Expensive Claims

[Atomic Shrimp]

I don't need 'appeasing', thanks. As you pointed out, voting is a right, It's not mandatory. If everyone who feels that none of the candidates is worth voting for were forced to vote for one of them anyway, where is the democracy you mentioned?

Nobody should be forced, but if it's a right you care to keep, it might be worth exercising it once in a while.

Spoiling the ballot papers may be very satisying to you on a personal level but do you honestly imagine any of the people involved care?

If it happened to any significant degree, they would have to care, because the media would hound and deride any party that didn't at least try to appear to care.

 

[Alc]

Nobody should be forced, but if it's a right you care to keep, it might be worth exercising it once in a while.

So if I feel that all candidates are equally poor, I should go along and scribble on my ballot paper? Waste of time. The right to vote won't be removed simply because some people don't vote any more than the right to drive will be removed because some people don't have cars.

If it happened to any significant degree, they would have to care, because the media would hound and deride any party that didn't at least try to appear to care.

There's a huge difference between caring and saying they care, and an even bigger difference between caring and being able and willing to do anything about it. The only way the parties would get more people to vote would be:
a) Make it illegal not to. Useless in practise, as that would just force people to do it - assuming they didn't want to break the law - and so remove the democratic part of it.
b) Change their policies. Perfect in theory, as if people felt strongly enough about one or more issues, they'd be far more likely to make the effort. I certainly would. Useless in practise, as every policy change made would lose as many party devotees as it would gain new voters.

Let's say that the parties all come out and say how terrible it is that so many people spoiled their ballots, will that affect anything? No.
Those people who voted for one or other party will make disapproving noises about how those wasted ballots could have prevented the 'other side' from getting into power;
Those people who spoiled their ballots can sit back and get a warm feeling from having made their own little protest;
Those people who didn't vote will still not vote;
The politicians will have gone through the motions, from a PR perspective;
and the whole thing will be repeated next time around.

I don't vote because I see no point in it, based on the choices I've been offered, not out of laziness. I voted once, the first time I was legally eligible, as I felt I had a choice between what the available candidates offered and based my decision on that. There is no way someone is going to convince me to vote purely for the sake of it, even less to spoil a ballot paper, as I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to why I should.

 

[Pauldohert]

So if I feel that all candidates are equally poor, I should go along and scribble on my ballot paper? Waste of time. The right to vote won't be removed simply because some people don't vote any more than the right to drive will be removed because some people don't have cars.

There's a huge difference between caring and saying they care, and an even bigger difference between caring and being able and willing to do anything about it. The only way the parties would get more people to vote would be:
a) Make it illegal not to. Useless in practise, as that would just force people to do it - assuming they didn't want to break the law - and so remove the democratic part of it.
b) Change their policies. Perfect in theory, as if people felt strongly enough about one or more issues, they'd be far more likely to make the effort. I certainly would. Useless in practise, as every policy change made would lose as many party devotees as it would gain new voters.

Let's say that the parties all come out and say how terrible it is that so many people spoiled their ballots, will that affect anything? No.
Those people who voted for one or other party will make disapproving noises about how those wasted ballots could have prevented the 'other side' from getting into power;
Those people who spoiled their ballots can sit back and get a warm feeling from having made their own little protest;
Those people who didn't vote will still not vote;
The politicians will have gone through the motions, from a PR perspective;
and the whole thing will be repeated next time around.

I don't vote because I see no point in it, based on the choices I've been offered, not out of laziness. I voted once, the first time I was legally eligible, as I felt I had a choice between what the available candidates offered and based my decision on that. There is no way someone is going to convince me to vote purely for the sake of it, even less to spoil a ballot paper, as I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to why I should.

Well you could spoil the paper to register the fact that its not just that you are lazy , but that you really don't want to vote for any of the options.

 

[Rabbie]

Vote BNP - the ultimate spoiling of a ballot paper, they may care about that.

While the main parties would care about that you may unwittingly be giving comfort and support to a party I regard as repugnant with its racialist views.

 

[Alc]

Well you could spoil the paper to register the fact that its not just that you are lazy , but that you really don't want to vote for any of the options.

