Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For their own good, it can be argued, young people should b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For their own good, it can be argued, young people should be compelled to vote
Eddie Izzard writes his own jokes. He made that very clear when I offered him what I thought was a good line he could use in pressing young people to get out and vote. “Vote and you get stuff, don’t vote and you get stuffed.”
I was touring North London marginals with the Labour-supporting comedian and Eddie was a bit sniffy about my offering.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Perhaps the Australian system of compulsory voting could be adopted, but it only makes sense if the fines are enforced.
Just need Galloway for the fool house.
You might be able to get an offer in principle in a day.
See Australia.
This would probably be a classic example of Labour taking heavy-calibre weaponry to its own feet. Their problem is there just aren't enough voters convinced by their (non)policies, however you march them to the ballot box.
Rather than finding new non-voters, Labour needs to find a new Tony Blair for those who already vote....
While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?
The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
Indeed.
If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you.
http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm
Nah. People have a right to not be arsed. Those that do also have a right for politicians to consider their needs accordingly.
A better question to ask would be why young people aren't bothering. Perhaps they just don't care?
On the one hand there were tax credits and the EMA. On the other, the introduction of tuition fees a high level of NEETs and creeping authoritarianism.
If the latter got a certain percentage (15%? 20%), there might be a referendum on the voting system.
If people do no vote, you might have a system where they pay a stiff fine which will go to a charity of their choice (from a shortlist)
http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm
Oops. Already posted.
I can see why some Conservatives are reticent at the prospect of change as the current system works for them so well and indeed in the past changes to the electorate have worked in their favour - Jenkins cited the reduction in the voting age from 21 to 18 as a reason for Labour's defeat in 1970 as newly-enfranchised young women broke disproportionately for the Conservatives.
As with others, I'm torn between a rejection of compulsion and the desire to have as many vote as possible and not to create a gerontocracy (nice word, very grown up). The idea of creating incentives to vote isn't one with which I'm wholly comfortable but perhaps for first-time voters it might help.
I'm not a huge fan of voter registration - the smokescreen of preventing corruption (which in truth makes very little difference to the overall result) isn't a justification for disenfranchising anyone - and if people genuinely don't want to vote that's their prerogative and if they want to sell their vote to a third party or swap it that's presumably their right as well not that I'm comfortable with those practices either but we know they happen.
The Right to Vote is, however, a fundamental and too many people have fought and died in too many countries for that simple right for us to be blase about it. Anything which increases turnout (weekend elections, longer hours, more polling stations at different locations, the ability to vote in person for your constituency at a different polling station etc, etc) should all be tried and tested and as we live in a digital age, secure on-line e-voting should be available as another option.
What is needed can be summed up in three points:
1. Easy but secure access to vote. I remain to be convinced that there's a secure system that's better than paper in ballot boxes. Yes, it's old-fashioned but it's reliable. It's also familiar (we need to be careful that in introducing innovations, we don't introduce barriers to people already in the system while trying to reduce them for others currently outside it). I'm willing to listen to arguments about electronic voting but am concerned that the problems with postal vote fraud apply just as much there. The point about Thursdays is well-made though. Sunday would be a much better election day. It's not even as if there's much tradition in it - go back before the 1950s and elections were on all any old day of the week.
2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.
3. Better politics. It needs to be about ideas, not personalities and not theatre for its own sake (and particularly not for the sake of the actors). PMQs gives people a dreadful idea of what politics is about. The media also has a part to play, although this is to some extent circular as the media follows what the public respond to, and politicians tend to follow both.
What is not needed are:
- voting reform. Every vote matters, whether it elects someone or not; they all send a message. There's not necessarily anything wrong with voting reform as such but it doesn't form part of this argument.
- compulsion. Too much is already banned or compulsory. Freedom of choice includes the right not to exercise a choice - but people need to understand that in not doing so, they leave themselves open to biased policies, as now.
- increasing ease of voting at the expense of security. Nothing is more important than the result truly being the choice of the electorate.
- Votes at 16. The 18-24 section already doesn't vote much. Why would allowing 16 and 17 year olds to do so increase the turnout of the upper group? Again there may be an argument (I don't think there is, FWIW), but it's a different debate.
And if you don;t register, you cannot be fined for non-voting.
So all this proposal ensures if fewer people registering to vote.
Inane.
Turnout does not just inexorably go down, it has gone up at the last three General Elections in a row and reached nearly 85% in the Scottish Indy Referendum.
