QOTW: Should the UK introduce online voting?

[Top_gun]

No, and no to compulsory voting as well. People should get themselves more knowledgeable on political matters before let loose at the ballot box. If people are not motivated to go to their nearest polling station then they're not ready vote.

[gagaga]

No. If people can't be arsed to get out and vote once every 2-3 years, they don't deserve a vote.

We also need to secure currently methods - postal voting is utterly corrupt, and we need people to provide photo ID when voting in person.

[Saracen]

And remember... Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Would you like to know more?

I do not disagree with you or Heinlein on this matter.

Not really necessary. I think I "grok" it.

But it might make an interesting thread, and in a limited context, it has been proposed and discussed in the US for 'undocumenteds'. Could be done here too .... if politicians had the cojones to face up to it. But then, that's more about citizenship than just the franchise.

[Ttaskmaster]

If people are not motivated to go to their nearest polling station then they're not ready vote.

If there are no decent parties offering convincing promises of the things people want, why would they be motivated? If your choice is between liars and liars, is there any point in voting?

Could be done here too .... if politicians had the cojones to face up to it. But then, that's more about citizenship than just the franchise.

You'd need to make citizenship something worth having, providing priviledges well beyond merely the right to vote. You'd have to make people want that, rather than claiming an entitlement to everything as we currently do... further supported by the revocation of citizenship if they do something really bad, perhaps.

[Top_gun]

If there are no decent parties offering convincing promises of the things people want, why would they be motivated? If your choice is between liars and liars, is there any point in voting?

You can put in a protest on your ballot paper if you feel you have no real choice of political candidates.

[Spud1]

The real question is "what benefit would it bring?"

Or "would it have brought"? Voter turnout amongst the young would almost certainly have been greater for the EU referendum, and as a result it would almost certainly have been a remain victory, we would not be in the mess we are in now with an upcoming election thats very likely to end in a hung parliament and another lose-lose situation

Yes engagement is the bigger issue - its not like it's hard to go and vote - but in todays instant gratification culture, the easier we can make it to vote the higher the turnout is likely to be. It's not like it's hard to introduce "fake" votes in the current paper system as it is - and in reality its a similar level of risk with an electronic system...just easier to detect if/when it happens.

[Saracen]

You can put in a protest on your ballot paper if you feel you have no real choice of political candidates.

You can, but depending on exactly what you do, the result is a bit unpredictable. It might still end up as a vote for a specific candidate.

Even if you add your own "none of the above" candidate and vote for it, it'll simply end up as "rejected for uncertainty" under Rule 47 (1) (d), which means it goes in the reject tray and isn't counted.

Spoiling the ballot paper really is just about making you feel good for making your little protest, but in fact, it achieves nothing at all.

[Ttaskmaster]

Spoiling the ballot paper really is just about making you feel good for making your little protest, but in fact, it achieves nothing at all.

^ Exactly.
This isn't about what is best for our country, or anything like that. This is about who gets into power. They won't fulfil their promises and if they try, there's The Opposition who will try and block or mitigate as much of it as they can anyway.

Stand up and be counted, but only if you're voting for one of the two main parties, and even then it's whoever gets there first not whoever has the majority. Any other votes will just be dumped into whichever of the two mains we feel like.

It's a bit like being inside the Crystal Dome, but without Richard O'Brien to make it fun.

[Top_gun]

Spoiling the ballot paper really is just about making you feel good for making your little protest, but in fact, it achieves nothing at all.

This is a matter of opinion. But I have heard a number of people expressing their dismay over a lack of political choice. If enough people spoil their ballot papers then this becomes a newsworthy item and the issue is then publicised.

http://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

[Saracen]

This is a matter of opinion. But I have heard a number of people expressing their dismay over a lack of political choice. If enough people spoil their ballot papers then this becomes a newsworthy item and the issue is then publicised.

http://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

And that is just a matter of opinion, too.

When have enough people spoiled their ballot papers to become newsworthy? And, having done so, what did it achieve?

But for the more pedantically minded, such votes don't count. There is a tally of 'rejected' papers, but they can be rejected for all sorts of reasons, which fall into four categories, and whether a 'spoiled' ballot is still counted as a vote or not depends on exactly what the spoilage consists of. Ballots can be defaced in a wide range of very overt manners, but yet still be a valid vote, or in some apparently fairly minor ways, yet be made invalid.

Some of those ways can be deliberate, and others accidental. Unless you (the voter spoiling the ballot) have a good grasp of what results in a rejected ballot, it is quite possible for a ballot you intended to spoil to end up being valid, or for a ballot intended to be valid to end up bring spoiled and therefore rejected.

As the nature of rejected ballots aren't broken down into categories, and aren't available for public inspection, even if there is a "newsworthy" level of rejecteds, there is no way to know how or why they are rejected. That is not a matter of opinion, but of electoral law (Representation of the People Act, 1983 IIRC) and formal Electoral Commission guidance to Returning officers.

[CK_1985]

Sure other people have said this already but...

I'd say no on online voting - at least for the foreseeable future it's just too open to abuse.

