NationStates Jolt Archive

A combination of something I posted on the The EU elections. Who do you support? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151828&sid=174d5e9076e68baf41377c662bc01b80) thread and listening to Today in Parliament got me thinking.

What do you think of postal voting?

Originaly I was pro-postal (simply because I vote it an easy way to exercise my democratic right), however in conversations I have had with friends and articles I have read and fact I have heard (and am hearing as I write) have made me reconsider.

Pros
It has increased turnout (by around 1 million, from Today In Parliament)
It is simple.
Um, that's it. (anysuggestions would be useful)

Cons
Ballot papers have been lost * (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections2004/story/0,14549,1234607,00.html), minors have been sent ballot papers, and some have been sent more than one.
There is concern that the nature of postal ballots means that bosses (again from TiP) and authoritarian parents and other authority figures can force employees/etc. to vote a certain way. And that the requirement for a witness signature only makes this worse.
Postal Voting only attacks the symptom of voter 'apathy' rather than the cause. * (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections2004/comment/0,14549,1230257,00.html)
That postal voting usual results in a higher Labour vote share. (Not sure about this one, it wa an arguement used by a Conservative Party member friend of mine and haven't been able to varify it).


All in all, I think I am against it. Although this year it is easy for me because I won't be able to go to a polling station.

And that the requirement for a witness signature only makes this worse.

Witnesses only witness you signing the Declaration Of Identity. And they don't have to be anyone you know, a total stranger will do.

And that the requirement for a witness signature only makes this worse.

Witnesses only witness you signing the Declaration Of Identity. And they don't have to be anyone you know, a total stranger will do.

I know that, but there is nothing stopping someone forcing the voter to let the witness inspect their ballot paper. A case study being a employer threatening to sack any employee who didn't vote Labour. (listen to BBC R4 News now, or TiP listen again thing on the R4 website)

Here's a couple of objections just off the top of my head--and the first is based on the objection you raised. The potential for undue pressure or foul play is just too high with postal voting. That's nearly the same reason I object to electronic voting machines here in the US.

But here's the other reason. Voting ought to take at least some effort. It's a responsibility that you ought to take seriously, and that means you ought to have to get off your lazy ass and go to a polling place and give up a few minutes of your day to make this choice. On a side note, I'm also in favor of making Election day a federal holiday and requiring all employers to give employees a certain amount of time off to vote.

But here's the other reason. Voting ought to take at least some effort. It's a responsibility that you ought to take seriously, and that means you ought to have to get off your lazy ass and go to a polling place and give up a few minutes of your day to make this choice. On a side note, I'm also in favor of making Election day a federal holiday and requiring all employers to give employees a certain amount of time off to vote

I understand your sentiments that voting should take effort. I also like idea that it should be a Federal Holiday (unworkable for Britain). Also I think that it should be over a coarce of days.

btw, why does the Constitution stipulate that the Presidential election should be on a Tuesday (or have I got the day wrong?)

bump

I don't know why other than that it's in the Constitution that way--the first Tuesday after the first Monday, so it will always fall somewhere between the 2nd and the 8th. In 2000 it fell on my birthday. It was not a joyous occasion.

Well, except for absentee balloting for military and citizens overseas, I would disagree with vote by post.

Actually the potential for wholesale fraud is inherint in the postal voting system. This can range from the suble, like arranging not to recieve postal ballots from certain areas on time or the more direct creation of ballots. The lack of observers at postal polling places (no poll watchers at my kitchen table) and at the post office means all you have to do is create a sackful or five of ballots and bribe a postal worker to deliver them to where ever they're counting the ballots. I wouldn't recomend it as a common practice since someone will eventually catch on, but being able to get out the vote from a few cemetaries should be enough to influence close elections.

bump

What a completely stupid idea! People should be made to get off their backside and vote (I'm for compulsory voting).

What a completely stupid idea! People should be made to get off their backside and vote (I'm for compulsory voting).

I agree that people should put some effort into voting (I mean it is not as if it is a particuarly onorous duty to perform).

I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, because in my eyes it is admitting defeat and it doesn't address the issue (which is why people don't vote), I think that postal voting is a similar admission of defeat.

I applied for a postal vote as I recently moved house and, consequently, changed constituency. The forms arrived too late for me to post by return. Luckily, I was able to hop on the tube after work and get a police woman to witness for me.

Basically, postal voting is OK but certainly not as the only means available. From what I've read, it's made very little difference to the turnout as areas outside of the postal voting trials have also seen an increase in participation.

Compulsory voting is a violation of what I would regard as basic rights. We don't presently have the ability to vote for 'none of the above', so abstention is the only way to express dissatisfaction with the choices available.

As an apathetic voter, I believe I should have the right to choose NOT to vote. Why should I waste my valuable time attending a polling station if I think all of the parties are whack.

As an apathetic voter, I believe I should have the right to choose NOT to vote. Why should I waste my valuable time attending a polling station if I think all of the parties are whack.

Apathy is a poor excuse for not voting but, then again, your position doesn't actually sound apathetic to me. Disillusioned, maybe. You're not the only one...

Nothing wrong with postal voting especially if you're not at home at the time. As for compulsary voting, go to Australia. Get fined if you don't.

I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, because in my eyes it is admitting defeat and it doesn't address the issue (which is why people don't vote), I think that postal voting is a similar admission of defeat.

So what if it doesn't address the issue. If we had compulsory voting the there would be no issue to address, plus it would ensure that some kind of 'people's will' was shown at elections. I mean, Australia does fine with it why wouldn't we?

Postal voting should always be an option, but making it mandatory doesn't seem like a good idea: I went to the polling station although I saw 3 other people there - one leaving as I arrived and two arriving as I left. It was right next to a school though, which seemed logical for all the parents picking up children.

So what if it doesn't address the issue. If we had compulsory voting the there would be no issue to address, plus it would ensure that some kind of 'people's will' was shown at elections. I mean, Australia does fine with it why wouldn't we?This reminds me of the proposed EU "right" to a free mandatory education. The problem is that a right has to include the option not to exercise it. If instead something is compulsory it is a civic duty, like paying taxes. So by making voting mandatory you are taking away the right to vote and replacing it with the duty to vote. This is fine if you consider the populace to be subjects of the government which can chose to force them to render their opinions on issues or vrious other schemes, but doesn't work well if you consider the government to be the servant of the persons (multiple individual people to avoid confusion with the term "the people") of the nation.

I'm all for good old-fashioned in-person voting for those who can, and absentee ballots for those who can't. It's just traditional, and more democratic and self-motivated than a piece of paper you rush to fill out and mail out.

If it encourages more people to vote, then yes, I am for it.

If it encourages more people to vote, then yes, I am for it.

It hasn't encouraged that much more people to vote. And imo this is outweighed by the fact that it is too easy to corrupt.