Referendum

[Easy_Rider]

I understand the current system quite well, and it is true the winning party receives more votes than any other singal party. Doesn't mean they will receive more than 50% to win I know, what's wrong with that? The only thing that needs to change are the constituency sizes to make them fairer. Currently they favour labour, I think from the top of my head labour would need something like 5% less of the general vote to win outright than the conservatives.

 

[legrandefromage]

make it compulsory voting

 

[Neil]

make it compulsory voting

It's rationale like that, that has people declaring their religion as Jedi on census forms.

 

[BarneyRubble]

make it compulsory voting

Couldn't agree more. At least that way everyone has to consider their choice, even if it is to spoil the paper.

Perhaps we should have compulsory voting in botm as well.

 

[IDB1]

Perhaps we should have compulsory voting in botm as well.

That wouldn't work at all.. the regularly active membership of the site is a small percentage of the total number..

 

[MikeD]

I know this is going right back to the start of the thread, but:

No wonder the Lib Dems want AV. Rolling Eyes

They don't. AV is a Labour policy. The Lib Dems want Single Transferable Vote, but since they'll never get that they're backing AV as a step in their desired direction.

And frankly, anyone who finds AV too complicated probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. "Rank these candidates in order of preference" - not hard, is it?

 

[BarneyRubble]

Perhaps we should have compulsory voting in botm as well.

That wouldn't work at all.. the regularly active membership of the site is a small percentage of the total number..

Perhaps just av then.

 

[Neil]

make it compulsory voting

Couldn't agree more. At least that way everyone has to consider their choice, even if it is to spoil the paper.

But that's not what would happen - see the census analogy.

Some people wouldn't care less, some would rebel against being compelled to vote.

Carrot and stick - well possibly poor analogy - but you get where I'm coming from - I can see the benefits of encouraging more people to take an active role in voting (either local, or central government) and to create some appeal for society to care more.

Forcing them to, though, often is motivated from that lazy argument - "If you didn't vote, you've got no right to criticise". What about those who genuinely believe (and have considered it) that none of the choices either reflect or represent their wishes for who should be elected, or would have any true bearing on wielding influence for their political preferences. Hobson's?

 

[IDB1]

And frankly, anyone who finds AV too complicated probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. "Rank these candidates in order of preference" - not hard, is it?

Not unless the voter doesn't know all the candidates.. and not every voter will have the time and/or inclination to do the research.
Or perhaps they just don't have the head for politics.. doesn't make them simpletons or less than average intelligence..

I guess there's always the option of just voting for 1 candidate, which is what I suspect many will do.. if that happens this system will be no different to FPTP in reality, will it?

 

[FluffyChicken]

I remember voting with a ranking system while I was in Cardiff in the early '00's. What system where they using ?

Was easy for me to do.

We do also need a 'couldn't care less' and 'none of 'em' vote on there more to see how many of each we get

Currently they are not split and just combined as a spoilt or not turn up.