Quids Said - would you do it?

[david_carnell]

PGC - I have flirted with the idea of compulsory voting (a la Australia) over the years and have flip-flopped from one camp to another. However, currently and until someone persuades me otherwise, I would have to say I am opposed to the idea.

Whilst I can sympathise with the idea and certainly appreciate the sentiment (suffragettes always get the violins going) I have some major concerns:

1) On a practical level, is it enforceable? And what would the punishment be should you refuse? I can forsee poll-tax style mass non-cooperation.

2) In a nation that is supposed(!) to pride itself on the liberty and freedoms of the individual, can coercing people into a ballot box ever be acceptable?

3) Would such a measure really result in a more engaged and politically educated public or merely a largely disgruntled group of ballot-spoilers?

[Moos]

I will ask my friends in Belgium and report back on what they say. Predictably, they seem to find it a bit annoying but are rather amazed by the low turnouts in other country.

By the way, d_c, PGC didn't mention suffragettes, but universal suffrage.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Not just the Mrs Banks types, DC - not so very long ago, you wouldn't have been able to vote as you are not a property owner!

I accept that it's probably not enforcable, maybe we just need to teach history better.

[david_carnell]

Moos Wrote:

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

> By the way, d_c, PGC didn't mention suffragettes,

> but universal suffrage.

Yes, I know that. But the "suffragettes died to get the vote" argument is often used as rationale/guilt-tripping when discussing your responsibility to vote.

[david_carnell]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Not just the Mrs Banks types, DC - not so very

> long ago, you wouldn't have been able to vote as

> you are not a property owner!

>

> I accept that it's probably not enforcable, maybe

> we just need to teach history better.

Mmm, of course you are historically spot on PGC. And yes, I think we do need better education, exciting education regarding how history and politics are not fusty academic subjects but run through our every-day lives.

But essentially what we need are politicians who people can believe in.

I don't think it is coincidence that the fall in turnout mirrors the decline in the true ideologies of the major parties. Pragmatism doesn't allow people to be inspired.

[Keef]

But essentially what we need are politicians who people can believe in.

Good one man! >:D<

[david_carnell]

Aye, well, one can dream eh, Keef?!

[????]

Guy Fawkes for instance

[Brendan]

Well can you think of any other individual who has a national day of celebration named after them?

[Jeremy]

Father Christmas?

Oh hang on...

[Marmora Man]

Proportional Representation - I have long resisted this innovation. I can see the attraction - given that we have now had 30 years with just two governments, but still feel it has four major flaws:

1. It tends to create weak coalition governments - eg Italy / Israel etc. Constant shifting of allegiances for short term political advantage works to the disadvantage of the electorate and tends to create far more elections and short term governments. Would a coalition government have tackled excessive union power in the 80's or managed to pass the anti hunting legislation in the 90's? (I'm not arguing for either particular piece of legislation, merely that they required a strong government to achieve)

2. There are two perverse effects - each the opposite of the other. One is a tendency to the mean or centre - the need for the relatively strong parties to maximise their support by not being too extreme. Yet, at the same time any particular coalition may need to shore up its alliance by bringing onboard a more extreme party and tailor it's approach to keep that faction happy.

3. Since there usually needs to be a period of negotiation before the government is declared the electorate cannot vote for a clear manifesto - whatever each party may have said they will trim their sails to enter power in a coalition.

4. It breaks the important link between MP and a constituency. An MP may be "allocated" to a constituency from a party list but the essential geographical link with a community and its party association is lost. This gives the party leadership great powers to place political mavericks sufficiently far down the selection list that they have no chance of being allocated.

[david_carnell]

I'll try and answer some of your points in full shortly MamoraMan but just for fun I found a calculator that allowed me to input the votes gained in the last general election, and using a 5% threshold, calculate the number of seats gained by each party using the D'Hondt method of PR. You can see my efforts here.

For those unable to open the link the results are as follows:

Actual Election

Labour, 9.5m votes, 356 seats

Cons, 8.7m votes, 198 seats

LibDems, 5.9m votes, 62 seats

UKIP, 0.6m votes, 0 seats

SNP, 0.4m votes, 6 seats

D'Hondt method PR election results

Labour 254 seats

Cons 233 seats

LibDems 159 seats

No other parties managed to cross the 5% threshold (which is fairly standard). So the Libs and Tories are massive winners but against my own preconceptions, none of the "small" parties got any seats in a nationwide poll. Would this be fair?

The answer would be to do the same on a constituency basis but making the constituencies very large and returning more than one member for each. Thus allowing a member/constituency link and ensuring that every vote matters.

[Marmora Man]

DC - I don't think the three party arrangement would continue in a full PR system. Labour, Cons and Lib Dems (esp LIb Dems) would fragment into smaller groupings with different agendas - resulting in many more small parties exceeding the 5% threshold.

[woofmarkthedog]

Ok

[Huguenot]

Gosh TLS, you took that personally!

I can assure you that if you saw yourself within my criticism, that was your choice, not mine.

The suggestion that it was a personal attack, if I was simply disagreeing with your opinion, is a trait I tend to associate with football hooligans, not yourself. Mind you, I found your repetition of 'suffer the consequences' to be disturbing, almost threatening? I have no doubt I was mistaken.

I appreciate your worldliness, but your social engagements aren't a great argument - for example wife beaters have to get married to be one.

The assertion that 'plenty of people believe the same as me' is also weak. Plenty of people believe in homeopathy and capital punishment. The fact that people are proud of their homeland is by-the-by.

You asked a couple of direct questions of Tory provenance.

Regarding your question about 'priority', if you hadn't noticed I've got enviro-socialist leanings: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. It's a belief that's both politics and colour blind.

TBH, to compare an Afgan family with a middle class family man in Tunbrudge Wells, I'm more likely to consider victims of horrific oppression as 'needy' over economic convenience. I believe it's illogical to consider the home counties any more 'part of my gang' than Kabul. I find the 'nation state' a useful management construct, but jingoism pointless.

Regarding 'illegals', you may also have noticed that I believe in the application of law, and changes in the law if they are inappropriate. This applies to immigration.

Tony mate, I don't know you, I'm sure you're a great bloke. If you pursue an egocentric political agenda then I'm sure you find my views frustrating, but that doesn't entitle you to 'Invite Me Out To Meet Your Mates'.

I don't need to feel 'safe' on this forum, I'm concerned that you think my safety is an issue. I simply express a view that you don't share in a public environment.

[????]

hahahhahaha....your first two sentences are completley laughable......you know excatly what you were saying Hugenot and how you can now pretend otherwise is 'weasly words' at best, I think

[Huguenot]

Bah, Quids, now I think that you can't take opposing views sensibly either!

[????]

I don't agree with everything Tony said Hugenot, I just felt that his views were being dismissed in a failry predictable and actually offensive way...that's all....

[Huguenot]

Okay, point taken. I was being more than a little disparaging. I've been a bit grumpy for over a week now, reviewing recent posting history.