Voting turnout

[legalbeagle]

So. The whopping 67% of you who didn't turn out to vote on Thursday? Not at word NOT A WORD of moaning from you about the state of the nation until the next elections please.

Now go to your rooms and think about what you've done.

[silverfox]

...or haven't done

[maxxi]

It was like Christmas... I waited for ages for it to come along.. then didn't get what I wanted.

Still... it's all about the thought really isn't it?

[legalbeagle]

Yes it is. In a sort of "I thought one vote wouldn't make a difference and it was raining" kind of a way.

*sigh*

[maxxi]

Or in a "I thought my vote would make a difference/count" so I went - and it didn't - kind of way.

ETA: Perhaps people would be more encouraged next time if they were to bear in mind Lord Oakeshott's bemoaning the effect of the election results on the Libdems: "One more election like this and we will be in danger of no longer being a national party" - surely making that happen is worth a walk in the rain?

[legalbeagle]

You were let down by the 67% i fear......

[woodrot]

Im totes forgot to vote, what with the Titantic and everything, I;ve been a bit distracted

Blates the best man won.

[legalbeagle]

*tuts*

[Loz]

I blame the 99%.

[legalbeagle]

Are you the one in ten?

[Loz]

Or the one in a hundred, even.

[Applespider]

The low turnout is utterly depressing. It's not even 100 years since suffragettes were dying over their future daughters' right to vote. Would they (and those who campaigned for universal suffrage alongside them) have fought so hard if they'd known that the majority of those they fought for 'couldn't be bothered' or 'forgot'. People are still dying across the world to get the right to vote. Makes me so angry when people don't! (6)

[????]

Personally I find the Tribalism, general unpleasentness and political 'professionalism'/party system more depressing.

Didn't vote and 'entirely relaxed' about it - when they start by and large talking like adults they may well get a bit more engagement

[ratty]

Seeing as low turnouts help the Tories, the vote would only have been amplified had the turnout been higher.

However, politicians now seem to only wish to appeal to the lowest common denominator which is making British politics so depressing.

[Atticus]

I felt dirty voting, just like I did yesterday supporting chelsea.

[Chippy Minton]

Boris got 51% of a 38% turnout, which is 19% of eligible voters - now that's depressing!

[Brendan]

There wasn't a OMRLP candidate for my village so a spoilt my ballot. It got me out the house for half an hour.

I know they're supposed to still count spoilt votes but I'm not sure where you would find out how many people did so.

[Twirly]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The low turnout is utterly depressing. It's not

> even 100 years since suffragettes were dying over

> their future daughters' right to vote. Would they

> (and those who campaigned for universal suffrage

> alongside them) have fought so hard if they'd

> known that the majority of those they fought for

> 'couldn't be bothered' or 'forgot'. People are

> still dying across the world to get the right to

> vote. Makes me so angry when people don't! (6)

Too true! I always think of all the people in other parts of the world today who would love the chance to vote in an election and actually get to chose their leaders - including those who are fighting and dying for the right to do so. If you neglect your rights, it's only a matter of time before someone decides to take them away from you...

What gets me too about the way our elections are run is how open to abuse the system is. All you have to do is turn up, give your name and address and that's it - no ID checks or anything. You don't even have to present your polling card! Anyone could turn up and vote on someone else's behalf, with or without their permission, all you need to do is consult the electoral register to get the names and addresses (as it's a public document) and off you go.

And then there was the somewhat disorganised set up locally. There was one woman in front of me when I went to cast my vote, but it still took 5 minutes to get my papers, and even then I was given the wrong ones. Voted for mayor, turned over the next slip only to find the same list of names and realised that I'd got two slips of the same colour... cue even more confusion trying to sort it out. How difficult can it be? Someone else I know had problems too, had to give their name and address about 5 or 6 times before they were found on the list. I wonder if this was just our local polling station, or if it was replicated across the country?

[V511]

For the record I voted and always do, but the number of people who get enraged by people not voting alarms me. I'm not convinced they've thought their argument through:

1) To suggest that because people are dying in pro-democracy struggles we should all go out and vote, is a false correlation that is ill judged and deliberately emotive. By implying that we must all vote, you are denying us the one key aspect that those people are fighting for; the freedom to chose. If I am not free to chose whether to vote at all, I am not in a democracy.

2) In the UK electoral system, whether the turnout is 10% or 90%, one of those candidates will be elected. Whether I vote or not will not change that.

