11 Comments »

1. Some politicians are "disgraced" through wrong-doing.

   Some, Mr Hoon, are disgraced through sheer incompetence!

   We are sure you would like compulsory voting but suspect you may object to compulsory truth-telling by politicians.

   Compulsory voting is a politicians dream – simply to take the heat off their incompetence. It has nothing to do with "enhanc[e]ing civic participation" and everything to do with enforcing subservience to a corrupt political process.

   Of COURSE compulsory voting increases turnout but that does not make it right.

   Hoon, start talking about honesty and integrity and the compulsory resignation of corrupt politicians (your colleagues) who have been caught with their hand(s) in the til (Bluckett) or deliberately lying to the electorate to obtain office under false pretenses (Bliar). Maybe then some may take you seriously about your "concern" for the "political process".

   Comment by JK5 — 4 Jul 2005 on 2:56 pm | Link

2. Make it a legal requirement that everyone has to vote – good idea. But don’t fine them for not turning up, give them \xA3100 for doing so and a day off work.

   Let’s have some sort of PR while we are about it.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 4 Jul 2005 on 7:14 pm | Link

3. And while we’re at it, if it’s going to be compulsory to vote they HAVE to include "none of the above" – otherwise there’s no way to express dissatisfaction with the whole process, which I’m sure is rife throughout the country. Of course, we know that IF (and that’s a big IF…) Bliar did decide to look at the electoral process and introduce any reforms, they wouldn’t be the ones we the voters wanted. More likely is that they’d make it compulsory to vote, with no "none of the above" on the polling form, and penalties for non-compliance.

   Let’s face it, there’s no way Bliar is going to allow any kind of PR to be introduced – at least not without the strictest of caveats which would render the reforms meaningless. He’s not stupid (corrupt, dishonest & self-absorbed, yes; stupid, no); he knows that the framework for near-total control of the population he is trying to build will be threatened should we have PR – for people are no longer totally blind to the abuses of power which occur on a daily basis.

   And after a recent general election and the abuses of the postal system in Birmingham and Manchester, for the PMOS to claim that she’s never asked or spoke to the PM about electoral reform is patently ridiculous.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Jul 2005 on 8:23 pm | Link

4. Compulsory voting is no different from compulsory church attendance. It imposes the will of one part of the population upon another part for no other reason than to bring about the appearance of eliminating disent – ie. "enforcing subservience" as jk5 said above.

   To be able to say that "we have improved voter turnout from x% to y%" will certainly be interpreted by the perfidious parasites in Westminster as "our approval rating has increased from x% to y%"

   THAT is the whole idea – to stem the tide (nay, tsunami) of disdain, distrust and disgust in Bliar’s corruption and lies which have perverted democracy into a sham in this country.

   Comment by England — 5 Jul 2005 on 3:07 am | Link

5. Your Mr Hoon mentions Australia as an "example" of compulsory voting. To an Aussie this seems a bit naive! We Aussies are generally snitches, sneaks and snoops – probably not what you Brits think of us, bus that’s how I see it. Our obsession with being the "best place on earth", with the "best wine, best beaches, best lifestyle" is prevalent among the great majority who have never been anywhere else. (You probably thought we were great travellers – another misconception). Anyway – yeah – we all (mainly) vote. That’s because we get fined if we don’t!
   Like you, we are just as disgusted with our PM as you may be with yours. But let’s get one thing straight. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST OR DISENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

   The weasels in Canberra still take our "compulsory" voting as a sign that they are held in great esteem by the plebs.

   Comment by Aussie — 5 Jul 2005 on 5:42 am | Link

6. One doesn’t need a ‘None of the Above’ protest box to object. A large X diagonally across the whole paper will suffice. Spoilt ballots ARE counted and recorded.

   If people don’t bother to protest their feelings the politicians can claim legitimacy until less than 50% turnout. Far better that those who have gripes reveal them than not. Sulking at home gets one nowhere.

   As far as eliminating and concealing dissent goes I think the fact that Labour only got 22% of the vote, or 36% of those cast, says it all. I wish more journalists would point this out whenever Labour claim they have manifesto legitimacy and the Lords, for example, have none.

   Complaining but doing nothing at all about one’s concerns is pathetic. Apathy allows politicians one might dislike to claim you are happy with them and thus don’t protest at the ballot.

   If enough people stopped being negative and voted for the Liberals (okay, okay, half baked policies etc etc) then we’d get PR. Once we got that we could migrate back to whomever and block the untrammelled power of these minority and unrepresentative governments we keep getting.

   It’s no surprise that power mad social engineers who have a moral and social blueprint they wish to impose on one and all (Gordon Brown next – HELP!) and war moger types don’t like PR.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 5 Jul 2005 on 6:21 am | Link

7. I agree with everything the last 3 contributors have said, but one thing Mr. Pooter says needs pointing out. The viewpoint that spoilt ballot papers are counted seems to be exactly that – I have also heard the contrary from a fair few who were supposedly knowledgeable to know. Add that to the fact that the vast majority of voters in this country are law abiding, God fearing people who feel uncomfortable with doing something as rebellious as spoiling their ballot paper, and you can see why a sizeable chunk of voters would have felt compelled to vote for someone even though they liked no-one. I’m sure also that our government knows this; it would not surprise me to find out that Mr. Pooter is right and at the same time that the government would like us all to believe the opposite were true. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re NOT out to get ya…

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 5 Jul 2005 on 9:49 pm | Link

8. I’m law abiding, fear God people, am boringly average, unfashionably normal and have had no qualms at all about giving the ballot the BIG X if the particular constituency I live has a huge in-built majority I dislike and no other worthy, if hopeless, candidates. What sort of idiot feels compelled to vote for someone they dislike?

   Does that make me rebellious? WOW!

   Perhaps I should buy a black hoody, hide behind an anarchist yashmak and jump out from behind the heather to kick policemen and give them an excuse to bash my head in. That should sort the world out.

   I was under the impression the Returning Officer had to account for all ballots and thus reported the spoilt papers. Am I mistaken?

   Charles Pooter (REBEL!)

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 6 Jul 2005 on 11:21 am | Link

9. A question:

   Some of us (in JK5) are under the impression that it is/was an offence (criminal or civil? dont know.) to
   a) spoil ones ballot paper
   b) incite another to spoil a ballot paper.

   Can anyone point to an authority which may resolve either/ both parts of this question?

   Comment by jk5 — 7 Jul 2005 on 7:10 am | Link

10. That’s something else I’ve heard mentioned but again heard yes & no to both questions. I’ve seen people post the "definitive" answer – only to then see someone else post the opposite "definitive" answer. Is there someone who doesn’t want us to know for sure?

    Charles; ok, God fearing & law-abiding peeps that you are, just because you have no problem defacing your ballot paper doesn’t mean everyone else is of the same mind. There are those who have not been in this country for long who would be terrified to; there are plenty who have lived their whole lives here who are equally terrified to (thinking of the likes of my dear ma here). Where she lives she basically had a choice of Lab or Con – and although she has been a lifelong Labour voter she wanted to vote Lib Dem. No Lib Dem candidate – and God forbid she should abstain from voting… That’s just an illustration; there are plenty in the country of the same ilk – and I’m sure that’s a sizeable enough chunk to make a difference.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 7 Jul 2005 on 10:40 am | Link

11. Point taken, PapaL.

    Very interested to know the answer to my question and JK5’s!

    Perhaps I really am a certifiable rebel! Shock horror gulp.

    PS I didn’t say I was God fearing, I said I feared God people – fear for them, too – poor sods.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 7 Jul 2005 on 6:20 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.