Voting tomorrow, is there any point?

[Deleted member 15344]

That depends if you think it's important that MPs raise local issues at Westminster, take part in debates, work on new laws and amendments etc.

Perhaps the country should be run by email? Or on a forum!

And all the above can be worked on at Westminster yes ? With the odd trip back home

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

You are forcing them to cast a vote or spoil etc

That impacts on their free choice - simple

Not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose, or accidentaly. Every single law in this country impacts your free choice, every single one.

Making someone attend something as important as the GE, is not impacting that much on your free choice. Making someone vote for a specific party, is a significant impact on your free choice. They really really aren't the same.

If you don't want to legitimise/support the election, spoil you ballot. It's really easy.

 

[jp5]

And all the above can be worked on at Westminster yes ? With the odd trip back home

So no need for MPs to regularly be at their constituency, whose issues they are representing?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Free choice and democracy aren't the same thing. You do understand that right?

Read my statement again

Everyone of us has a vote - what we do with that vote it up to us - our choice and we face the consequences of that choice simple as that

The minute someone is forced to vote then they no longer have that free choice to do what they wish with it.

Let people decide what they want without being told what to do.

If someone wishes not to vote then that's up to them - not you or I regardless of their reasons. I'm certainly not going to judge them because of it

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So no need for MPs to regularly be at their constituency, whose issues they are representing?

In the 8 years I haven't seen the local MP once - even when the local military base closed down which had been open since the 1930's and played a massive part in WW2 he sent his secretary as his rep for the closing down ceremony.

He has representives to work within his constituency - he can communicate with them daily - he doesn't need to be in the location

 

[jp5]

In the 8 years I haven't seen the local MP once - even when the local military base closed down which had been open since the 1930's and played a massive part in WW2 he sent his secretary as his rep for the closing down ceremony.

He has representives to work within his constituency - he can communicate with them daily - he doesn't need to be in the location

So judging all of them on the basis of your unimpressive MP?

Perhaps if you voted you'd stand a chance of getting someone better.

 

[DanFST]

Read my statement again

Everyone of us has a vote - what we do with that vote it up to us - our choice and we face the consequences of that choice simple as that

The minute someone is forced to vote then they no longer have that free choice to do what they wish with it.

Let people decide what they want without being told what to do.

If someone wishes not to vote then that's up to them - not you or I regardless of their reasons. I'm certainly not going to judge them because of it

I have. But I still don't think you get it. I'd never force anyone to vote, but they should attend a polling station and spoil their paper.

I feel that you still won't understand why i'm confused, so I ask one last question.

How can it be a valid democracy when people don't vote?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So judging all of them on the basis of your unimpressive MP?

Perhaps if you voted you'd stand a chance of getting someone better.

The MP didn't need to be there - the laws are created in Westminster - that's where they need to be and let his staff look after his area under his guidance using modern technology

But they don't "need" to constantly travel between the two places IMO

 

[FairwayDodger]

I can't see any point forcing people to vote if they don't want to and frog-marching everyone up to a polling station seems like a complete waste of effort and impinging on civil liberties.


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush

 

[Jimaroid]

How can it be a valid democracy when people don't vote?

Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.

Democracy isn't a singly defined system of government, there are many types of democracies, but fundamental principals within democratic societies are the rule of law and the political freedom for people to choose without pressure or coercion.

I'm just repeating myself from earlier in the thread now though.

 

[FairwayDodger]

 

[DanFST]

Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.

Individual freedom and Democracy are conceptual opposites.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My local Mp claimed £11,523 last year for travel and accommodation.

Not exceptional - my company paid £600/month for a flat for me for 4 yrs; £400/month unreceipted living expenses; and £300/month travel = £15,600 a year. Plenty of my colleagues on assignment live in a hotel during the week. Say 4 nights @ £125/night = £500/week = £2000/month = £24,000 a year

It's expensive working away from home - and you can't really expect MPs to fund that out of their salary unless that salary is significantly bumped up and you do away with expenses altogether. So pay MPs £125,000 a year and do away with expenses. Sorted.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

To me the fundamental flaw in the argument that not voting is 'expressing an opinion' is that it is virtually impossible for anyone to know what that opinion is. I agree that it is your right not to vote if you want to, but to me it is a very futile and dangerous thing to do, There are many many reasons why people legitimize to themselves the fact that they do not vote. So whilst one person may not vote as they can't find a parties' policies that they agree with, others will not vote as they are in a safe seat and they see it as a waste of time, others may not vote as they do not agree with the whole political system as a whole, others may not vote as they do not agree with first past the post, other may not vote as they are just completely apathetic and could not be arsed to register in time. Plus I am sure there are many other reasons people will try to justify their stance with.

But as there are so many reasons, by not voting I would argue you are not registering some kind of protest that will get heard. But you will just be classes as one of the apathetic masses that do not vote. And politicians will not care about you, why should they if you do not vote? And then when people start moaning about the government being in power with only a relatively small percentage of the total eligible vote (as they inevitably will once all the horse trading has been completed), then we have only brought that on ourselves.

Pretty much all of this

 

[jp5]

It's expensive working away from home - and you can't really expect MPs to fund that out of their salary unless that salary is significantly bumped up and you do away with expenses altogether. So pay MPs £125,000 a year and do away with expenses. Sorted.

So MPs closer to London receive a higher salary in effect.

 

[Jimaroid]

Individual freedom and Democracy are conceptual opposites.

Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Because political freedom includes the right not to participate.

Says who? Not australia?

 

[freddielong]

Not voting is not caring hidden in the lie of constitutional rights, put there by the lazy and the apethetic.

 

[Jimaroid]

Says who? Not australia?

And North Korea.

 

[pendodave]

I did.

But sadly, there was no point as I'm in one of those blue(or red) hatted donkey constituencies.

A system where only a few hundred thousand votes are actually significant is a cancer at the heart of the country imho.

I would have : Proportional representation, none of the above as an option, compulsory voting.

Politicians might care a bit more what individual voters, rather than large doners, needed.