How would they distinguish my deliberately spoiled ballot from those completed by idiots who just couldn't fill one in correctly? Let's assume I wrote 'I don't want to vote for any of these w******s' while my neighbour checked all of those he didn't want to vote for, leaving only his intended selection blank. All that would be recorded is the fact that two were spoiled.

What difference would it make, genuinely? Yes, I know I'd feel better, but what would it realistically change?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So if I feel that all candidates are equally poor, I should go along and scribble on my ballot paper? Waste of time. The right to vote won't be removed simply because some people don't vote any more than the right to drive will be removed because some people don't have cars.

I think it's unlikely that something as prominent as general elections would ever fall into such unpopularity that it would be at risk of loss through lack of exercise (although other rights have fallen this way, no doubt), but that's not really my point.
If you care about the right, that care should translate into action, or it's not actually care at all. It's quite OK not to care (lots of people don't care), and then accept whatever is given to you (or forced upon you).

Just my opinion, maybe you feel different.

There's a huge difference between caring and saying they care, and an even bigger difference between caring and being able and willing to do anything about it. The only way the parties would get more people to vote would be:
a) Make it illegal not to. Useless in practise, as that would just force people to do it - assuming they didn't want to break the law - and so remove the democratic part of it.
b) Change their policies. Perfect in theory, as if people felt strongly enough about one or more issues, they'd be far more likely to make the effort. I certainly would. Useless in practise, as every policy change made would lose as many party devotees as it would gain new voters.

Let's say that the parties all come out and say how terrible it is that so many people spoiled their ballots, will that affect anything? No.
Those people who voted for one or other party will make disapproving noises about how those wasted ballots could have prevented the 'other side' from getting into power;
Those people who spoiled their ballots can sit back and get a warm feeling from having made their own little protest;
Those people who didn't vote will still not vote;
The politicians will have gone through the motions, from a PR perspective;
and the whole thing will be repeated next time around.

If the pool of spoiled ballots is significant, politicians would compete to capture them as positive votes. That competition would be a good thing, I think.

I don't vote because I see no point in it, based on the choices I've been offered, not out of laziness. I voted once, the first time I was legally eligible, as I felt I had a choice between what the available candidates offered and based my decision on that. There is no way someone is going to convince me to vote purely for the sake of it, even less to spoil a ballot paper, as I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to why I should.

Are you prepared to accept without complaint whatever happens as a direct result of the election you didn't participate in? Obviously your single vote wouldn't have swung it any differently, but if there's any correlation between what you want to happen, and the same desires in other people who also choose not to vote, you may collectively be defeating your own goals.

 

[Rabbie]

How would they distinguish my deliberately spoiled ballot from those completed by idiots who just couldn't fill one in correctly? Let's assume I wrote 'I don't want to vote for any of these w******s' while my neighbour checked all of those he didn't want to vote for, leaving only his intended selection blank. All that would be recorded is the fact that two were spoiled.

What difference would it make, genuinely? Yes, I know I'd feel better, but what would it realistically change?

It would at least record that you and your neighbour had taken the trouble to go to the polling station and were not apathetic don't cares!.

 

[Pauldohert]

While the main parties would care baout that you may unwittingly be giving comfort and support to a party I regard as repugnant with its racialist views.

I am not sure how the Tories would gain comfort from it?

 

[Alc]

I think it's unlikely that something as prominent as general elections would ever fall into such unpopularity that it would be at risk of loss through lack of exercise (although other rights have fallen this way, no doubt), but that's not really my point.
If you care about the right, that care should translate into action, or it's not actually care at all. It's quite OK not to care (lots of people don't care), and then accept whatever is given to you (or forced upon you).

Just my opinion, maybe you feel different.

My decisions were based on the fact that I'd be presented with, let's say, two options (hypothetical extremes, obviously):
Party A - If voted in, promise to greatly lower taxes but forcibly eject anyone who wasn't born in the UK.
Party B - If voted in, will increase spending on education but privatise all healthcare

Neither of those is getting my vote since the good points they offer are at least balanced out by the bad points. Will I be happy with whoever gets in? No, but at least I'll have the satisfaction of knowing I didn't help them.

If the pool of spoiled ballots is significant, politicians would compete to capture them as positive votes. That competition would be a good thing, I think.

As I said, great in theory but never likely to happen.

