Forgot to vote

[Fnaar]

On a rare 'serious' post for me, I always equate the right to vote with the responsibility to do so. Two of my kids are of voting age, and hopefully I've passed that on to them too.

You've let us down, you've let yourself down, etc...

It was Miss Goodbody who taught me the importance of it. She's handcuffed herself to the banisters, and asked me to emancipate her.

 

[Smokin Joe]

In my opinion if you didn't engage in the process you don't get to have an opinion on the outcome.

Yes you do. It's your taxes the government are spending and you can moan all you want, voter or not.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

I only had a police commissioner to vote for, so I voted my displeasure at the waste of money that they are, by not voting.

Same here

 

[Tim Hall]

From Twitter: The problem with not voting is that lots of other people do... & they elect people like Neil Hamilton.

 

[mjr]

From Twitter: The problem with not voting is that lots of other people do... & they elect people like Neil Hamilton.

Oh they haven't, have they? Welsh Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales

 

[numbnuts]

I'm not at home this week so I didn't vote

 

[JoshM]

Yes you do. It's your taxes the government are spending and you can moan all you want, voter or not.

No you don't. It might be your taxes but by not voting you've expressed no preferences as to how that tax money should be spent. Therefore you can't say after the event you disagree with how it's being spent.

 

[Smokin Joe]

No you don't. It might be your taxes but by not voting you've expressed no preferences as to how that tax money should be spent. Therefore you can't say after the event you disagree with how it's being spent.

You can agree or disagree with anything you like. What if the party you voted for does something you don't like (Such as invading Iraq), does that also mean you can't complain?

 

[JoshM]

You can agree or disagree with anything you like. What if the party you voted for does something you don't like (Such as invading Iraq), does that also mean you can't complain?

Then according to my original statement you would have the right to complain, because you voted...

 

[Piemaster]

[QUOTE 4267925, member: 76"]18.29% should fall below a level that means it should be re-run. Woeful[/QUOTE]
I'd be surprised if a re-run had a better turn-out. If none voters are not engaged/couldn't be arsed the first time why would they bother the 2nd? Or those that voted the first time thinking 'already voted once, why am I having to do it again?' and not voting either.

 

[ufkacbln]

Can we add "None Of The Above" (NOTA)?

A spoilt vote, blank paper or failing to vote is ineffective in that it means one of the candidates wins anyway... and simply gets reported as "voter apathy"



A NOTA vote clearly does what it says on the tin and fixes a definitive declaration that none of the candidates is acceptable. In theory if the NOTA actually has most votes then there is a constititional problem.

The post can be left vacant, an appointed official can be placed in the role, or the whole system has to re-commence


It has issues, but would be an interesting wake-up call for politics

 

[Smokin Joe]

Can we add "None Of The Above" (NOTA)?

A spoilt vote, blank paper or failing to vote is ineffective in that it means one of the candidates wins anyway... and simply gets reported as "voter apathy"



A NOTA vote clearly does what it says on the tin and fixes a definitive declaration that none of the candidates is acceptable. In theory if the NOTA actually has most votes then there is a constititional problem.

The post can be left vacant, an appointed official can be placed in the role, or the whole system has to re-commence


It has issues, but would be an interesting wake-up call for politics

If "None of The Above" is your opinion, the answer is simple.

Stand for election yourself.

 

[ufkacbln]

If "None of The Above" is your opinion, the answer is simple.

Stand for election yourself.

There have been "Protest candidates" before.. Martin Bell for instance, with a temporary effect

The point of the NOTA is that it is a general indictment of the candidates and a longer term slit ion

 

[Smokin Joe]

NOTA is a nonsense.

Apart from many parties being almost bankrupted by just the one election every five years, where will all the dynamic alternatives come from in the month or so till the next ballot? And one which a fed up public will turn out for in even fewer numbers.

It is just one of those oh so clever sixth form common room ideas, completely unworkable in the real world.

 

[ufkacbln]

NOTA is a nonsense.

Apart from many parties being almost bankrupted by just the one election every five years, where will all the dynamic alternatives come from in the month or so till the next ballot? And one which a fed up public will turn out for in even fewer numbers.

It is just one of those oh so clever sixth form common room ideas, completely unworkable in the real world.

Seems to be sufficiently viable, for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to be considering it for inclusion on ballot papers until teh Government closed them down

It is also one of the myths that it costs anything at all. In many cases the person with the highest number of votes id appointed (NOT elected) to the role.

Also suggested by the "Re-open nominations" equivalent in some UK institutions, and the experience where NOTA has been used that those voters ho have not participated because there is no difference between candidates, none of the candidates reflect their views, or their vote would not make difference are more likely to engage if a NOTA option is available.

It is not perfect, but it certainly should be considered