Should voting be made compulsory?

[b0redom]

So it looks like last time only 65% of people who were able do vote did so. It looks like only around 44% of 18-24 year olds bothered to turn up.

I personally think that voting is the responsibility of a member of a democratic society, not a right.

The caveat is obviously that you can spoil your ballot paper. 35% of ballot papers would probably send a message too.

[Jonatron]

For me, voting would be a waste of time. I live in a Labour 'safe seat', which means effectively my vote doesn't make any difference. I would vote for a changing to a PR voting system, but nobody seems to be offering that.

[b0redom]

..but would it still be safe if 35% of people that don't normally vote turned up and voted against the labour candidate?

[Rob_B]

Nope, no, never.

Doing that would force people to :

a) Vote for people they don't really want to (best of a bad bunch)
b) Spoil their ballot in defiance
c) Make impulsive and poorly thought out decisions based on single headline policies.

Of course it's someone's 'right' to make the above decisions

I know it's nice to view voting as a 'responsibility' but plenty of folks don't know enough to do so or just don't care, and that's their right.

As Jon kind of alluded to none of the parties offer anything at present to make me want to vote for them, they all have one or two good policies but of course you can't please everyone.

I think they're all much of a muchness anyway, over promising, weak-willed and playing the game rather than making any attempt to actually make things better.

I might spoil my paper this time :/

[KeyboardDemon]

I would be in favour of compulsory voting if they added an option to either tick a box to abstain or a box that says you have no confidence in any of the candidates or partys etc...

[BlueScream]

No it shouldn't be compulsory.

Not voting is just as political an act as voting, and just as equal a right.

[kalniel]

For me, voting would be a waste of time. I live in a Labour 'safe seat', which means effectively my vote doesn't make any difference. I would vote for a changing to a PR voting system, but nobody seems to be offering that.

During the current government there was a referendum to change to PR like system, so you've already voted on that. It failed by a huge margin.

I think it should be compulsory - would make the views of the apathetic slightly more important to MPs.

[b0redom]

No it shouldn't be compulsory.

Not voting is just as political an act as voting, and just as equal a right.

I'm not sure you're right on this tbh. Most people I've spoken to "Can't be bothered."

If you're conciously not voting because you disagree with all of the above, you should, IMO spoil your paper. Not voting through apathy allows the rise of extremist parties and the other parties to claim they won even when they only secured a small fraction of votes available.

[Saracen]

For me, voting would be a waste of time. I live in a Labour 'safe seat', which means effectively my vote doesn't make any difference. I would vote for a changing to a PR voting system, but nobody seems to be offering that.

So do I. It's had a wopping great Labour majority for ...., well, as long as I can remember. Then it went Tory in 2010. You could've blown me over with a wave of a small feather.

Agreed on PR, though it depends exactly what form. Some are less problematic that others.
Some people will find some effects unpalatable, though. For instance, based on polling data, UKIP are at around 15-16% which, if relected in Parliament, gives them about 1 in 6 seat, or around 108 seats. Both Labour and Tory at around 32% get about 220 each .... 'ish.

That very likely puts a Tory /UKIP coalition in power as a coalition of the right, which in turn might serious p .... erm, irritate the Scots sufficiently to vote Yes to independence, which in turn only increases the size of the proportion of Tory and UKIP votes, perhaps leading to a more-or-less permanent Tory/UKIP coalition.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't want to see ANY government, of ANY flavour, with such a hard-to-boot-out in-built edge, as it tends to make them arrogant and dismissive of the interests of us, the people. Examples aren't hard to find, and include the latter years of Thatcher (Poll tax) and Blair (Iraq ahd dodgy dossier).

[aramil]

I don't think you could compel anyone to vote unless you add an option for "none of the above".

I always vote for the party/candidate that I disagree with the least. Not really the way it is meant to work, but it is that or not to bother........

I get the feeling that the voting system will be changed/updated in the near future (depending on who almost/sort of, wins), but who knows what the political bubble will decide....

[Saracen]

So it looks like last time only 65% of people who were able do vote did so. It looks like only around 44% of 18-24 year olds bothered to turn up.

I personally think that voting is the responsibility of a member of a democratic society, not a right.

The caveat is obviously that you can spoil your ballot paper. 35% of ballot papers would probably send a message too.

