The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

So you'd be allowed not to vote, but it'd be illegal not to mark your non-vote down on a bit of paper?

Presumably. As I say: seems to work in Australia, so it's not quite as 'out there' an idea as you seem to want to make it.

The point is: a lot of people who like to say they're non-voters actually just can't be arsed. If they're obliged to haul themselves into the polling centres there's a chance —albeit a slim one— that some of them might engage with the process fractionally more.

Cheers

Jim

[Theblazeuk]

Taxes, birth certificates, schools, licenses....

Many mandatory things you have to do. What kind of fascist forces you to register your innocent newborn on some kind of 'register'?!?

And so on. Mandatory voting could simply mean 'registering to not vote' at its simplest.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

FPTP or PR are largely irrelevant under our "constitutional monarchy." It's not about how the government is elected but what it's allowed to do once in office.
.
A prime example is the Queen's Consent* (and the Prince's Consent) which essentially gives the monarch a veto on any bill effecting her or his personal circumstances or powers. No bill can pass through Parliament, be debated, without the Queen's or Prince's Consent. In practice, these consents are rarely withheld because Privy Councillors tend to weed out anything affecting the royals at the drafting stage. This kind of unelected and unaccountable power effectively hobbles the "government" of the day.
.
See this article for some further details.
.
*This is entirely different from the Queen's Assent, which every bill passing through Parliament must receive before becoming "law."

We're a constitutional monarchy, and this is very widely supported. The Queen doesn't participate in politics, and even if she did she'd have no need to interfere to preserve her position, which is already completely secure. Any notion that parliament is chomping at the bit to bash the royals if only the privy council would permit it is blatantly nonsense.

Any government returned using PR or STV or whatever would have the same extensive powers that the present FPTP-elected government does. Obviously.

In the mainland UK, combining electoral reform with republicanism would be a great way of ensuring there's never any electoral reform, ever, and should be avoided like the President Blair-inspired nightmare it so clearly is.

[JPMaybe]

In the mainland UK, combining electoral reform with republicanism would be a great way of ensuring there's never any electoral reform, ever, and should be avoided like the President Blair-inspired nightmare it so clearly is.

Why, exactly, would an elected head-of-state entail that? Seriously, "President Blair" vs monarchy is such a common false-dilemma bandied about by monarchists, explain why it would automatically be the case.

[Tjm86]

I'd be happy to see compulsory voting, as long as there was a No Confidence/ None of the Above option at the bottom of each ballot paper.

Cheers

Jim

But what happens if the 'None of the above' vote wins..?

Brewsters Millions?

[The Legendary Shark]

JPM, I think that particular misconception is based on the flawed US model. In a true republic, the elected prime minister and parliament make the legislation and the president only signs it into law, as the Queen does now. The president is a neutral position, not allowed to get involved in party politics.
.
And Tony Blair could well become president, if he got enough votes - as could Elizabeth Windsor, Stephen Hawking or even Russel Brand. Presidential votes would be entirely separate from governmental votes.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Why, exactly, would an elected head-of-state entail that? Seriously, "President Blair" vs monarchy is such a common false-dilemma bandied about by monarchists, explain why it would automatically be the case.

President Blair is a concept which highlights that if you have elections you get politicians.

But in any case, my actual point was that supporters of electoral reform would do well to avoid combining their preferred new voting system with an attack on the monarchy if they want their proposals to succeed.

[Theblazeuk]

I think so far the only person espousing the abolition of the monarchy as a pressing concern is the one who has no need of voting systems new or otherwise.

(The rest of us will probably just bide our time)

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

I think so far the only person espousing the abolition of the monarchy as a pressing concern is the one who has no need of voting systems new or otherwise.

(The rest of us will probably just bide our time)

Heh, you're absolutely right.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'd prefer to be sovereign of my own life; failing that I could live with being a citizen in a modern republic but I object to being a subject in an outmoded, self-serving monarchy. But that's just me.

[Ghost MacRoth]

that's just me.

Nah, not just you. 

[Sideshow Bob]

Nope, definitely not just you !!
Cheers

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I say keep the monarchy. Except it changes family every week by random lottery, and the winning family gets the monarchy's budget for that week and full use of the crown's properties.

It would make an excellent reality TV Show.

[The Legendary Shark]

Not just me? Thank God for that!

[Theblazeuk]

In no way do I condone the monarchy BUT bigger fish to fry. And sadly lots of people do really rather like them.