Compulsory voting when both sides are advocating the same policies will definitely be effective.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
If you're so put off by the two major parties, you would look at another party.
Be honest with yourself, if the law was made five years ago, that you are required to vote. You wouldn't vote for those two major parties.
Smaller parties can attract voters who felt excluded/apolitical and when that happens the power scales can be shifted, forcing larger parties to actually take your views seriously.
Which assumes most people who don't vote do so because they don't approve rather than just disinterest.
Forcing people to vote isn't going to change who people who already vote vote for.
The late David Amess, who used to be my local MP, has had a status put up in his honour along our seafront.
The likeness is much better in person compared to the photos:
View: https://i.imgur.com/szE1n0n.jpeg
View: https://i.imgur.com/VMnyc36.jpeg
The likeness is much better in person compared to the photos:
View: https://i.imgur.com/szE1n0n.jpeg
View: https://i.imgur.com/VMnyc36.jpeg
Assuming low information non-voters would go the way you want if forced to vote in this media environment is incredibly naive
I've considered and mentioned apolitical voters. It won't change what the majority voted for in the short-term, but long-term small parties will have a bigger share of the pie.
It happened with Labour in the early 20th century and Libdems in 2010 when majority of the electorate wanted a "newer" alternative. If Greens or another social democratic party was successful in scooping up those voters, it can shake things up.
Apolitical people can be politically motivated, it's happening as we speak. With those negatively affected by the tories, they're researching information, finding credible sources and reading up manifestos. Making it the law, can encourage electoral participation.
Fair point. Compulsory voting can potentially convert apolitical into extremists supporters if they were exposed to disinformation, but I'd also argue voter apathy is as equally dangerous, as the far-right are always motivated to vote (Trump, Bush Jr, Nazis et cetra).
I'm with you but why wait for people to die for redistribution? Wealth tax is loads better and you don't have to worry about selling people on a "death tax".
I think the arguments around compulsory voting should revolve around it being healthier or not for democracy long term and less about whether it would be advantageous for your particular set of politics in an election right now. Reminds me of people saying things like "Are you sure you want PR? Reform/UKIP would get loads more seats", like yes actually, gotta be pro-democracy even when people don't/won't vote like I'd like them to!
Last edited:
Precisely. If people are so fed up with the maintream parties pandering to older voters (who are technically the asset holding voting bloc), then electoral participation of non-asset holders are key in shifting the scales.
It's important to understand why do people flock to Reform/UKIP/far-right parties, rather than lump them in one box. Some may have felt disenfranchised by the two dominating political parties and grown bitter to having felt excluded. Not to excuse the racism and others forms of hate, but one ought to understand how has that hate manifested (poverty, disinfinformation, radical brainwashing et cetra) and how it came to be.
If the scales are shifted, with non-asset holders being the one to determine the outcome of elections. Mainstream parties will take your views seriously and would want to appeal to you.
I think compulsory voting doesn't really change the balance at all. Look at Australia - it has incredibly high rates of voting due to its laws, and yet we see the same sort of election results as we see here.
Theres no evidence to suggest that non-voters are not happy with or looking for an alternative to the main parties. It's just they don't bother voting for various reasons.
Theres no evidence to suggest that non-voters are not happy with or looking for an alternative to the main parties. It's just they don't bother voting for various reasons.
There's also a counter arguments to the UKIP/Reform PR arguments with the Scottish and Welsh governments, even with their slightly different political makeups. Neither has or has had any reps from those parties, and the closest thing is
Alba, who's only MSP (and MPs) have been defectors.
Doesn't mean it won't or can't happen, but PR doesn't automatically result in the government being flooded with far right arseholes (outside the Tories).
The balance is not changed dramatically, but Australia still has a more democratic voting system, where smaller parties can represent who people actually voted for and is a country that invests more socially. It's not like USA, where voters are mostly supressed.
And technically, you're not forced to vote in Australia, you just need to show up at the polling booth.
The psychology of the 'participation' is what is encouraged, influencing the public to take politics seriously.
This thread here is proof of people abstaining their votes as they have no hope in influencing the election/mainstream parties not appealing to them.
Sure there are various reasons why people don't vote, but it doesn't mean we should ignore it being a problem.