RedC: FG 31%, FF 17%, SF 17%, Lab 10%, Other 25%
giving FG 59, FF 27, SF 23, Lab 15, Other 34
B&A: FG 28%, FF 20%, SF 17%, Lab 8%, Other 26%
giving FG 54, FF 33, SF 25, Lab 8, Other 38
MB: FG 27%, FF 22%, SF 21%, Lab 6%, Other 23%
giving FG 52, FF 37, SF 33, Lab 2, Other 34
https://adriankavanaghelections.org/2016/02/07/poll-axed-constituency-level-analysis-of-the-sunday-independent-millward-brown-opinion-poll-7th-february-2016/
As you can see, the current polling still shows Labour at a point where it might either be almost wiped out, or get enough seats to be a useful coalition partner for FG.
[That's a joke, BTW]
If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.
I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
Everyone starts on zero. Scotland last year proves a safe seat is only a safe seat as long as the electorate wants it to be.
There are plenty of other examples of one-time safe seats, whether Con, Lab or LD falling because parties and candidates *didn't* give up, or because the electorate revolted against local complacency and arrogance.
At all events there's no case for making non-voting an offence. Who or what is the victim of this crime?
Make every count.
Multi member STV (or AV) might be the best option.
Also ISAM's idea of a council tax discount if you vote. Could also give everybody who votes a free music download?
That the Tories throw goodies at their client vote is neither here nor there. Labour needs to be more credible, end of story. Young people will vote if they are inspired to do so.
I accept that not all Conservatives will be bothered by being taken for granted, but I am.
I'd be happy to support e-voting if that reservation could be satisfied but I've not seen any proposal that can do so.
The right to vote has to be a right to vote in private.
Not a rhetorical question it's possibly true that we are more detached now. In '01 when turnout hit its lowest nadir Europe seemed to dominate (with the Euro a real possibility) more than it does now.
Increasing the regulatory burden of small businesses - more pissed off Tories
Telling MPs not to listen to their local associations - pissed off Tories
Endless brownite tinkering and social engineering - pissed off Tories
The whole piss poor lying and bad party management around EURef - piss off Tories
Massively taking their vote for granted because of Jeza - pissed off Tories
and so on...
Party cheerleaders like you might be happy, lots of people out in the country that we rely on, no so much.
However, I suspect you know that.
In particular, "secure on-line e-voting" is an oxymoron.
How many seats in Scotland were safe in the lead up to the 2015 election?
I run a small business which is why I care about corporation tax etc and I've not felt any increase on regulatory burdens. If others have I'll defer to that.
EU issues are surely for the PM not the Chancellor.
That's all David Cameron needs.
The problem with an official NOTA is that if it wins then no-one is elected and nominations are re-opened. Does anyone seriously think that the electorate would get a better set of candidates second time round, that not being without a representative for several more weeks is a benefit, or that the extra cost of another election is a good use of public funds?
Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
The number one issue for voters by some margin is immigration, that's is absolutely an EU issue, our ability to provide services in the NHS and schools are likewise linked to immigration and hence the EU, as is housing. People aren't fussed by the EU, but they are pretty damn exercised by a number of things that are directly caused or in the purview of the EU.
If people are OK with (white) immigrants from across Europe but against immigrants coming here from the Middle East and Africa then that is not a European issue as much as some may want to make it one.
It's not "the EU" per say but the "why do I bother voting, it never changes anything?" line.
A significant part of that is because our politicians aren't able to change it. Immigration being the most obvious example of this.
It's not the EU or Europe people care about, it's about self-governance and confusion as to why voting doesn't change anything (hint: often it's because it can't)
It's another opportunity to link to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
If you are in your 30s, 40s or early 50s you are fair game.
I think the prospect of the single currency brought 'Europe' very much into focus as it would (literally) affect what people had in their wallet.
Today, it's mainly immigration and human rights which are a 2nd order differential, but over the last 18 months viewed also as a first order derivative as seen on our TV screens.
The last GE is a great example of people power given the big change in seats.
You're right that there is that perception but I don't believe it's an accurate one. A good council or government can and does change people's lives, just as a bad one can. I suspect that for most people who deploy that cynical argument, it's more an excuse than a reason.
I'm assuming Blair won the older voters quite comfortably.
Compulsory voting without the ability to tell the candidates to get stuffed would be an abomination.
But we should not have compulsory voting at all.
Middle Class Strivers 0
Fat Cats 3
Since 2001 the gulf between the parties has widened and so has turnout. If in 2020 Corbyn is still Labour leader then expect turnout to get even higher.