this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
41 points (91.8% liked)

UK Politics

3110 readers
325 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, It seemed pretty specific but I also understand if this is more a news sub.

Now for the topic at hand, I'm personally not a fan. I think it's a sticking plaster over the top of some significant shortcomings in education and disenfranchisement that fails to get people engaged in politics in a meaningful way.

The end game shouldn't be getting a load of ignorant voters to ignorantly cast a vote; it should be to have an informed, educated and interested electorate going out to perform their civic duty in a way that brings everyone into the process, old, young, rich and poor.

I'd much rather see a focus on teaching our young people how our system works, why it's important and how and why we have a duty as individuals to turn up to vote, hold our elected officials accountable and become a part of the democratic process.

What about you?

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Only if there's an option to vote for none of the candidates or abstain.

[–] Lemming421 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes, and if none of the above wins, it should trigger another election, and another until candidates are fielded that can actually win the popular vote (50% +1 of the constituency). None of this “the winner only has 37% support” nonsense that we get at the moment.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Hard yes, even with a small fine for failing to vote (£50-100) - With the caveat that spoiling the ballot/voting none of the above is also an accepted admission.

We need to start taking steps to reverse political apathy asap, this can be one of many.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Getting a stick out doesn't fix apathy. It just gives you people going through the motions just so they don't get hit with a stick.

[–] ObsidianZed 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What about positive reinforcement? Maybe a tax credit instead a fine.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's benefiting people with higher income more than people with lower income. I don't think that's fair

[–] ObsidianZed 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I figured it would be more fair than a fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A fine would also be unfair in mostly the same way. A flat payment would be best

[–] ObsidianZed 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If a fine is the way you want to go, an income based fine would be more fair, wouldn't it? Otherwise it would succumb to the same problems as other fines that punish poorer people while the rich barely feel it. Though granted, I'm sure the rich already vote with their money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I meant a flat payment towards the people voting. That would benefit people with lower income more than people with a higher income while still being positive reinforcement

[–] Jackthelad 10 points 9 months ago

Horrible idea.

The right to vote is also the right not to vote. Besides, a lower turnout with a more engaged electorate is preferable to forcing everyone to turn up and either picking something at random or not picking anything at all, which renders forcing them to turn up a complete waste of time anyway.

[–] doublejay1999 9 points 9 months ago

Only if they give me sausage, like Australia 🇦🇺.

Anyhoo, your argument seems to rely on the idea that voluntary voters are some how more skilled at choosing a candidate than mandated voters, which I think is silly.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

A lot of people forgetting in this thread you can choose to invalidate your ballot, even with mandatory voting, as a kind of 'none of the above'

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

No.

Votes from people who don’t care would water down votes from people who do.

Getting people engaged would definitely be a good thing (I wrote the previous paragraph before reading the post) but I don’t think people should be forced into it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's tough.

Mandatory voting encourages young people to vote, who are far more likely to vote progressively, so it works in favour of my preference.

However, I don't think it's right to force people to have an opinion about something, of which they know nothing about.

[–] Lemming421 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

However, I don't think it's right to force people to have an opinion about something, of which they know nothing about.

Which is why referendums are not great.

Although politicians make laws on things about which they know nothing, so there’s that…

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Although politicians make laws on things about which they know nothing, so there’s that…

I really wish there was a better way. I've thought about the idea of discarding representatives entirely.

Imagine if people didn't need to vote for people who were going to make choices for us, and we got to choose the outcomes of each point of tension.

Example: if 60% of the population voted to end solitary confinement, then it gets passed immediately.

This wouldn't need to be done at a particular time either - we could submit our opinions via a government website, and update them at our convenience.

Of course people will say that voting via internet isn't secure, and it could be hacked, but I think utilising a block chain might actually prove useful for the first time ever.

I'm sure there are flaws with this idea, but there are flaws with the way things are now.

[–] Lemming421 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok, internet voting is not secure, so let’s ignore that part for now. (There’s an XKCD that deals with it flippantly and a Tom Scott video that goes into a bit more detail, but with things as they are, electronic voting simply cannot be trusted)

That being said. The simplistic reduction to the general idea is that people are too dumb to know what they’re voting for, but, as with reality, it’s a little bit more complicated than that.

There are far too many issues for people to be able to make informed decisions about everything. That’s one of the reasons we have elected officials in the first place.

Let’s take your example - should we end solitary confinement?

Personally, I don’t know what you have to do to end up in there. Do you shank a guy in the shower? Mouth off at a guard? Don’t know.

Then there’s the efficacy of it. Does it increase the chances that the person put there will get rehabilitated? Dos it increase the chances for everyone else in the prison while that person is not around? Don’t know that either.

Is it ethical? Surprise, I’m not even sure about that.

So should we end it? I’ve no idea.