Then why are you engaging in this thread? It clearly just seems to bother you.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to come across as snarky or whatever, just by your own admission, you would only vote if forced and even then would spoil your vote. You say all the parties suck, so clearly there isn't anything then can do they can do in the coming months to sway you so…it just seems to make you feel so negative to engage with politics, why not just ignore the thread?
Last edited:
Politics is about more than voting.
This is just prime gatekeeping to be honest, someone is talking about mandatory voting and I gave my opinion on the subject.
Hey now, I'm not gatekeeping - everyone should be involved for sure. I was just speaking up about it as the majority of your posts about UK politics are (understandably given the current environment) saying how awful it is. Personally for my own mental well-being, if something bothered me as much as it appears that you seem to be irritated (if that's the right word for it) by it, I'd step away from whatever it was causing me to feel like that.
I agree with you that there's a lot more to politics than voting, I don't know if it ever makes sense to completely disengage from electoral politics though. Even if you think that more good can be done outside of government (at all levels) than within the current structure - does it not make sense to vote for the party that is more likely to be sympathetic to and encourage and support those other forms of political action? (Whether that be unions, direct action, protests, community organising etc. etc.)
Any movement that wants meaningful change will have to be a movement that works within the state too. It's not an either/or situation, the strategies are complementary.
I don't know how you can view not voting as anything other than ceding an entire avenue of potential change to the powers that be.
The trouble is, near me sometimes there is no avenue for political change on the ballot. I mentioned elsewhere we had an election here where the choice was literally Conservative or Lib Dem.
That ballot got spoiled.
That ballot got spoiled.
There was an attempt to change things through "the proper channels" in 2015 to 2019 but that got shut down so hard it showed me that it's not possible.
What can you do though? No idea really, outside of helping people close to you.
My mental wellbeing is fine thank you, I would advise not to backseat diagnose people.
What can you do though? No idea really, outside of helping people close to you.
My mental wellbeing is fine thank you, I would advise not to backseat diagnose people.
I was just saying how I was feeling - look, I'll leave it, sorry to have said anything.
I've not read anything on compulsory voting and would be interesting to read any good studies on what affects this has but, on the face of it, it appears to be a very poor idea. You can't compel people to engage in politics. Forcing people to vote when they don't know and/or care what they are voting for cannot be a good thing for democracy. People should also have the right not to vote as much as they do the right to vote.
I would say that even if you end up just spoiling your ballot it is still worth voting but I also believe that even where the options are really poor there is still value in voting for the least worst option. I totally respect that there are some lines crossed that means people can no longer vote for a party but I don't see a vote as tacit approval of everything a party represents.
I would say that even if you end up just spoiling your ballot it is still worth voting but I also believe that even where the options are really poor there is still value in voting for the least worst option. I totally respect that there are some lines crossed that means people can no longer vote for a party but I don't see a vote as tacit approval of everything a party represents.
Sure but how many people who wouldn't otherwise have voted actually ended up spoiling their ballot? I'd guess less than 50%, probably much lower.
Unless there is a clear 'none of the above' option on the ballot it is not helpful to force people into the voting stations but if we're honest any party that would consider compulsory voting would only ever do it if it they believed it beneficial to their chances. It isn't about getting people to vote regardless of whether they spoil their ballot.
I think the best argument is that there are some demographics (renters, poor, young) that are less likely to vote than others and there is this vicious cycle, where because they don't vote, politicians ignore their needs and so they get more jaded and disaffected, become even less likely to vote, and so on.
Looks like there's a whole book on this topic, "Full participation: A comparative study of compulsory voting" by Sarah Birch if anyone is THAT interested. But the summary I found said: "Sarah Birch summarises extensive cross-national evidence showing that in addition to higher turnout, compulsory voting can be shown to produce increased political participation outside of elections, lower inequalities of wealth, and greater trust in democracy".
I don't think you're giving people enough credit when you say that people who don't know enough are going to somehow endanger democracy if they're forced to vote. As if democracy needs to be left to us elite lot who know what's really going on. Democracy by definition works best when you include as many people as possible.
Looks like there's a whole book on this topic, "Full participation: A comparative study of compulsory voting" by Sarah Birch if anyone is THAT interested. But the summary I found said: "Sarah Birch summarises extensive cross-national evidence showing that in addition to higher turnout, compulsory voting can be shown to produce increased political participation outside of elections, lower inequalities of wealth, and greater trust in democracy".
