Jump to content

Voting  

61 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Compulsory voting cards and withdrawal of them if you fail the simplest poll station entry quiz where you have to match a party name to their (supposed) policies, or at least name the Prime Minister. If, like some, you think that Boris Johnson or John Major is PM then you should be nowhere near a polling booth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, peasy23 said:

 


We regularly get governments that the majority of the population didn't vote for, so to get a better turnout then imo it should be compulsory. The flip side of that is that if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates listed in your area then you should have the right to abstain.

 

This would be my preference too. I've spoilt my ballot a few times over the years but would rather have a 'none of the above' which sends a better message that you're really not happy. Compulsory voting (which would probably be impossible to enforce) would hopefully make the parties try and keep more than just their core support happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, peasy23 said:

Voting should be compulsory imo, but the ballot paper should have a "none of the above" option.

I might go for that - if you're going to make it compulsory, you need a "F*** the lot of you" option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 year olds should be allowed to vote because it pisses off middle-aged/old c***s.

When you get to pension age you collect your state pension and give up your right to vote. Too many old wankers in this country to be dictating the futures of others.

If you made voting compulsory by law you'd probably see two things happen: 1. more cocks would be drawn on ballot papers than before and 2. the revenue raised from fines of people who never bothered their arse would probably quite substantial. I don't particularly care if it's compulsory or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

Compulsory voting cards and withdrawal of them if you fail the simplest poll station entry quiz where you have to match a party name to their (supposed) policies, or at least name the Prime Minister. If, like some, you think that Boris Johnson or John Major is PM then you should be nowhere near a polling booth.

I don't agree that it should be compulsory but I do agree with the quiz.

I would attach a short multiple choice quiz to the ballot paper. This is marked during the count and your vote is weighted by your score.

In the interests of fairness each candidate can suggest a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

Mussolini made public transport run on time which is more than anyone ever elected in the UK has ever managed.

Contrary to popular belief one thing the fascist powers were terrible at were logistics, same with the Soviets. When it came to getting men and material where it needed to go, when it needed to go and in big enough quantities the western democracies were miles ahead of everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Moonster said:

16 year olds should be allowed to vote because it pisses off middle-aged/old c***s.

When you get to pension age you collect your state pension and give up your right to vote. Too many old wankers in this country to be dictating the futures of others.

If you made voting compulsory by law you'd probably see two things happen: 1. more cocks would be drawn on ballot papers than before and 2. the revenue raised from fines of people who never bothered their arse would probably quite substantial. I don't particularly care if it's compulsory or not.

16 year olds should be allowed to vote, if only because of the taxation/representation argument. If you can contribute to the nation's finances and security - you should get a say in how it's run. Granted, at 16 your opinions may be slightly gauche, simplistic and self interested but that's exactly the kind of attributes I associate with the "Grey vote" - as a general theme, anyway.

I disagree with compulsory voting, however. Beyond the lack of a "none of the above" option  the ability to opt out completely and not give a f**k is the grandest of all democratic traditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strongest argument against younger people voting is not a lack of knowledge, experience or temperament; it’s the risk of undue influence from their elders on how they exercise the vote.

The problem with this argument, however, is still that this influence is pervasive and massive well beyond any age threshold and its logical conclusion is a near universal disenfranchisement.

So let’s reform the political system. One vote per degree at 2:1 Honours level or higher at a Russell Group University. Then elect the House of Lords where the eligibility to sit or vote is a postgraduate qualification.

Philosopher Kings of our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, renton said:

16 year olds should be allowed to vote, if only because of the taxation/representation argument. If you can contribute to the nation's finances and security - you should get a say in how it's run. Granted, at 16 your opinions may be slightly gauche, simplistic and self interested but that's exactly the kind of attributes I associate with the "Grey vote" - as a general theme, anyway.

I disagree with compulsory voting, however. Beyond the lack of a "none of the above" option  the ability to opt out completely and not give a f**k is the grandest of all democratic traditions.

I agree with 16 year olds voting but the taxation/representation argument extends to those younger than 16.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The strongest argument against younger people voting is not a lack of knowledge, experience or temperament; it’s the risk of undue influence from their elders on how they exercise the vote.

The problem with this argument, however, is still that this influence is pervasive and massive well beyond any age threshold and its logical conclusion is a near universal disenfranchisement.

So let’s reform the political system. One vote per degree at 2:1 Honours level or higher at a Russell Group University. Then elect the House of Lords where the eligibility to sit or vote is a postgraduate qualification.

Philosopher Kings of our time.

Especially when the Tories go around retirement homes with buses, loading up barely cognizant fogies to dump at the voting booths.

Does it have to be the Russell group? Otherwise I'd have three votes and a seat in the Lords.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

The strongest argument against younger people voting is not a lack of knowledge, experience or temperament; it’s the risk of undue influence from their elders on how they exercise the vote.

The problem with this argument, however, is still that this influence is pervasive and massive well beyond any age threshold and its logical conclusion is a near universal disenfranchisement.

So let’s reform the political system. One vote per degree at 2:1 Honours level or higher at a Russell Group University. Then elect the House of Lords where the eligibility to sit or vote is a postgraduate qualification.

Philosopher Kings of our time.

 

An actual Elective Monarchy drawn from PhD holders in the Arts as well. King Richard I of Scotland and House Finlay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...