Australia Has Compulsory Voting; Should Uk?

[Jeffrey Shaw 88]

I can see the attraction, and over 90% vote in Australia. There are small fines if one doesn't.

See BBC News item https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-61186402

UK turnouts are often depressingly low, esp. in Local Elections if not held when there's also a General Election.

So a good idea? Democratic (maximises turnout) or anti-democratic (forcing people to vote when they don't want to)?

[Dromedary 166]

59 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

I can see the attraction, and over 90% vote in Australia. There are small fines if one doesn't.

See BBC News item https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-61186402

UK turnouts are often depressingly low, esp. in Local Elections if not held when there's also a General Election.

So a good idea? Democratic (maximises turnout) or anti-democratic (forcing people to vote when they don't want to)?

 

I think what is needed in the UK is to change from a FPtP system to some form of PR and perhaps then we won't need to make it compulsory at all as the voter numbers I am certain will rise if that happens. The Australian system is also different in that it's not a First Past the Post system like ours, it's not real PR either and is based on AV which we have also rejected.

 

A higher turnout in Australia does not necessarily mean that the outcome is more legitimate or fairer just that people are forced to vote.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Dromedary

[The_DADDY 3,450]

No to compulsory voting.

I'll vote if I choose to and not because I'm told to.

[Anna B 1,401]

IMO voting should be compulsory, but there should be a 'none of the above' option on the paper.

That way we can begin to tell the difference between apathy and out and out disaffection.

[S1 1DJ 11]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

IMO voting should be compulsory, but there should be a 'none of the above' option on the paper.

That way we can begin to tell the difference between apathy and out and out disaffection.

Voting should never be compulsory and a box to abstain from voting for added to ballots in my opinion.  Also, a move from FPtP to AV or PR would be better. Politics, politicians and parties are failing us and a shake up is required and not a two/three horse race. An abstain box would demonstrate resent, but turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas.

[Dromedary 166]

1 hour ago, S1 1DJ said:

Voting should never be compulsory and a box to abstain from voting for added to ballots in my opinion.  Also, a move from FPtP to AV or PR would be better. Politics, politicians and parties are failing us and a shake up is required and not a two/three horse race. An abstain box would demonstrate resent, but turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas.

The AV system is now out of the equation as we have already had a referendum on changing to that. Personally I think that if it had been a referendum for PR and not AV it would have gained a majority and it was one gamble that actually paid off for Cameron with 67.5% rejecting it with a very low turnout of 42%. His other gamble failed so he had to resign.... 

[m williamson 800]

The FPTP voting system isn't fit for purpose. The only votes that matter are those cast in marginal constituencies.

 

FPTP  resulted in a party that won 43.6% of all votes cast obtaining an eighty seat majority, enabling them to do whatever they please. In what way is that democratic?

Had PR been in operation the Conservatives would have won 45% of the seats making them the biggest party and reflecting closely their support. However, they would not have been able to do as they please, and would have had to take other views into account. Perhaps they wouldn't have been so eager to hand out contracts for PPE to people with no experience of manufacturing PPE and ferry contracts to companies with no ships and ignore laws that they introduced?

 

In 2011 we were offered an alternative to FPTP but care was taken by our political ' leaders ' not to offer PR as the alternative, for the simple reason that it's not possible to argue the merits of FPTP against PR. Instead we were offered an equally flawed system encouraging the electorate to keep the status quo.

PR+STV has been in operation in the UK since 1973, when it was introduced into Northern Ireland in order to prove that after all the gerrymandering and duplicitous conniving of the Unionist party a fair system was finally in place. So why wasn't it the alternative offered?

 

The fact that PR wasn't offered in Britain was because our politicians prefer FPTP because it suits them and we don't matter. Complete and utter contempt for the general public, they know best.

 

With regard to compulsory voting, Yes, providing there is a square for ' None of the Above ' and if that choice wins all the party's have to campaign again with different candidates.

[crookesey 619]

If it’s made compulsory I will spoil my slip.

[melthebell 862]

12 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

No to compulsory voting.

I'll vote if I choose to and not because I'm told to.

Ooh we agree on something

[spilldig 185]

Wouldn't be any use anyway for the reason Crookesy just stated in post number 9 .  If they did do it, as has been said, then there should be a box for, none of the above, but I can't see them bringing themselves to do that.

[The_DADDY 3,450]

7 hours ago, melthebell said:

Ooh we agree on something

Welcome to the dark side 🙏

[alchemist 35]

20 hours ago, West 77 said:

Our system works fine as it is.  Compulsory voting would turn our election system into more of a lottery than the efficient system we enjoy and reap the benefits from at the moment. If someone doesn't really want to vote and is forced by law to vote then the chances are those individuals will decide which box to tick by the eeny, meeny, miny, moe method rather than an informed choice. 

No, what would happen is a massive increase in spoiled papers.  Other than that nothing would change.  It would still be the donkey in the local colours