I don't think you're giving people enough credit when you say that people who don't know enough are going to somehow endanger democracy if they're forced to vote. As if democracy needs to be left to us elite lot who know what's really going on. Democracy by definition works best when you include as many people as possible.
Ultimately this isn't a hypothetical. we can see from Australia what the impacts of compulsory voting are. And the long and short of it is - nothing. People aren't more engaged in politics, the same overall breakdowns of political loyalties occur, and they still elect moronic dipshits. Which matches up the studies that show people who don't vote generally have the same views as a whole as people who do. It doesn't even help minor parties - the last Australian federal election had less members elected from parties other than main two than our own parliament did.
It's just not worth thinking about. It won't have any major impact at all, it won't increase political awareness or understanding, it won't change the balance of power in parliament. Forcing people to vote when they don't want to engage with politics is putting the cart before the horse.
It's just not worth thinking about. It won't have any major impact at all, it won't increase political awareness or understanding, it won't change the balance of power in parliament. Forcing people to vote when they don't want to engage with politics is putting the cart before the horse.
At the end of the day, this is a politics discussion and coming in day in, day out with almost exclusively negative commentary doesn't really open the floor up for any discussion. Not saying this commentary is wrong, but there must be some avenues by which you see things improving? However unlikely they may be, like fairplay, Starmer is a fucking wet blanket, I get it, but what strategy can you get behind, which people or parties could you be excited about?
If the answer is nothing and no one, what is the point in any of us being here other than the miserable farce of watching shit slide down the drain under the guise of a discussion.
If the answer is nothing and no one, what is the point in any of us being here other than the miserable farce of watching shit slide down the drain under the guise of a discussion.
Plenty of strong assertions there with very little evidence. I don't think anyone is saying it would suddenly fix all of the current problems, but of course it would have some effect. You use Australia as your one example but research on compulsory voting in Australia found that it increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Australian Labor Party by 7 to 10 percentage points.
Various studies from around the world have found that compulsory voting significantly increased electoral support for leftist policy positions, that compulsory voting reduces the gender gap in electoral engagement in several ways, that higher rates of voter turnout lead to higher top tax rates, that it can reduce political polarisation, and that *removing* compulsory voting increases the vote share of large parties and reduces the vote share of "minor and extreme parties".
I agree that there are probably better ways to engage people but I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand.
Make sure it covers more than one box, or it can be counted as voting for that party - a Tory had a penis drawn in his box only and they counted it as a vote.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ter-drawing-penis-on-ballot-paper-a69276.html
Anecdotal, but when I pop into Australian forums, they seem not-bothered by compulsory voting.
They quote "going to the booth is a pain the arse, but if I intend to tick 'none of the above' it's still better than having my vote supressed."
UK Conservatives introduced the need-for-IDs-at-polling for an issue that is non-existent. Deliberately made to disenfranchised the poor, disabled, non-English speaking, and the young.
Just look around, there is little to no advertisements of 'Bring your ID' or 'Apply at UK Gov', and we're in an election year. Are Londoners even aware that the mayoral elections has switched to FPTP.
Voting supression is vastly much more dangerous than compulsory voting. And it will get worse when right-leaning parties are at the helm of government, finding ways to rig elections and taking away our civil rights.
They quote "going to the booth is a pain the arse, but if I intend to tick 'none of the above' it's still better than having my vote supressed."
UK Conservatives introduced the need-for-IDs-at-polling for an issue that is non-existent. Deliberately made to disenfranchised the poor, disabled, non-English speaking, and the young.
Just look around, there is little to no advertisements of 'Bring your ID' or 'Apply at UK Gov', and we're in an election year. Are Londoners even aware that the mayoral elections has switched to FPTP.
Voting supression is vastly much more dangerous than compulsory voting. And it will get worse when right-leaning parties are at the helm of government, finding ways to rig elections and taking away our civil rights.
If I was gonna spoil my ballot, I wouldn't draw a cock and balls. I'd write "I have decided not to vote for any of these candidates, but I hope you, vote counter, are having a good evening. I hope all your dreams come true. Democracy is a sham but you are not". Then I would kiss the paper (I'm wearing lipstick in this scenario).
But I don't do that. I vote for the least worst candidate, even if they are dogshit.
But I don't do that. I vote for the least worst candidate, even if they are dogshit.
