With all this election hype, what are the stats on non voter

[Lord Pikey]

With all this election hype, what are the stats on non voters?

If my memory is correct, the amount of people going to the polls declines every year. This election i havn't heard a sniff of this sort of chatter.

So has all the hype about this being the closest election in years brought many new voters out of the woodwork?

[bonsai]

Hopefully not, as I expect they would more likely be Lib-Demmers or Labour than tory.

Edited by bonsai on Thursday 6th May 10:34

[Adrian W]

Just remember Blair got in with 21.something% of the electorate

[chimster]

The more people that vote the better. Nobody can be that partisan that they don't want people to vote. It's democracy at work, if you don't like it go and find a commie state or a dictatorship.

[ewenm]

I'm hoping that the televised leaders debates will have one positive effect - getting people to vote. Of course, they will probably base their vote on who had the least shiny forehead but it's a start.

[Sisyphus]

It's raining quite heavily up here at the moment.

That usually tends to mean more socialists stay at home, something to do with acid rain & nylon reacting I think.

[tim the pool man]

Nooooo!!!! Non compulsory voting is great!! Wish we had it here, the labour scum would never stand a chance most of their supporters would stay at the pub instead

[cmsapms]

chimster said:

The more people that vote the better. Nobody can be that partisan that they don't want people to vote. It's democracy at work, if you don't like it go and find a commie state or a dictatorship.

But, isn't a vote for the "can't be arsed" party still a vote? If someone decides not to bother, that is their democratic right. There can be any number of reasons to choose not to vote, only one of which is laziness. If you feel that an overt display of support for the democratic process is not for you, that is your choice. If you genuinely can't be bothered because you're not interested, then you are saying that you are happy with whatever other people choose. They're all democratic choices, however subconcious. Thedailymash has hit the nail on the head with its BRITAIN TO MAKE HORRIFYINGLY ILL-INFORMED CHOICE headline. Is it better to have loads of people voting with no clue as to what they're voting for, or less people voting who have some sort of grasp of the pertinent issues? I know what I think, and you're perfectly free to hold a different view.

ETA, this isn't a game, it's deadly serious.

Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 6th May 10:54

[MX7]

ewenm said:

I'm hoping that the televised leaders debates will have one positive effect - getting people to vote. Of course, they will probably base their vote on who had the least shiny forehead but it's a start.

So it's a negative?

I think the turnout will be quite high, I'd guess near 70%, but it's still lower than all but the last two elections.

[ewenm]

MX7 said:

ewenm said:

I'm hoping that the televised leaders debates will have one positive effect - getting people to vote. Of course, they will probably base their vote on who had the least shiny forehead but it's a start.

So it's a negative?

I think the turnout will be quite high, I'd guess near 70%, but it's still lower than all but the last two elections.

I see higher turnout as a net positive even if people do vote whichever way their pub mates/parents/union rep/newspaper tells them to.

If you haven't got participation you can't do anything. Once people start participating then you can try to persuade them to actually think about their choices.

[Don]

Generally if a government is popular people don't bother voting - you get low turnouts.

If a government IS unpopular people who normally don't bother go to the polls to kick them out.

They are expecting a 75% turnout (according to Order Order) - which is HUGE.

Oh, of course, the politically aware vote FOR their preferred party. Floating voters, who often don't vote, don't vote FOR. They vote AGAINST.

All IMO, of course. Not long to wait now to find out.

[chimster]

ETA, this isn't a game, it's deadly serious.

Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 6th May 10:54

[/quote]

Agree entirely which is why I want them to think and vote. Probably a challenge in itself to most of them though...

[fido]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

the BBC have helpful 'tips' on how to vote - don't think this happened last time - i mean they are catering for just about the dimmest people in the UK .. some of those questions are a bit worrying.

[MX7]

ewenm said:

I see higher turnout as a net positive even if people do vote whichever way their pub mates/parents/union rep/newspaper tells them to.

But that's not democracy. Democracy is having the free will to make a decision based in the information available, not what your peers tell you to do. Taking it to the extreme, look at the election in North Korea last year. 100% turn out, so that must be good?

