Another of the nasty little parasites who sponge off us and think it is their business to tell us what to do thinks we should be forced to endorse them every five years.
Mr Ruane told BBC Sunday Politics Wales the matter “warrants looking at – it’s a big step, it’s a bold step”.
“Some may say it’s a step too far but I believe having 14 million people off the register, having 22 million people not voting, is a step too far backwards,” he said.
Oh dear… The right to vote that we fought for is also the right to withhold that vote. To refuse to endorse the process, to refuse to engage with it. That is how things work in a liberal society. One that forces people to do things such as vote is not liberal. As for a step backwards, using force is tyrannical, so that is certainly a step backwards.
Forcing people to the ballot box will not fix the problem, because we are not the problem. The problem is rooted firmly in Whitehall and Westminster. They are the problem. We have almost identical parties all of whom want to hector and bully us, all of whom want to steal our money and give it to quangos, fake charities and other illiberal single-issue lobbying groups who will use it to campaign for ever more restrictions on our lifestyles. Meanwhile, the government pisses money away on foreign aid, an over bloated state and a professional political class that is out of touch with the common man. No, I don’t want to vote for them. No, I am not going to legitimise the process whereby we are given the false impression that we matter every five years. Ruane is the problem, not our engagement with the process. We are staying away because of him and his colleagues. And I will not, under any circumstances give these people the satisfaction of my engagement with their rampant criminality.
Anyone who wants your authority so that they can tell you what to do is bad; anyone who wants to be told what to do, and who imagines that someone has a divine right to impose their will on others, is worse. I’m not a tax-paying citizen; I’m an English slave, forced to pay to a ruler (a non-physical entity called the State) who will fling me into a jail if I don’t cough up.
I wouldn’t have a problem with compulsory voting so long as the ballot paper has a “None Of The Above” box. Then the next time politicians try and claim they have a mandate to carry out their lunatic policies, we can point out that they do not.
I object to all forms of compulsion. It is not their place to tell us what to do. We employ them, they are our servants, not the other way around. I’ll decide for myself if I want to vote or not.
You do not need a “None of the above” box, you just cross them all out.
Added to the decision that ‘none of the above’ are deemed suitable, a blank space below for voters to ‘write in’ the name of someone trusted and true. Sailors were Shanghaied, politicians ought to be dragooned. If anybody expresses a desire to be a politician they should be immediately barred from any public office.
I have 3 points to make. This includes noting of MicroDave’s point, though that does not change what I write below.
1. I disapprove very strongly of compulsory voting. But I also disapprove on not voting: I consider that to be a civic duty.
2. There should be, on every ballot paper, an option interpreted as an official abstention (eg None of the Above). This implies the voter cares (to turn up) but does not care for any of the candidates on offer. And there is a difference between having no preference between the candidates and having an active objection to all of them. [Note: things become more complicated where we have AV/STV voting, rather than FPTP, but the same concept applies: passive lack of opinion but caring to vote, versus active vote against all (remaining) candidates.]
3. In the absence of an official abstention (or its more complicated version for AV/STV, sometimes referred to as RON: re-open nominations), spoiling one’s ballot paper by writing specifically something along the lines of “None of the Above” is, IMHO, very much to the point. If a sufficiency of electors did this, rather than just not voting, we might well (even would eventually) mount sufficient pressure to get an official abstention put on the ballot paper. And having to run another election through “None of the Above” winning the vote, or even having it a close call, would be a benefit to our political process.
Best regards
I would agree with all of that with the exception of the civic duty. There is no such thing. We have no duty to the state.
I hate to disagree, but we need both compulsory voting AND “none of the above” …
AND – very important …
That “None of the above” be counted as a candidate.
When “n.o.t.a.” wins, then there must be a re-run with new candidates – none of the previous ones being eligible again, there at that round.
It’s scare the pant’s off’em – which is why it won’t happen, more’s the pity.
Compulsory voting is not a magic cure for the disengagement that many voters feel towards politicians and the political system. Forcing people to the polls will not make them carefully weigh all the options and make a considered choice. They will vote for one reason, and one reason only, to avoid the fine. While you are ticking “none of the above”, these people will vote for the person who has promised them the most. They certainly won’t be voting “none of the above” as the last thing they want is to have another election and again be forced to vote.
Australia is the pork barreling champion of the world. With 30-40% of votes up for grabs, seats that are marginal or close to marginal, see a lot of politicians during elections, announcing policy on the run such as new hospitals or schools or whatever else is likely to buy local votes.
The last thing democracy needs is compulsory voting, it needs people who want to vote.