I don't see spoiling the ballot as an acceptable alternative. A 'none of the above" option, however, clearly indicates a conscious and deliberately exercised decision to reject ALL of the offered candidates, which is precisely why I don't believe we'll ever get it. It's too easy for politicians to dismiss and ignore spoiled ballots, not least because one interpretation is an objection in principle to being forced to vote in the first place. A "nobody" vote, on the other hand, unequivocably says that that voter will participate in the system and vote, but rejects all the candidates. It also could totally destroy the current claim of "apathy" and, in the event that, as is very plausible, the "None" vote would be VERY big, and that would undermine or destroy any claims, such as over the last 30 or 40 years, that a third of the population voting either Tory of Labour is a "mandate" from the people, because that claim has always relied in large part on an asumption that non-voters would break down in roughly the same way as voters, if they just bothered to vote. A "None" vote just might show very large numbers deliberately don't vote. Imagine the damage to the image we treasure of "democracy" if "None if the above" actually won?

I support mandatory voting if, AND ONLY IF, conscioysly voting "None" was an option, and I don't see any chance we'll ever get that. So, I vote (here) No to mandatory voting in this poll.

[Saracen]

During the current government there was a referendum to change to PR like system, so you've already voted on that. It failed by a huge margin.

I think it should be compulsory - would make the views of the apathetic slightly more important to MPs.

AV had problems of it's own. I would support a genuinely proportional system, despite it's problems, but AV wasn't. It was a fudge. Which is why I voted against it. A truly PR system, probably with an element of STV, however, I could vote for .... not least because it largely removes the need for tactical voting.

[Andy3536]

I don't think you could compel anyone to vote unless you add an option for "none of the above".

I always vote for the party/candidate that I disagree with the least. Not really the way it is meant to work, but it is that or not to bother........

I get the feeling that the voting system will be changed/updated in the near future (depending on who almost/sort of, wins), but who knows what the political bubble will decide....

I'll take Conservative/UKIP coalition over Labour/SNP any day. The idea that the SNP could have any sway over anything south of the boarder is appaling. Untill they're an all encompassing party with MPs south of the boarder they can stay up there. We really don't want to see people that hate the English ruling over the English.
And as for UKIP and conservatives. At least finally we'd get that referendum on the EU, which both Labour and Conservatives have promised in the past and not delivered.

As for the OP, i don't think it should be made compulsory. It's been made easier for people with the ability of postal voting. But tbh, if people don't feel engaged by politics so that they don't want to vote for anyone, then they shouldn't have to.
Certainly more of an effort should be made to get young people engaged with politics, mabee MPs should go to schools and talk to kids about why it's important. But most parties are variations of a theme, it's like deciding between 2 sandwiches in a shop that are left that arn't one's you'd normally prefer.
The voting system won't change though, we had the vote on PR and it was rejected. We'll not likely see another effort to change things for a good few years. House of Lords reform is about the best your likely to see.

[Saracen]

I'll take Conservative/UKIP coalition over Labour/SNP any day. The idea that the SNP could have any sway over anything south of the boarder is appaling. Untill they're an all encompassing party with MPs south of the boarder they can stay up there. We really don't want to see people that hate the English ruling over the English.
And as for UKIP and conservatives. At least finally we'd get that referendum on the EU, which both Labour and Conservatives have promised in the past and not delivered.

As for the OP, i don't think it should be made compulsory. It's been made easier for people with the ability of postal voting. But tbh, if people don't feel engaged by politics so that they don't want to vote for anyone, then they shouldn't have to.
Certainly more of an effort should be made to get young people engeged with politics, mabee MPs should go to schools and talk to kids about why it's important. But most parties are variations of a theme, it's like deciding between 2 sandwiches in a shop that are left that arn't one's you'd normally prefer.
The voting system won't change though, we had the vote on PR and it was rejected. We'll not likely see another effort to change things for a good few years. House of Lords reform is about the best your likely to see.

Agreed, on most of that, but do you really think MPs going into schools will enthuse kids and imbue a sense of civic responsibility? From my experiences with, and views of, most MPs, it's more likely to put the kids off for life.

[Andy3536]

From my experiences with, and views of, most MPs, it's more likely to put the kids off for life.

Your probably right
But you don't know untill you try. Mabee schools could make more of an effort without MPs ....
Although Boris Johnson is very much the cartoon character, kids will find him very amusing

[excalibur2]

No compulsory vote as all the immigrants that have entered the country in the last 10 years would probably vote labour Blair's hidden agenda?