The Political Thread

[Richmond Clements]

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..?

[Jim_Campbell]

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

New vote. All candidates on the previous ballot automatically barred from standing in the new vote.

I've been a fan of "No confidence" since I saw an absolute shithead stand for a student union post and lose to the "No confidence" option.

Cheers

Jim

[IndigoPrime]

Also, I can't imagine 'none of the above' would win very often, if at all. If people had a version of PR that resulted in a broadly representative Commons and Senate, that means no safe seats. Parties and politicians will make more effort. People will want to vote for someone, rather than nothing, to a big enough extent that 'they're all bastards' won't do that well.

As for the issue of right-wing nutters, I covered that in Do you want 80 UKIP MPs?

[The Legendary Shark]

I would be far more inclined to vote in a republic than a monarchy.

[Theblazeuk]

I'm fine with the idea of mandatory voting. As long as there's the 'no' option. No confidence would be a grand thing. I've campaigned for the 'none of the above' vote to be marked on ballots even without any kind of inherent power - just officially recording 'spoiled ballots' as intentionally spoiled rather than cackhanded, as right now no distinction is made, so spoiled ballots may simply have never been entered at all - in fact they almost work less (than nothing) as they still count towards electoral turnout....

Then whose validation does the system require if not yours and mine? If the system wants to tell me what to do, and to tell other people what to do in my name and on my behalf, then why does it not require my validation and my consent? The tyranny of the majority

Yeah. The tyranny of the majority. A simple glance back at just the last 200 years will show you how preferable it is to the tyranny of the few. Which is with only the slightest exception what has existed across most of recorded history.

As for republic rather than monarchy... Well, let's hope that spontaneously happens as your desire for constitutional reform will seemingly never be expressed democratically.

Non-voters are expressing no preference either way. They are tacitly endorsing every candidate, because they didn't wish to actively vote against any of them. I've never been a non-voter because I'm not that content with the status quo.

Yup.

(Guido Fawkes is a right-wing 'political blogger' whose tattle regularly feeds the right-wing media. The guy does nothing but cover politics and political scandal and has publicly expressed that he is happiest when people don't vote, because that way the peasants can't complicate the discussions between the rich and the powerful. )

[IndigoPrime]

I would be far more inclined to vote in a republic than a monarchy.

Given your replies to date, I can't imagine if the Royals were ousted tomorrow that you'd be any more inclined to vote. And given how little power the Royals have, I'm not sure they matter. Frankly, given the choice between PR Commons/Senate/Royals forever and FPTP Commons/Lords/Republic, I'd go for the former every single time.

As for republic rather than monarchy... Well, let's hope that spontaneously happens as your desire for constitutional reform will seemingly never be expressed democratically.

Exactly. There's a lot of fuss right now about electoral reform. People hiding away and saying "that doesn't affect me" won't result in change. Millions of people being VERY PISSED OFF about the systems in the UK might instigate change. It's a long road and a tough battle (the Tories are already doubling down; Labour remains broadly silent), but if Labour gets on board, there's a possibility we could finally see a mature and modern system where very many more votes actually count for something by 2025.

Regardless, I just find the non-voting thing very sad, because, as I said, it's by and large those people who get hit hardest. Had the under 35s voted en masse at the same rate as pensioners, and the trends remained broadly as they were in the actual vote (unlikely—those who don't vote are less likely to vote conservative/Conservative), we'd almost certainly have a minority Labour government right now. The only way that could have survived is by support of the SNP, which would have either forced Labour to commit suicide by bringing its own government down, or to reduce austerity measures. But, well, people didn't vote.

[Theblazeuk]

Right-wing thinktanks campaigned heavily against the most significant form of constitutional reform proposed within my lifetime, the AV referendum. Their most successful tactic? "Would you rather we spent £250,000 on an incubator or putting body armour on a soldier - or on an AV compatable voting machine? We can't afford it right now".

There are groups actively trying to get people less involved and actively preserving the status quo, and the fact they resort to such deceitful tactics is all I've ever needed to be an active participant. Without getting too far into it, my basic instinct is to do the opposite of what The Daily Mail or the Sun wants. Sure you'll get the odd false negative but if you want a sure-fire method, simply take the opposite position of Richard Littlejohn.

[The Legendary Shark]

You're correct, of course - just "ousting the royals" would not be enough. I'm talking about a proper republic, where the crown is passed from one hereditarily privileged family to the public as a whole. Simply passing the crown to an elected president, as happens in the US, would be pointless.
.
The president would be a non-political role, mainly one of oversight of the elected prime minister and government. At present, our prime minister is simply the Queen's proxy, weilding the power of the monarch (to deploy armed forces, sign international treaties, etc.) without needing the consent of parliament.
.
Only when the crown is with the people can there be a true republic.

[Banners]

With my limited understanding it seems to me that PR is not a good option as it doesn't allow you to choose a specific local candidate. Rather, you choose a party, and then the parties' preferred people are allocated around the country. Is that right – if not, how would it work?

[Theblazeuk]

Proportional representation would, in its most basic form, only work as a form of national representation and would mean national elections are decided by a national voting system.

However there is a kind of workaround nicking aspects from the AV system, 'the single transferable vote' method, which would allow for the continuation of constituencies. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote

Personally I am ambivalent about the benefits of constituencies. In theory all well and good, in practice at the heart of most of the problems, including the massive disconnect between what people think they are voting for (a government and a PM) and what they end up with (a parliament). Plus they are rendered nigh meaningless thanks to the party whips and the inconceivable lovecraftian horror that greets the prospect of a coalition or minority government, i.e. one which makes some nods towards the actual will of the electorate.

[GordonR]

Compulsory voting's idiotic.  As already said, democracy also means the right not to vote.

And you're going to - what? - fine people or lock them up for not voting?  That sounds like a society you want to live in?

[Jim_Campbell]

Compulsory voting's idiotic.  As already said, democracy also means the right not to vote.

Seems to work OK in Australia... and the 'None of the Above' option means that you emphatically do have the right not to vote, just that you're obliged to actively express that preference.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

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."

[The Legendary Shark]

Correction - Royal Assent, not Queen's Assent.

[M.I.K.]

Compulsory voting's idiotic.  As already said, democracy also means the right not to vote.

Seems to work OK in Australia... and the 'None of the Above' option means that you emphatically do have the right not to vote, just that you're obliged to actively express that preference.

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?