Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Honestly, for very important stuff like an independence referendum, I am in favor of mandatory voting. Well, I'm always in favor of mandatory voting anyway, but even more in those case. It's such an historic vote, everyone should be consulted.

[Owlbread]

Honestly, for very important stuff like an independence referendum, I am in favor of mandatory voting. Well, I'm always in favor of mandatory voting anyway, but even more in those case. It's such an historic vote, everyone should be consulted.

I think being able to stay at home and not exercise your franchise is a cornerstone of British democracy. I do it out of moral obligation as I know how recently my family got the vote.

[Sheb]

Well, if you don't want to vote, you're free to cast a blank ballot.

[Owlbread]

I'm happy as long as the vote goes our way. Even if we win by 1% because 1% of the Unionists don't turn up then I'm content.

[TD1]

Honestly, for very important stuff like an independence referendum, I am in favor of mandatory voting. Well, I'm always in favor of mandatory voting anyway, but even more in those case. It's such an historic vote, everyone should be consulted.

I think that too. Not for everything, but certainly for something as ground breaking as this. You don't get a true representation of what the country really wants, and this is about democracy-what suits the majority of people. It's not about which side is more fervent (The independence side, in this case,) it's meant to be numerical.

[Owlbread]

I think that too. Not for everything, but certainly for something as ground breaking as this. You don't get a true representation of what the country really wants, and this is about democracy-what suits the majority of people. It's not about which side is more fervent (The independence side, in this case,) it's meant to be numerical.

That approach is so alien to British politics. It seems like virtually every election and referendum has been a matter of "who turned up".

[Sheb]

Sure. Doesn't mean it's right.

[TD1]

Sure. Doesn't mean it's right.

+1

[Owlbread]

Sure. Doesn't mean it's right.

Then again not much in the British political system is right. We're one of something like two countries in the world where unelected clerics are a part of the national legislature. The other country is Iran.

[Helgoland]

Eh, as long as they vote the right way...

[TD1]

Each system has its flaws. That's a minor one. They are unelected, but their decisions go through parliament.

And this isn't your normal vote, anyway; this will effect everyone. For this, it should be compulsory; it isn't going to be, but it should be. Otherwise it's passing something the majority doesn't want, which doesn't seem fair.

[MonkeyHead]

Eh, as long as they vote the right way...

Well, that depends on who is in government at the time. Cameron has landed himself in hot water this weekend by insisting that the UK is a christian nation, thus illustrating the wide gulf between the "ruling tory classes" and the vast majority of normal inhabitants of this nation, who quite frankly give litte shits about religion save for presents and days off.

Oh, and Owlbread, BBC Radio 2 had a fascinating news story that suggested at the moment, only 36% of people polled would vote yes, but this would jump massively to a awesome sounding 49% if the Conservatives were to win the next general election. So, as bad as it sounds, you better hope that the Tories have a good showing over the coming months, though with Labour being led by an inflatable dartboard, LibDems getting owned by UKIP at every turn, and UKIP, well, being UKIP, this doesn't seem so hard.

With regards the compulsory voting, I think that the right not to vote if you dont want to is an important one. However, this does open up the minefield like we had with the devolution vote in here in Wales - the turn out was sub 50%, and of those that voted, only 52% or so went for yes, meaning that we have a devolved assembly based on the will of around 25% of the people. Maybe the outcome of a referendum should not be valid unless there is some arbitrary minimum turn out or proportion of possible votes being cast for a particular option, though that does open up the can of worms of what to do if the result is held to be null and void...

[Sheb]

Yeah, a minimum threshold would encourage opponent to just boycott the vote, which ain't healthy.

I don't see why you guys look at the right not to vote as something positive. I'm all for compulsory voting, with counting of blank vote (and maybe a new election if a majority of vote is blank). I actually come from Belgium, where voting is compulsory (but not enforced).

[TD1]

Yeah, a minimum threshold would encourage opponent to just boycott the vote, which ain't healthy.

I don't see why you guys look at the right not to vote as something positive. I'm all for compulsory voting, with counting of blank vote (and maybe a new election if a majority of vote is blank). I actually come from Belgium, where voting is compulsory (but not enforced).

Yes, I don't really see the problem with that at all. It ensures democracy is maintained by majority vote, not by laziness. It goes with the original meaning of democracy; the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And all it costs is a bit of time to the people. It does more good than it does harm.

And ya gotta love UKIP
I mean, many of their views aren't exactly sound, but at least they split away from the no-longer-conservative conservatives.

And, though this isn't very relevant, I went to Wales last weekend. The river Wye. It's a very nice place.

[Owlbread]

Each system has its flaws. That's a minor one. They are unelected, but their decisions go through parliament.

The British system has an unusually large number of flaws for a Western democracy.

And this isn't your normal vote, anyway; this will effect everyone. For this, it should be compulsory; it isn't going to be, but it should be. Otherwise it's passing something the majority doesn't want, which doesn't seem fair.

Every general election will affect everyone. They are just as important as referenda because governments elected in general elections are the ones that conduct referenda in the first place. The 2016 general election is very important for this reason, given that depending on who comes to power we will see an in-out EU referendum.

Well, that depends on who is in government at the time. Cameron has landed himself in hot water this weekend by insisting that the UK is a christian nation, thus illustrating the wide gulf between the "ruling tory classes" and the vast majority of normal inhabitants of this nation, who quite frankly give litte shits about religion save for presents and days off.

Isn't it interesting that talking about Christianity in the UK as a politician is such a faux pas, yet our head of state is also the head of the national church? When compared with the situation in the USA it is quite odd.

Oh, and Owlbread, BBC Radio 2 had a fascinating news story that suggested at the moment, only 36% of people polled would vote yes, but this would jump massively to a awesome sounding 49% if the Conservatives were to win the next general election. So, as bad as it sounds, you better hope that the Tories have a good showing over the coming months, though with Labour being led by an inflatable dartboard, LibDems getting owned by UKIP at every turn, and UKIP, well, being UKIP, this doesn't seem so hard.

If Labour were actually competent we would be in for a much tougher ride in the referendum and our polls would probably be running against us much more. As you say though their London leadership is basically an inflatable dartboard and in Scotland they're actually a particularly unpleasant group of cretins, so we are doing much better than we normally would. 

Maybe the outcome of a referendum should not be valid unless there is some arbitrary minimum turn out or proportion of possible votes being cast for a particular option, though that does open up the can of worms of what to do if the result is held to be null and void...

There are many problems with this. In 1979 the majority of the Scottish electorate who actually voted, voted in favour of a devolved Scottish assembly i.e. a kind of parliament. The British government had one of those Canadian style 40% clauses where 40% of the electorate had to get out and vote for the result to be valid. The result was that, despite "Scotland saying Yes" as the slogans went, our result was held to be invalid. Margaret Thatcher followed. We wouldn't get a parliament until the late '90s when the damage had already been done.