There's definitely an Electoral Commission TV ad for bring your ID, but no idea how widespread it is. I suspect not highly. The premise is a giant post it note telling you to bring ID. I guess they get to push it around the locals.
For London, the candidates pack they send out does explain the voting system. I've also seen some poster ads from the council explaining to need ID.
I don't think these campaigns are massive - there's a lot more to be done - but just to say what I've come across.
What? It's on like every podcast.
Have you not heard the advert with the women yelling "babe can you make sure I don't forget my photo ID when I vote"? Cus for me she's boarding on granny I got the job territory
I've come across tidbits as well, posters at train stations, some banners and whatnot.
But a lot of the promotional awareness are concentrated in central and up north London. Deprived boroughs is where the vulnerable, marginalised, and the uninformed mostly reside.
Not every average joe/jane/person spends time listening to podcasts.
Consider digitally excluded groups (ESOL, migrants, rough sleepers, people with disabilities, sensory impediments..) who are already at an disadvantage from the voting ID rules.
I don't think there's any specific targetting of those adverts. Croydon station is full of them and you don't get more south london than that!
I've seen voter id posters pretty frequently, but I don't think I've seen anything telling people about the (incredibly cynical) switch to fptp for the mayoral election
I did actually write a slightly less silly version of that on a ballot once.
Our only election here this may is for "Police and crime commissioner" they're going to do all the election cost and admin and time to vote for something that literally has no reason to exist.
I'm not sure I'll even go spoil a ballot for that one.
I've haven't journeyed much to the south-south of London frankly, but Croydon is at the ourskirts and is one the least deprived boroughs.
Notably there was pushback of ULEZ there. Bare in mind of the demographics that can influence the mayoral and general elections.
Amusingly a bus just went by with the London Elects ad on, with the message being the "My vote does count" one, with the data. I suspect they believe the main barrier to people voting is knowing/caring - that's the thing you've got to get through to people before you go "oh and by the way you this time have one vote on each paper not the preference system".
I'm less concerned about the change to FPTP affecting turnout/engagement - because it's something you can explain at the actual time of voting. As with the London ones there's always a few ballots and you get instructions on each of them, and if someone's not spending much time with politics I'm not sure that they will have really got any memory of what the voting system is, apart from when they're there actually ticking something. Assembly Members were always just one vote so I guess you always had to pay attention when at the polling station which each piece of paper says, which one you can do what on. If you have no ID, you're out - but if you turn up with ID, and no knowledge of the change to voting system, well, that last bit isn't great but won't block you from voting.
Labour definitely are banging on about it (their line is the change means a vote not for them is a vote for the Tories, as you'd expect their line to be), Conservatives are too busy ignoring that they chose Susan Hall and writing fanfiction about London being a warzone.
But in general I think people don't really give much of a shit about the locals/London elections, and the thing to really hammer home big and wide is "it's happening, so actually vote, and get ID to vote". If there's messaging aiming at low engagement voters, I think that's the most productive. For a campaign like this it really just needs for focus on key points from a marketing POV.
It helps a bit that the detail that it's changed, and the example voting papers, are in the booklet sent to all households. So if at that point someone goes ah yes I'll look at the candidates, they are told about it. It's quite a dry read if I'm honest. Not a fan of anything which means Britain First got something through my letterbox, but that Binface couldn't afford the £10k for the marketing page.
None of this is to defend the shit change, because it's a shit change, for cynical reasons, but I think of the messaging it strikes me as lower priority than just effort to get people engaged and the importance of voter ID.
I'm less concerned about the change to FPTP affecting turnout/engagement - because it's something you can explain at the actual time of voting. As with the London ones there's always a few ballots and you get instructions on each of them, and if someone's not spending much time with politics I'm not sure that they will have really got any memory of what the voting system is, apart from when they're there actually ticking something. Assembly Members were always just one vote so I guess you always had to pay attention when at the polling station which each piece of paper says, which one you can do what on. If you have no ID, you're out - but if you turn up with ID, and no knowledge of the change to voting system, well, that last bit isn't great but won't block you from voting.
Labour definitely are banging on about it (their line is the change means a vote not for them is a vote for the Tories, as you'd expect their line to be), Conservatives are too busy ignoring that they chose Susan Hall and writing fanfiction about London being a warzone.