I'm more in the compulsory voting camp (with a nominal fine of, say, £5 if you don't vote). There are vanishingly few genuine excuses for not voting (I'm thinking coma is one.... can't think of any others right now!) and if you have access to a computer - which would obviously be necessary for online voting to work - then it takes literally seconds to educate yourself enough to cast a sensible vote.

As for the follow-up question, yes I think online voting may make some people (especially young people) more likely to vote but that could also be solved by compulsory voting. It wouldn't make ME any more likely to vote as I am 100% certain to vote anyway, in spite of the fact that I live in one of the safest seats in the entire country. At the last election, the Tory candidate got double the votes of all other major parties put together...

[Unique]

Sure other people have said this already but...

I'd say no on online voting - at least for the foreseeable future it's just too open to abuse.

I'm more in the compulsory voting camp (with a nominal fine of, say, £5 if you don't vote). There are vanishingly few genuine excuses for not voting (I'm thinking coma is one.... can't think of any others right now!) and if you have access to a computer - which would obviously be necessary for online voting to work - then it takes literally seconds to educate yourself enough to cast a sensible vote.

As for the follow-up question, yes I think online voting may make some people (especially young people) more likely to vote but that could also be solved by compulsory voting. It wouldn't make ME any more likely to vote as I am 100% certain to vote anyway, in spite of the fact that I live in one of the safest seats in the entire country. At the last election, the Tory candidate got double the votes of all other major parties put together...

i would never make the vote compulsory, with the main reason being that many if not most people don't fully understand what they are voting for, and by that I mean all of what is in the manifestos of all the parties they have to pick from. so why force people to vote for something they don't understand, as opposed to letting them leave it to people who understand things better, or at least think they do enough to want to vote?

if people are forced to vote when they don't want to, for things they don't fully understand, imagine where those extra votes may go, and imagine how many protest votes for the likes of BNP and UKIP which could lead to those parties getting more power through unintended means

[ik9000]

Should the uk introduce on line voting?

My Russian handler has told me that I should answer "yes, unequivocally."

[Ttaskmaster]

the main reason being that many if not most people don't fully understand what they are voting for, and by that I mean all of what is in the manifestos of all the parties they have to pick from. so why force people to vote for something they don't understand, as opposed to letting them leave it to people who understand things better, or at least think they do enough to want to vote?

1/. Most people do think they understand it enough to vote... or refuse to vote.
2./ You're not supposed to understand it... or at least, not realise that it's essentially all lies. If you were supposed to understand it, they'd be far more specific in their manifestos. Politics is all nominalisations - We will make life 'better', we will 'reduce' crime, we will 'sort out' the NHS... What those terms mean to each individual is vastly different from what the next person will understand, as well as being vague enough to weasel around and justify if ever they are called on it.
It's just a play to get into power and I doubt most will make any serious attempt to fulfil the promises (unless they're easy ones, which is what Boris did as Mayor).

[DanceswithUnix]

If your choice is between liars and liars, is there any point in voting?

If people feel that disconnected with the candidates, perhaps they should stand for election themselves? Probably best if they can roughly align their views with one of the existing parties as independents don't seem to get far, unless you want to go the protest route where you don't care about actual votes and stand as something like "Fiddling the expenses and the secretary party" and see how many other protests you get, but at £500 for the deposit every 4 years that is over £100 per year which may or may not be an expensive hobby.

[Saracen]

If people feel that disconnected with the candidates, perhaps they should stand for election themselves? Probably best if they can roughly align their views with one of the existing parties as independents don't seem to get far, unless you want to go the protest route where you don't care about actual votes and stand as something like "Fiddling the expenses and the secretary party" and see how many other protests you get, but at £500 for the deposit every 4 years that is over £100 per year which may or may not be an expensive hobby.

But even if you stand and, by some miracle, get elected, what will it achieve?

It-s hard to conceive, short of some highly topical local issue, that duch a stand would succeed, but to do so is going to require, at a minimum, some thousands of pounds of costs in printing, travel expenses, etc and as a party of one, you'll achieve a maximum of very little, and most likely nothing at all.

In terms of an individual vote achieving anything, you really have a choice of voting for who you want if they stand a chance of winning, or voting against who you least want.

Round here, short of a titanic upheaval, the MP is going to be Tory or Labour, as this is a 2-way marginal with the third place candidate coming a very long way behind second. Voting anything other than Tory or Labour, here, is really just a gesture.

It's also really more of a vote towards a Tory or Labour government, as I have no reason to believe either would better or worse than the either in terms of doing standard constituency duties. So it's about either voting in favour of one set of party policies that I believe are better, or against a set I believe are worse.

There is no party whose entire agenda I support. So it comes down to trying to sort out a list of pro's and con's for each, and then trying to assess a weighting for each. It's almost a case of giving points to each party for policies I endorse,, and adding up the points. Almost.

But then, I have to take account not just of what parties say they'll do, but whether I feel they can and/or will actually deliver what they promise. And that is where, for me, Labour, or rather Corbyn and his team, fall down badly.

So, somewhat reluctantly, I'll probably vote Tory, not with any real enthusiasm but because I think Labour, with the current leadership, would be an utter, unmitigated disaster.