why are you not voting today?

[nicksonic]

If "none of the above" got more votes than all the other votes put together, never mind the "winner".. could the "winner" really be called as such??

exactly.

'terror' is probably one of the reasons 'none of the above' hasn't been added to the ballot paper; politicians know that a populist campaign of sorts for this option would be successful and increase turnout, damning themselves in the process.

 

[cesare]

exactly.

'terror' is probably one of the reasons 'none of the above' hasn't been added to the ballot paper; politicians know that a populist campaign of sorts for this option would be successful and increase turnout, damning themselves in the process.

There is a campaign: http://www.positiveabstention.com/

 

[gamma globulins]

Concerned, maybe. But I have no idea what they'd do to resolve the situation. Because whatever they did they'd want to resolve it in their favour (hence the 'try harder' schtick).

 

[cesare]

Concerned, maybe. But I have no idea what they'd do to resolve the situation. Because whatever they did they'd want to resolve it in their favour (hence the 'try harder' schtick).

They'd want to try and resolve it in their favour ... but they'd have to convince the positive abstainers.

 

[nicksonic]

There is a campaign: http://www.positiveabstention.com/

thanks.

 

[YouSir]

Edit - Didn't notice that this was a six page thread, ignore me.

 

[cesare]

thanks.

NP

There's lots more info/research in the links here as well: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/turnout.htm

 

[danny la rouge]

Edit - Didn't notice that this was a six page thread, ignore me.

It's a 4-page thread.

 

[gamma globulins]

I think that the declining trend in voter turnout has resulted in increased efforts to find out why + more effort put into feedback e.g. theyworkforyou, availability of MP's email addresses, better dissemination of information, research into the phenomena and recording/analysing it via ONS (amongst others) and ... I really, really, don't think that they like the prospect of shaky majorities if the reason is primarily disenchantment.

I think there's also an element of "if I do the they work for you stuff I'll look good/better than those who don't/if I don't I'll look worse than those who do". That said our local tory candidate hasn't filled out the theyworkforyou stuff, nor has she replied to many letters/emails. Mind you perhaps she feels that every bit of contact she has loses her votes....

 

[nicksonic]

NP

rather than 'MP', of course

 

[cesare]

I think there's also an element of "if I do the they work for you stuff I'll look good/better than those who don't/if I don't I'll look worse than those who do". That said our local tory candidate hasn't filled out the theyworkforyou stuff, nor has she replied to many letters/emails. Mind you perhaps she feels that every bit of contact she has loses her votes....

I think that's a factor, yes. A lot depends on how safe the seat is I guess. Together with whether they hold ministerial positions.

 

[cesare]

rather than 'MP', of course

Yep

 

[nicksonic]

so to register your dissatisfaction which course of action is 'best' - spoiling your ballot paper or not turning out at all?

 

[cesare]

so to register your dissatisfaction which course of action is 'best' - spoiling your ballot paper or not turning out at all?

Not turning out (spoiling the ballot paper endorses the system).

 

[danny la rouge]

so to register your dissatisfaction which course of action is 'best' - spoiling your ballot paper or not turning out at all?

Not turning out.

 

[gamma globulins]

Spoiling your ballot indicates you exist and care about politics and government. Not turning out can be read as you couldn't be arsed.

 

[nicksonic]

Spoiling your ballot indicates you exist and care about politics and government. Not turning out can be read as you couldn't be arsed.

that was my instinct. spoiling your ballot means (to me) i care about how the country's run but don't agree enough to vote for anyone standing.

 

[danny la rouge]

Spoiling your ballot indicates you exist and care about politics and government. Not turning out can be read as you couldn't be arsed.

No, spoiling your ballot gets you lumped in with people who didn't know how to vote, and half a dozen Green Pens. The candidates will look at the spoilt ballots for 15 seconds while the returning officer explains why they are being disallowed, and no further thought will be given to them.

 

[nicksonic]

evidently that's why a 'none of the above' option is required.