There really is no correlation between how democratic a country is, and election turnout. As long as you have the right to vote, it's democratic. As has been said, it's your right not to vote too. Personally, I think compulsory voting is more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy.

I really don't think that many people are particularly interested in politics, and the more people that vote, the less informed the outcome will be.

Edited by MX7 on Thursday 6th May 12:25

[5unny]

fido said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

the BBC have helpful 'tips' on how to vote - don't think this happened last time - i mean they are catering for just about the dimmest people in the UK .. some of those questions are a bit worrying.

[ewenm]

I'd be a fan of compulsory voting IF AND ONLY IF there was a "None of the above" option. Not sure how it would work when NOTA gained the most votes - perhaps require the parties to field new candidates.

True democracy doesn't exist in the modern world anyway. In the UK, the party whips put paid to that even at our level of representation. True democracy would be the population voting on each issue - not very workable in modern Britain, but interestingly could become more workable as technology improves.

[MX7]

ewenm said:

I'd be a fan of compulsory voting IF AND ONLY IF there was a "None of the above" option.

There is. It's called a spoilt paper.

ewenm said:

True democracy doesn't exist in the modern world anyway. In the UK, the party whips put paid to that even at our level of representation. True democracy would be the population voting on each issue - not very workable in modern Britain, but interestingly could become more workable as technology improves.

Um, ok. If it ever happens, I can't see X Factor politics succeeding.

[Silverbullet767]

5unny said:

fido said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

the BBC have helpful 'tips' on how to vote - don't think this happened last time - i mean they are catering for just about the dimmest people in the UK .. some of those questions are a bit worrying.

I'm going to go dressed as a pirate with my pet parrot on my shoulder, I will have him trained to say 'None of the above' and get the parrot to sign the ballot for me whilst listening to the captain pugwash theme on my ghetto blaster.

[ewenm]

MX7 said:

ewenm said:

I'd be a fan of compulsory voting IF AND ONLY IF there was a "None of the above" option.

There is. It's called a spoilt paper.

Which means nothing - if there are more spoilt papers than any other group does that mean the seat isn't won by anyone?

MX7 said:

ewenm said:

True democracy doesn't exist in the modern world anyway. In the UK, the party whips put paid to that even at our level of representation. True democracy would be the population voting on each issue - not very workable in modern Britain, but interestingly could become more workable as technology improves.

Um, ok. If it ever happens, I can't see X Factor politics succeeding.

So you think we do live in a true democracy now? Our MPs are meant to represent the best interests of their constituents but are forced to toe the party line on 3-line whip votes regardless if it is good for their constituents - is that democratic?

Many more referenda would be more democratic, unfortunately MPs and government are scared of losing them.

Edited by ewenm on Thursday 6th May 12:46

[jimothy]

cmsapms said:

chimster said:

The more people that vote the better. Nobody can be that partisan that they don't want people to vote. It's democracy at work, if you don't like it go and find a commie state or a dictatorship.

But, isn't a vote for the "can't be arsed" party still a vote? If someone decides not to bother, that is their democratic right. There can be any number of reasons to choose not to vote, only one of which is laziness. If you feel that an overt display of support for the democratic process is not for you, that is your choice. If you genuinely can't be bothered because you're not interested, then you are saying that you are happy with whatever other people choose. They're all democratic choices, however subconcious. Thedailymash has hit the nail on the head with its BRITAIN TO MAKE HORRIFYINGLY ILL-INFORMED CHOICE headline. Is it better to have loads of people voting with no clue as to what they're voting for, or less people voting who have some sort of grasp of the pertinent issues? I know what I think, and you're perfectly free to hold a different view.

ETA, this isn't a game, it's deadly serious.

Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 6th May 10:54

TheDailyMash said:

Meanwhile, in what is expected to be tightest election result in years, the Queen has warned Gordon Brown that if he turns up 9am tomorrow morning expecting to be made prime minister, a Grenadier Gaurdsman will take him down like a sack of carrots.