3) If those candidates are all abhorrent to me, my only option is to spoil the ballot, which officially means nothing. It is counted, but how is that spoiled ballot interpreted? It isn't.

4) If I didn't support this particular electoral system or democracy as the political system, and none of the candidates supported a change along those lines, how can I express that view and have it registered? I can't.

5) To suggest that If I don't vote I therefore have no right to complain about what happens really should be turned the other way round. The people who do vote have no right to complain as they are the ones who elected these candidates into power.

6) This argument also presupposes that voting is the only valid form of political participation, which it isn't. Engaging with political representatives directly, working with public and private non-governmental organisations, joining political parties, trade unions, associations etc are the vast bulk of where formal politics happens. Voting is an incredibly blunt and reductive instrument of being forced to choose from a pre-selected set of candidates, that is a momentary part of political society. Politics is happening in many ways, levels and intensities on a daily basis and to think that an election is the key decisive moment is false.

Simon.

[????]

Very well put Simon

[linzbee]

compulsory voting. works perfectly well in the colonies as well as an elected upper house :)

[Applespider]

Simon - I do agree with some of your arguments and I'm not saying that I'd want compulsory voting. If there was, you would need a way to count discontent other than spoiling your paper which can be counted as incompetence.

What bothers me is not those who have chosen not to vote because they disagree with all the candidates or would like to protest but really those who just can't be bothered and then complain bitterly about their local council, their MP etc without ever having tried to change things. At least those of us who voted (but for the minority) can complain and argue that we tried to change things. It's one reason that I would like some form of PR so that everyone's vote does count - even if it's just as a supplementary pool as they do in the Scottish Parliament.

Those who feel entirely disengaged by the process bother me too - but more around why they are disengaged and what it would take to get them involved.

[uncleglen]

I think that people are disengaged because no matter who they vote for their actual qualiy of life is not going to change. Because of the media the whole process is blown out of proportion and is reduced to a slanging match. From what people who have not voted have said to me the overwhelming reason seems to be that it doesn't matter who you vote for, nothing changes- so why bother?

[V511]

Applespider - I understand your point, but I think too much emphasis and value is placed on elections as an expression of the peoples will and/or as an expression of peoples involvement in politics. For example, the recent Coalition changes to the NHS in the form that developed, were not part of the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats manifestos. Those that were against the change, who might have included people who did not vote, had to engage political in every way but voting. They had to write to their MP, sign petitions, join groups etc. The people who you say are criticising without voting may well be engaged in different ways.

For me there is no correct level, threshold or type of political engagement and I don't believe one could be set.

I personally wish that people were more involved, however that is manifested, but I defend their decision to criticise without actively seeking to affect change, because I view simple dissent as not non-action but on the contrary, as a political act.

On the general issue of disengagement/disillusionment which Uncleglen also raises, there are a myriad of reasons why this is, such as the voting system which limits and reduces the range of views, the structures of governance which result in a binary conflict of 'whose got the ball of power today', the rationality of the dominant economic system which reduces the range of political action down to the 'narcissism of small differences', the media for having contorted itself into a false world view of 'balance' which in reality just reflects the narrow discourse of the political elites, rather than the fuller picture of what is going on.

Also, some of the changes that people may want are practically very difficult, because they could be fighting against the historical and politically developments of many decades and centuries. Capitalism for example was a massive change in society that occurred over the last 300 years or so. Its not going anywhere fast. At best, all that can be changed in the present is a slight tweaking and a re-regulation, which might be sufficient for some, but disengaging for those want more fundamental change.

In light of this and various others, it doesn't surprise me that people feel disengaged. However, where I do make a critique of people, is that it is not the responsibility of political society to engage them, to motivate them. It is for the individual to motivate themselves, to question, to challenge, to educate and inform themselves and apply that if they want to.

Simon.

[El Pibe]

I quite like the way Charlie Brooker put it in his column

Someone recently told me that politics enjoys a level of media attention that's seriously disproportionate to its actual relevance or popularity. It should really only get about as much coverage as golf does, they argued. Both golf and politics have a core of hardcore fans surrounded by a healthy-sized cloud of casual followers. But most of the population doesn't really give a toss unless there's a big personality involved.

The more I think about it, the more that analogy rings true. The problem for politicians is that their chosen sport looks increasingly weird and arcane in the present day ? like water polo or lacrosse. The uniforms are antiquated, the rules are stifling, the action is boring, and they're constantly terrified of upsetting their sponsors. The spectators don't understand the lingo, don't think there's much skill involved, and suspect the game's rigged anyway.