But in general I think people don't really give much of a shit about the locals/London elections, and the thing to really hammer home big and wide is "it's happening, so actually vote, and get ID to vote". If there's messaging aiming at low engagement voters, I think that's the most productive. For a campaign like this it really just needs for focus on key points from a marketing POV.
It helps a bit that the detail that it's changed, and the example voting papers, are in the booklet sent to all households. So if at that point someone goes ah yes I'll look at the candidates, they are told about it. It's quite a dry read if I'm honest. Not a fan of anything which means Britain First got something through my letterbox, but that Binface couldn't afford the £10k for the marketing page.
None of this is to defend the shit change, because it's a shit change, for cynical reasons, but I think of the messaging it strikes me as lower priority than just effort to get people engaged and the importance of voter ID.
Personally, I've had the opposite experience. I've literally seen the Voter ID adverts multiple times every day (primarily on YouTube). They appear so frequently that I honestly cringe every time I hear the music start playing!
It's not just online - I definitely recall seeing the adverts at the cinema too and on billboards.
I would assume the net effect of bringing in mandatory ID to vote vs running adverts will still be a reduction of turnout - especially in the long run when needing an ID has been normalised and there is less of a perception of the need to advertise the fact.
With regard to participation - in the last 30 years there have been two national votes that have attracted >70% turnout, the 1997 election and Brexit, the referendum on Scottish Independence also got 84% turnout too (but obviously, only in Scotland). People do vote when they feel like their participation matters
I do think PR would help with participation, but it also wouldn't be some magic bullet for social progress either - there are plenty of countries in the world that do have PR but aren't exactly left wing (Israel being the obvious example)
With regard to participation - in the last 30 years there have been two national votes that have attracted >70% turnout, the 1997 election and Brexit, the referendum on Scottish Independence also got 84% turnout too (but obviously, only in Scotland). People do vote when they feel like their participation matters
I do think PR would help with participation, but it also wouldn't be some magic bullet for social progress either - there are plenty of countries in the world that do have PR but aren't exactly left wing (Israel being the obvious example)
Was listening to The Rest is Entertainment podcast and found this fairly interesting (28:52 if timestamp doesn't work)
View: https://youtu.be/Eh_ByqfG2R4?si=kOt0GOmlOQDHgw8M&t=1730
Discussing data on which way people who watch different TV shows are likely to vote. Taskmaster has the largest percentage of Labour voters, Clarkson's farm had the biggest swing from Tory to Labour since 2019. Tories don't lead on a single show polled but Strictly is more Tory than the general public. Question Time is the most representative of the general polling.
Also, while it may seem completely irrelevant to anything, Marina Hyde mentioned that polling suggested the popularity of Duck Dynasty in a particular area correlated more with support for Trump in 2016 than people who previously voted for Bush.
View: https://youtu.be/Eh_ByqfG2R4?si=kOt0GOmlOQDHgw8M&t=1730
Discussing data on which way people who watch different TV shows are likely to vote. Taskmaster has the largest percentage of Labour voters, Clarkson's farm had the biggest swing from Tory to Labour since 2019. Tories don't lead on a single show polled but Strictly is more Tory than the general public. Question Time is the most representative of the general polling.
Also, while it may seem completely irrelevant to anything, Marina Hyde mentioned that polling suggested the popularity of Duck Dynasty in a particular area correlated more with support for Trump in 2016 than people who previously voted for Bush.
Plenty of people (generally the poorest) still have to work on Bank Holidays. Plenty of people (generally the poorest) still have dependents to care for on Bank Holidays.
Making voting easier and more attractive to the disenfranchised is not going to be helped by holidays they don't get to take.
I don't know how you guys can stand youtube ads appearing every 2 minutes lol, I use ad block
Like I said, digitally excluded people who are negatively impacted by the rules aren't likely going to listen to podcasts or have access to online channels. I've seen no voter ID awareness in my local constituency. Either the council is that thick or they ran out of money.
Efforts have just started, but awareness needs to be expanded in universities, food banks, community centres, faith places, clinics, GPs, and on giant buses. All sort of stuff can make a difference.
Good stuffI'm getting emails from Lime Bikes telling me register even (I already have of course)
We got a lady beaten by a lettuce
I saw a comment on the Guardian today that I liked re Truss: "Je ne vinagraitte rien"