Should we be made to vote?

Would that mean we were without a government for a few weeks, Soutra?
It would also benefit the parties with the most money, as the smaller parties would not be able to afford it. As it is, the NHA and the Green parties cannot afford to have people standing in all constituencies.

Of course it wouldn't mean that we'd be without a government for a few weeks....

Why wouldn't it, Ana?

I have just been listening to a very interesting debate about this on R4 on the way back from choir. Not sure what the programme was called, but it finished at 10pm. Definitely worth catching on iPlayer.

The last thing they were discussing was whether we have the right to sell our vote to someone else if we do not wish to use it!!

Because the incumbent government would obviously remain in charge until the re-election.

('re-election'? Is that right? The next election, anyway)

I've just realised that the programme I heard tonight was probably a repeat of the one Lilygran was posting about to start with - sorry!

No I don't...cos I'm fed up of people and big brother telling me what to do, we have enough of that.

It was interesting, wasn't it, Mishap? www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043wx2s The Public Philosopher

I have just read back up the thread to fay's comment on the actions of the new Australian government. She says 'We have just been handed down the harshest budget in our history targeting the poorest and single mothers by this far right government.'

If voting is compulsory then the majority of Australians have voted for this far right government and this budget is the one the majority of Australians want. So the protesters can only represent the minority vote and are probably less likely to be able to vote out a government they do not like than in the UK where, when there is a strong protest vote it is those electors who support the protests who are most likely to vote when the indifferent and complacent stay at home.

More generally DH always says that even when there is nobody you want to vote for there is always someone you want to vote against.

Actually, Ana, there is no incumbent government. Parliament is dissolved and every seat is vacant. Therefore there are no MPs until the election.
If the majority of people voted for none of the above and there was a revote with none of the previous candidates being allowed to stand, then it would take time and money to reorganise the second election.
I think it would be quite interesting but chaotic.

How did Gordon Brown cling on then. There was all that carry on between the Lib Dems and Labour and the Conservatives. Went on for quite a while.

No 10 was never abandoned.
Just asking,

Didn't Mr Clegg say something the other day about the present coalition agreeing not to do for the rest of the lifetime of this parliament as they could no longer agree on anything? It would be ok as Belgium had managed for, was it 18 months, without a parliament. No parliament did not mean no government.

And yes, I think voting should be compulsory. It might make a few more take an interest and think a bit about what happens rather than just sounding off and doing nothing or just being apathetic. But it does need a none of the above box of course.

I'm not sure you can make actual voting compulsory. You can make turning up and putting a scribble on a voting paper compulsory, I suppose, though how the fact that someone has or hasn't put a scribble could be determined before the count, I don't know. So, in effect, all that is "compulsory" is turning up at a voting station and being ticked off a list of electors. Then one can take one's voting paper and cross it all out in disgust or only pretend to make a mark on it before posting it in the ballot box.

I suppose a spoiled ballot paper is still a vote of sorts

You don't even have to turn up to vote. There are other options.

If voting was compulsory, I would do nothing about voting, including spoiling my vote or putting an unmarked voting paper in the ballot box. I would also not attend court unless arrested, refuse to pay a fine and if necessary go to prison.

Since gaining the vote 50 years ago to the best of my memory I have voted in every election at every level from parish council to the European elections, bar two when either ill health or a last minute problem made it impossible, both were elections for local councils. I will be voting tomorrow.

Flickety our current Liberal (Tories) government only got in because the previous Australian Labor government lost the election. If an election was held today from what the polls are indicating this right wing Liberal party would lose. If voting wasn't compulsory would we be stuck with this extreme right wing government?

Yes, Gordon Brown clinging on for dear life as they tried to winkle him out from behind that desk...

FlicketyB I am interpreting your first para to mean you would resent being 'made' to vote and would rebel accordingly.

Whether you meant that or not, it's exactly what I would do.

Sky News have been running a report on vote rigging in Pendle, Yorkshire and other parts of the country. It happens!

Postal voting is open to fraud.

In January the Electoral Commission said it was concerned about certain council areas re -vote rigging. Taking postal vote rigging to one side the commission suggested police should mount patrols at polling stations in 'these vulnerable areas'.

They want political parties to sign up to new code of conduct, including a ban on activists handling postal ballot papers. They say they are talking about the unscrupulous campaigners who act in an improper way to put pressure on people.

The council areas where there is concern and an historic allegation of voter fraud are:-

Birmingham
Blackburn
Darwin
Bradford
Burnley
Calderdale
Coventry
Derby
Hyndburn
Kirklees
Oldham
Pendle
Peterborough
Slough
Tower Hamlets
Walsall
Woking

It's not right to carry on with something that is obviously open to fraud and that would also implicate the use of computer voting, no difference is there.

"In Westminster systems, in minority situations, the incumbent government usually has the first opportunity to attempt to win the confidence of the House. This is so even if the incumbents have fewer seats – the incumbent prime minister still holds his or her commission for the duration of the writ period and immediately following an election."

From Wikipedia, but similar information can be found here

Petallus, I wouldn't resent it, I would object to it as utterly undemocratic. With the right to vote goes the right not to vote.

A bit more grown up, than my sulky attitude

The problem may well be with the whole parliamentary system and not so much the voter. If Parliament was accountable to the public and the public had the power to remove an ineffectual government or candidates, I have a suspicion more people would vote.