And that’s something reasonably simple. What about the tricky questions, like the death penalty (I’m against that) or euthanasia (for, but not just in a “let’s off granny before the care home eats all our inheritance” way…)?

No, I like your thinking, but I don’t trust the general population (including myself in that, I have no illusions I’m smarter or more ethical than the average bear) enough for it. Knee-jerk policies after high profile events would lead to bad outcomes, I think.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

There are a lot of issues which people know nothing about, sure, but it would be nice to let people ignore issues they aren't familiar enough.

Though, if you were to present the question, it would be pertinent to let both sides weigh in. It would be good if people were presented both sides of the argument before voting on an issue and required a basic test to confirm they understand each sides point.

Though my example for solitary confinement would be maybe too broad, perhaps there are possibilities for voting with gradations? Similar to how we can vote for someone who is somewhere in the middle of an issue.

I'm an advocate for ending solitary confinement - completely, for any crime. The statistics show that it doesn't deter violence, and breaks minds in a way where recovery is impossible for some.

[–] Iceblade02 3 points 9 months ago

Yes, even if its a blank vote - it is our duty as citizens and necessary for a functioning democracy.

Even prisoners should have to vote! This is to invalidate the strategy of jailing your political opponents.

Ideally it would be paired with decent education and a free press to keep the populace well informed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I'd go the other way, and stick a carrot on voting.
The 2015 election cost £114m, why not spend a little more, and give everyone a free sausage roll when they vote?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

IMO voting should be:

  • mandatory
  • by mail
  • ranked choice system (or approval voting, or whatever system is supposedly the best - I haven't kept up-to-date on that aspect)
  • empty ballot is valid, just sign it (or whatever)

While we're at it, abolish the electoral college and enforce mathematically defined districts (end gerrymandering). And publicly funded elections - with PACs, etc banned of course.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I agree with your point about education and communication, but I'd counter that plenty of informed/educated voters assuming an foregone result has caused some unpopular outcomes in the part; a voter who would be otherwise be disenfranchised enough to not bother might as well vote for what they want if they're going to be voting anyway. Having thought about this a bit in the past I'd like to see all of these changes made to the process:

  • As mentioned, mandatory voting with a fine for nonattendance calculated as a proportion of income.
  • Postal voting by default. Your polling cars is also postal voting card and can be returned up to four weeks before election day.
  • In addition to the right to leave the polling card blank or spoil it, specific options for formal protest options along the lines of "No vote due to inadequate candidates" and "No vote due to lack of faith in the electorate system."
  • Constituencies three or four times bigger than they are at the moment, since people are more travelled and communities are more spread than they were in the past, leading onto:
  • Single Transferrable Votes with the number of representatives returned calculated based on the population of the constituency; currently the biggest and smallest have populations of 113,000 and 21,000, but both have equal representation.
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I totally agree with your thinking. The focus needs to be on education and reversing disenfranchisement.

I believe a lot of apathy comes from a society continually moving towards penalties and punishment for "undesired" behaviour. It all just leads to a mindset of "Why should I bother? I'll have to deal with the fallout regardless".

Compulsory voting would just be another negative on top of a whole bunch of others.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, but people who turn in a blank or invalid ballot should be represented by keeping a corresponding number of seats in parliament empty.

/s, probably. But it would be funny.

[–] alchemist2023 0 points 9 months ago

The only way a yes is possible is if it goes hand in hand with political education of what each party stands for and the history of their policies. You can't force people to vote without ensuring they understand what they are voting for, else you must get a scatter gun effect at the pols of random votes or uninformed votes and we saw how that worked for brexit. Manipulation is too easy. Education education education to coin Tony Blair, but start political eduction at secondary school. Then in ten years make voting mandatory. Also limit voting to under 70yrs, after that age you don't really have a good grasp of current issues so you shouldn't be able to vote on them. Leave that to the younger population who have more invested in the future..

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

I'm a hard no.

I think people should vote, and voting is generally pretty easy in this country - including easy access to postal and proxy voting. So anyone who fails to do the basic bare minimum in a democratic society (of turning out to vote in a general election every five years) is someone who is clearly so disengaged from politics that I really wouldn't want them casting their uninformed RNG vote and deciding the future of this country.

This is what happened at the EU referendum. There had long been an assumption that a higher turnout was good for Remain (Leavers were more motivated, so higher turnout meant it was more likely that moderate Remain voters were turning out). But what actually happened was turnout went so high that it blew past them and into a load of nihilists who didn't give a shit about anything and voted Leave just for the fuck of it. These are not the people who should be deciding our future.

I would prefer that voter turnout was higher than it is, but that's because I think political engagement should be higher. That's the thing we should be targeting; voter turnout is the symptom, not the cause. If you force people who aren't evenly barely politically engaged to cast a vote, you're asking for a shitshow.