Good insights. I would welcome mandatory voting - especially if voter ID requirements are imposed. It seems that making a decision on who to support and casting a vote is very much a civic duty. Even in a flawed system (and the UK system is so outdated that its close to being full of rotten boroughs). Not voting is not actively criticizing the system, its ducking out of a simple obligation from being a recipient / beneficiary / victim of how the country is run.
1 Like
People would soon be on Twitter or similar agreeing to vote for some right whacky party.
With high levels of corruption, voting seems a waste of time.
Iām not sure that I follow your logic of not voting. I understand the frustration of voting for a person and a party only to find out that they were involved in some form of corruption. But would it not make it worse if fewer and fewer people were voting? Is there even a correlation between corruption and voting levels (apart the obvious of presidents who stop all voting and always seem to be very corrupt)? Iād have thought corruption should stimulate more people to vote - and vote out the corrupt parties.
False syllogism, I donāt believe in the political matrix of UK system. Winning an election is just a licence to make a new mess under the guise of cleaning up an old mess that career politicians made before the last election.
The voting paper does not have an option for NOTA.
1 Like
I hope you meant that you do not approve of the political structures in the UK, rather than (like perhaps Santa Claus) do not believe in it. I do not approve of the first past the post, conflict driven, unelected upper house, two party system (if thatās what you meant). But the only place to change this is parliament. So if you think itās unsuitable, you need to vote for a party / leader who will change the system. Not voting makes no difference to anything. None of the above is not voting. So the logic of your stance is that you donāt like the set up but are not willing to see the set up change.
Elections donāt change a thing, and if they did, they would soon be illegal.
Photo from 2022.
Not in favour of a candidate but to keep another one out of power.
This is what happened in 2017, when turnout decreased in the second round and voters cast a record number of blank or spoiled ballots in protest at the choice of candidates.
Yes, its called tactical voting. And the two stage proportional voting used in France allows such clear and informed tactical voting. This ploy of accepting the least worse of two options is common in life. At its core it represents a compromise. Why does it disappoint you?
If more people were disappointed by the UK political set up, and these people voted, then tactical voting could make a huge impact. But apathy and entrenched support for one of the two parties keeps this from happening.
No amount of wielding of unchecked executive power and dismissal of vital select committee findings can wish away the progress that NOTA UK and other groups campaigning for electoral reform have made ā so we crack on.
In the wake of Brexit, Covid and the very public implosions of both the Labour party and now the Tory party, the need for NOTA and further democratic reform of the UK political system has never been more urgent.
The fight for actual democracy continuesā¦ GET INVOLVED!
Our only hope.
Well corrected, thank you. I take it back about non-voting action not being effective.
Youāre welcome.
sorry, but apt.
Hi there spitfire, a very good morning to you. 
