only be in favour of a compulsory vote if the voter had an empty "abstain" box to vote for. Most would not tick that box, so it would probably be helpful in resulting in a truer representation of the electorate's wishes. This no voting business has become popular because of the antics of our representatives. People are starting to despise politics and politicians, and it shows. |
|
