NationStates Jolt Archive

Geoff Hoon (leader of the Commons) wants to enforce compulsory voting in the UK for the next General Election - soruce (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4648095.stm)
Apparently this plan is to "necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy" following the 61% turnout at the last election (up from 57% in 2001).
Anyway...do you think Hoon plays Nationstates? There's an issue on compulsory voting, and another on introducing a "None of the above" option in elections...
Oh, and if you actually want to comment on the idea, you can do that as well...

Geoff Hoon (leader of the Commons) wants to enforce compulsory voting in the UK for the next General Election - soruce (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4648095.stm)
Apparently this plan is to "necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy" following the 61% turnout at the last election (up from 57% in 2001).
Anyway...do you think Hoon plays Nationstates? There's an issue on compulsory voting, and another on introducing a "None of the above" option in elections...
Oh, and if you actually want to comment on the idea, you can do that as well...

if i was forced to vote it wouldn't be for labour

He has a bit of a point.
But alas, people wouldnt like the idea of being forced to do anything, at least, here in the US.

It's just a cover up to avert the attention from a change to a PR syle voting system. Also if he really wants to invigorate politics, why not make politics intresting to masses and actually have a clear diffrence between what the parties stand for (as generally people hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils).

It's just a cover up to avert the attention from a change to a PR syle voting system. Also if he really wants to invigorate politics, why not make politics intresting to masses and actually have a clear diffrence between what the parties stand for (as generally people hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils).
OR they COULD have political death matches where voters decide who gets which weapons!
Then you would REALLY have to want the office to get in, and it would make it interesting for voters.

OR they COULD have political death matches where voters decide who gets which weapons!
Then you would REALLY have to want the office to get in, and it would make it interesting for voters.

Yea lol. The Big Showdown:

Blair v Howard ends in a tie as both end up dead.

*All rejoice*

Yea lol. The Big Showdown:

Blair v Howard ends in a tie as both end up dead.

*All rejoice*
You could get the royals in on it as well. Not the Queen, obviously, but I know you fellows have been looking to get rid of a few princes.
After a few generations of competitions you would have REAL kings again...like Henry VIII ;)

You could get the royals in on it as well. Not the Queen, obviously, but I know you fellows have been looking to get rid of a few princes.
After a few generations of competitions you would have REAL kings again...like Henry VIII ;)

Im anti-monachy so they could all join in (though If there had to be a winner I'd hope it would be William). But just think of the grudge matches you could have!

Im anti-monachy so they could all join in (though If there had to be a winner I'd hope it would be William). But just think of the grudge matches you could have!

God save the queen! *cheers*

Compulsory voting is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of; people that don't already vote fall into one of three major categories. Those that are too ignorant to vote, those that are too lazy to vote, and those that hate the candidates of choice so much that they just don't want to vote because they don't want to feel guilty if the candidate they pick out of the two fuck-ups fucks up. And none of these groups should be voting.

God save the queen! *cheers*

God Save Our Country *cheers*

God Save Our Country *cheers*

voice of god: "How can I save any nation with such a silly idea for voting? I'll have to smite you all!" *pints finger at England angrilly*

voices of the damned masses: "ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

God Save Our Country *cheers*
Not bloody likely. Silly Anglicans.
*throws the Pope and England*

They do it in Australia.
It works OK I think.
You go and spoil your paper or vote for none of the above or something.
We need an Aussie to explain it.

A none of these idiots vote would let them know how little support the whole lot of them have and they might get their collective fingers out.

Meh, I'd just do what I did last time around.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417091

Geoff Hoon (leader of the Commons) wants to enforce compulsory voting in the UK for the next General Election - soruce (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4648095.stm)
Apparently this plan is to "necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy" following the 61% turnout at the last election (up from 57% in 2001).
Anyway...do you think Hoon plays Nationstates? There's an issue on compulsory voting, and another on introducing a "None of the above" option in elections...
Oh, and if you actually want to comment on the idea, you can do that as well...

Compulsory anything being "necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy" is an oxymoron. I'll oppose this with every fibre of my being, before and after (if necessary) it comes to pass.

Why not do the opposite?
In order to have the right to vote, you'd have to pass a 10-questions test of political knowledge and understanding.
Since most persons read newspapers & watch the news on TV, it shouldn't be that hard. Or would it be?


PS: People who don't give a shit have a tendency of choosing the first option on the ballot, or to choose the politician that looks nicer, or the shortest name on the list. This can lead to problems -- which party/candidate do you put first on the ballot? And why?

Actually I support sarkasis' idea more strongly. It'd mean we wouldn't have old people voting for parties purely because they always have in the past! :D

Why not do the opposite?
In order to have the right to vote, you'd have to pass a 10-questions test of political knowledge and understanding.
Since most persons read newspapers & watch the news on TV, it shouldn't be that hard. Or would it be?


PS: People who don't give a shit have a tendency of choosing the first option on the ballot, or to choose the politician that looks nicer, or the shortest name on the list. This can lead to problems -- which party/candidate do you put first on the ballot? And why?

That would make too much sense, and wouldn't be democratic.

While I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, I do think voting should be tied into the receiving of government handouts.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to at least vote "none of the above" or write in "Mickey Mouse", why should you be allow to sit on your ass and receive a handout (Social Security, welfare, etc.)?

Why not do the opposite?
In order to have the right to vote, you'd have to pass a 10-questions test of political knowledge and understanding.
Since most persons read newspapers & watch the news on TV, it shouldn't be that hard. Or would it be?


PS: People who don't give a shit have a tendency of choosing the first option on the ballot, or to choose the politician that looks nicer, or the shortest name on the list. This can lead to problems -- which party/candidate do you put first on the ballot? And why?

Easy system to abuse. For example all the questions could be based around issues voters of a aprticular party only know.

If there is the option "None Of The Above" I have no real problem with compulsory voting.

While I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, I do think voting should be tied into the receiving of government handouts.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to at least vote "none of the above" or write in "Mickey Mouse", why should you be allow to sit on your ass and receive a handout (Social Security, welfare, etc.)?

I'm of the opinion that all such programs should be scrapped. But if they are going to do them, then it should be for everybody otherwise they're pointless systems to institute anyway. It disgusts me to find so many people thinking of punishing non-voters in some way or another, considering that a large number of people frequently don't vote because there aren't any parties which represent their views. And coming from an American, those who supposedly believe in democracy so fervently they'd give their lives for it, is even worse. The right to abstain is a basic right everybody should be allowed access to. Not everybody is happy for voting for a party they don't agree with, just to get rid of a party they disagree with even less. That isn't what democracy is about. And forcing people to vote whether they agree with the parties available or not isn't democracy at all.

If there is the option "None Of The Above" I have no real problem with compulsory voting.
A friend of mine created the "None of the above" option on his ballot paper in May. It's the idea of fining people who don't vote that bothers me - if someone doesn't want to vote, then let them not vote. Don't make them go the trouble of going to a polling station, or filling in a postal form, just to say "Nah, don't like any of them fuckers. None of the above for me!"