Are you prepared to accept without complaint whatever happens as a direct result of the election you didn't participate in? Obviously your single vote wouldn't have swung it any differently, but if there's any correlation between what you want to happen, and the same desires in other people who also choose not to vote, you may collectively be defeating your own goals.

As stated above, I'm going to be unhappy with whoever gets into power, since they all do things I disagree with. If the day comes that a party promises only those things I agree with I'll be the first to vote, I just won't hold my breath.

 

[Rabbie]

I am not sure how the Tories would gain comfort from it?

While I do not vote Tory I was referring to the BNP

 

[Pauldohert]

I think many times I have voted neither the BNP nor the Tories have bothered with a candidate here.

 

[Alc]

It would at least record that you and your neighbour had taken the trouble to go to the polling station and were not apathetic don't cares!.

I see what your'e saying, but it still wouldn't achieve anything, would it?
I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone separates out 'deliberately spoiled' from 'accidentally incorrect' from 'wrote a pertinent message' ballots. If this isn't done, who's to say who did what for what reason and how can decisions be made, based on it?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

As I said, great in theory but never likely to happen.

Well, no, because (in part at least) there are people who choose not to express their general dissatisfaction by spoiling their paper.

If 10% of election papers were spoiled, it would be as big a media circus as the expenses thing.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I see what your'e saying, but it still wouldn't achieve anything, would it?
I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone separates out 'deliberately spoiled' from 'accidentally incorrect' from 'wrote a pertinent message' ballots. If this isn't done, who's to say who did what for what reason and how can decisions be made, based on it?

Doesn't matter - a large volume of spoiled papers would provoke an inquiry into the reasons.

 

[Alc]

Doesn't matter - a large volume of spoiled papers would provoke an inquiry into the reasons.

I genuinely do see what you're getting at, but I still can't see it ever happening.

There will always be more people who, having made the effort to go to the polls, just vote for the least bad party than who make a statement by spoiling their ballots.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I agree. They just can't be persuaded.

 

[Alc]

I agree. They just can't be persuaded.

It's a moot point for me, anyway.
I no longer have a UK address and unless I want to become a Canadian citizen I can't vote here, either.

 

[Fifty2One]

Spoiling the ballot papers may be very satisying to you on a personal level but do you honestly imagine any of the people involved care?

Perhaps a quick google of Spoiled Ballot and the jurisdiction of your choice will answer that question for you. It caused major trouble in the USA in Florida 2004... Scotland in 2007... London 2008...
In the last election in Canada 59% of eligible Canadians cast votes, if the other 41% got off their ass and cast a spoiled ballot the spoiled ballots would have been the majority vote... I think people would take notice at that point.

You can not force a person to vote in a democracy - but I think people who do not bother to participate have no right to piss and moan about the outcome of an election which they had no part in the decision making process.

 

[Alc]

Perhaps a quick google of Spoiled Ballot and the jurisdiction of your choice will answer that question for you. It caused major trouble in the USA in Florida 2004... Scotland in 2007... London 2008...
In the last election in Canada 59% of eligible Canadians cast votes, if the other 41% got off their ass and cast a spoiled ballot the spoiled ballots would have been the majority vote... I think people would take notice at that point.

You can not force a person to vote in a democracy - but I think people who do not bother to participate have no right to piss and moan about the outcome of an election which they had no part in the decision making process.

Fair enough. I had no idea it was taken so seriously, but I accept it has been on occasion.

Was your last little dig aimed at anyone in particular?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Well, I expect it was aimed at you, Alc - at least tangentially.

If you vote for party X and they win the election, then do bad things, you can express fiery and righteous indignation that the government in which you placed your trust has let you down.

If you vote for part X and the election is won by party Y, you can argue that Party Y would have been the better choice, like you said all along.

If you spoil your ballot and the winning party fouls up, you can say "told you so - there were no decent choices on the menu"

If you spoil your ballot and the winning party turns out good after all, you can graciously accept that you might've been wrong, and consider supporting them in future.

If you just don't vote, I suppose you could do any of the above, but it just doesn't seem to carry as much weight in any of the above cases. You can understand why people say things like Fifty2One just did - can't you?

- People are more likely to take anything you say seriously on the subject of politics if you're involved in even the smallest way.

- And that matters, because if people take you seriously, it could contribute towards a different outcome.