 

[kabbes]

Any government only ultimately governs because the people let them do so. Government, like other nebulous concepts such as money and justice, is a mass hallucination that we buy into. If people en masse refused to be governed by Westminster then there isn't much that MPs could do about it.

The key thing is that they know this. On some level, at least. And that's why the size of the mandate matters. The lower it drops, the closer people are to choosing to shake off the hallucination.

If this idea seems ridiculous now then that's because it is ridiculous. At the moment, about half to two-thirds of the public actively participate in the democratic process and I'd guess that most of those who don't are probably either apathetic or otherwise believe in the system but don't get involved. So we're a LONG way off anything dramatic happening.

But if turn-out dropped down to the 25%, 20%, 10% kind of levels, don't you think that would indicate a change of mindset? A change that politicians would have to be scared of, because it would undermine their whole existance?

 

[nicksonic]

kabbes, you don't think a change to PR would help...?

 

[_angel_]

No, spoiling your ballot gets you lumped in with people who didn't know how to vote, and half a dozen Green Pens. The candidates will look at the spoilt ballots for 15 seconds while the returning officer explains why they are being disallowed, and no further thought will be given to them.

The difference is a bit academic tbh.

 

[gamma globulins]

Any government only ultimately governs because the people let them do so. Government, like other nebulous concepts such as money and justice, is a mass hallucination that we buy into. If people en masse refused to be governed by Westminster then there isn't much that MPs could do about it.

The key thing is that they know this. On some level, at least. And that's why the size of the mandate matters. The lower it drops, the closer people are to choosing to shake off the hallucination.

If this idea seems ridiculous now then that's because it is ridiculous. At the moment, about half to two-thirds of the public actively participate in the democratic process and I'd guess that most of those who don't are probably either apathetic or otherwise believe in the system but don't get involved. So we're a LONG way off anything dramatic happening.

But if turn-out dropped down to the 25%, 20%, 10% kind of levels, don't you think that would indicate a change of mindset? A change that politicians would have to be scared of, because it would undermine their whole existance?

Not as much as you might think. These are people who work on (essentially) five-year contracts after all. Even without a drop in mandate, they are acutely aware that they may lose their job come the next election anyway, and that national issues they have relatively little control over can determine this. They always have a plan B for their careers. The change in mindset might just be someone else's problem.

 

[cesare]

Spoiling your ballot indicates you exist and care about politics and government. Not turning out can be read as you couldn't be arsed.

If they want to read it that way - fine.

 

[Lo Siento.]

But if turn-out dropped down to the 25%, 20%, 10% kind of levels, don't you think that would indicate a change of mindset? A change that politicians would have to be scared of, because it would undermine their whole existance?

Depends what it was accompanied by, tbh. Apathy and fatalism? They'd probably just tut-tut a bit, mouth some platitudes about how disappointing it all was, then just get on with whatever they fancied doing...

 

[kabbes]

Not as much as you might think. These are people who work on (essentially) five-year contracts after all. Even without a drop in mandate, they are acutely aware that they may lose their job come the next election anyway, and that national issues they have relatively little control over can determine this. They always have a plan B for their careers. The change in mindset might just be someone else's problem.

A Plan B in the event of the total breakdown of government? That's some Plan B.

 

[kabbes]

kabbes, you don't think a change to PR would help...?

Personally, yes, I do. I think people would feel more engaged if they knew that their vote wasn't essentially just being thrown in the bin.

 

[gamma globulins]

Why should any one person have a plan B for the total breakdown of government? They'll probably lose/resign their seat before that happens. All they have to look out for are themselves after all. It's not like we've seen much of any other kind of behaviour?

 

[kabbes]

I think you're not seeing the forest for the tree stump that you are bent over.

 

[gamma globulins]

Possibly. But no-one has suggested what the outcome of the loss of mandate might be? Where politics would go from there, and who would guide the country through the transition? If the authorities don't have any, do they just disappear or do they keep pretending they do for as long as possible? In my opinion if you're not voting because you don't believe in the system, it'd be nice to have an idea of what that might lead to next.