Do not vote!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SLCZ3]

One of my workmates, whom i have known for quite a few years now, has allways proposed the view that by voting in general elections particularly, we are actually contributing to our own abuse by whichever government is elected and that to really change things, make a point, ensure that politicians take note of a protest, then not to vote would be the way to go.
Now considering this, and that a would be MP has to get a minimum number of votes or he loses his electrol deposit, at what point, if any, would there be a cancellation, or redated election in such a situation, or would it still be first past the post if; shall we say, only 1% of the population of any constituency actually voted.
In addition can anybody remember the rules/regulations regarding what % of the vote a candidate has to obtain without losing the deposit

[10 Pence Short]

Generally speaking democracy allows the people to get the Government they deserve.

There is no realistic alternative to the big 2 (possibly 3, being generous) in terms of groups of people capable of running a country without it changing beyond recognition, and probably not for the better.

Some parties evolve and change to meet the needs and desires of the people, some parties pretend they have. It looks like the latter is on a very limited time budget at the moment...

[V8mate]

SLCZ3 said:

In addition can anybody remember the rules/regulations regarding what % of the vote a candidate has to obtain without losing the deposit

Electoral Administration Bill 2005 changed the percentage from 5% down to 2%.

[Don]

Not vote?

Unthinkable.

If there's no-one who deserves your vote write that on the ballot paper. "None of the above".

[jesusbuiltmycar]

V8mate said:

SLCZ3 said:

In addition can anybody remember the rules/regulations regarding what % of the vote a candidate has to obtain without losing the deposit

Electoral Administration Bill 2005 changed the percentage from 5% down to 2%.

Labour still lost their deposit in the Henley by-election....

[XitUp]

I always vote. Even if there is no one I want to vote for I spoil my ballot. If you can't be arsed to even do that you have no right to complain.

I think voting should be compulsory, with a none of the above option.

[thinfourth2]

If a group got together under the do not vote banner and said that every single person that did not vote supported them then at the next election they could easily say that more people suppported them then whoever won the next election.

[thinfourth2]

Don said:

Not vote?

Unthinkable.

If there's no-one who deserves your vote write that on the ballot paper. "None of the above".

Sadly under the current system a spoiled vote is seen as people who are too stupid to fill out a ballot form

[Mclovin]

i couldnt vote last time due to age and a war monger and a blind chancellor took power...

[AJS-]

10 Pence Short said:

There is no realistic alternative to the big 2 (possibly 3, being generous) in terms of groups of people capable of running a country without it changing beyond recognition, and probably not for the better.

We've had one of the big two for te last 12 years and I would say the country has changed beyond recognition, and not for the better.

[SLCZ3]

AJS- said:

10 Pence Short said:

There is no realistic alternative to the big 2 (possibly 3, being generous) in terms of groups of people capable of running a country without it changing beyond recognition, and probably not for the better.

We've had one of the big two for te last 12 years and I would say the country has changed beyond recognition, and not for the better.

That in reality is due to both the big two parties, do not forget Maggie initiated the demise of the Unions and unfettering of the Capitalist dogma, Labour were unable to "join up their thinking " and have never ever considered the full ramifications of their actions.
Take for example the latest "tax" proposal for broadband, instead of ensuring the ISP"s do not restrict/constrain/prioritise connections,and waveband, and fully utilise the infrastructure that was laid years ago, remember all the fibre optic that was laid? to encourage the ISP"s they are now taxing us to give to the ISP"s the money to "upgrade" to superfast, generally i think that for normal domestic use the current speeds are fine, if we get the waveband we should.
Anyway back to the main subject, does anybody know at what point an election would be cancelled/rerun if there was insufficient voters votting or if there were an excess of spolied votes.

[Don]

thinfourth2 said:

Don said:

Not vote?

Unthinkable.

If there's no-one who deserves your vote write that on the ballot paper. "None of the above".

Sadly under the current system a spoiled vote is seen as people who are too stupid to fill out a ballot form

Not if you write "They are all shysters and I despise them all" from the top to the bottom of the paper.

I know some people are too stupid to vote but they probably can't spell "shysters" and "despise".

[andy_s]

I think you'd have to be stupid not to vote after seeing the results of the electorate hissy fit witnessed in the last local elections.

[unrepentant]

SLCZ3 said:

One of my workmates, whom i have known for quite a few years now, has allways proposed the view that by voting in general elections particularly, we are actually contributing to our own abuse by whichever government is elected and that to really change things, make a point, ensure that politicians take note of a protest, then not to vote would be the way to go.
Now considering this, and that a would be MP has to get a minimum number of votes or he loses his electrol deposit, at what point, if any, would there be a cancellation, or redated election in such a situation, or would it still be first past the post if; shall we say, only 1% of the population of any constituency actually voted.
In addition can anybody remember the rules/regulations regarding what % of the vote a candidate has to obtain without losing the deposit

A % of the vote is different from a percentage of those eligible to vote.

Your mate is wrong. If you don't vote you give up the right to pontificate. His mantra is that of the extremists who are the only people who benefit from a low turnout.

[unrepentant]

Don said:

thinfourth2 said:

Don said:

Not vote?

Unthinkable.

If there's no-one who deserves your vote write that on the ballot paper. "None of the above".

Sadly under the current system a spoiled vote is seen as people who are too stupid to fill out a ballot form

Not if you write "They are all shysters and I despise them all" from the top to the bottom of the paper.

I know some people are too stupid to vote but they probably can't spell "shysters" and "despise".

A spolied vote is a spoiled vote. They don't say "total number of ballot papers spoiled is 457 of which 2 people could spell shyster".

[Invisible man]

10 Pence Short said:

Generally speaking democracy allows the people to get the Government they deserve.

There is no realistic alternative to the big 2 (possibly 3, being generous) in terms of groups of people capable of running a country without it changing beyond recognition, and probably not for the better.

Some parties evolve and change to meet the needs and desires of the people, some parties pretend they have. It looks like the latter is on a very limited time budget at the moment...

Does this not suggest the old Party system has had its day?

[Don]

unrepentant said:

A spolied vote is a spoiled vote. They don't say "total number of ballot papers spoiled is 457 of which 2 people could spell shyster".

I know. I am merely disagreeing with the idea that a spoiled vote is considered something done only by stupid people. I view it as a protest...and, I believe, do many others.

[FourWheelDrift]

Spoiled votes will never make a change, it just allows the current idiots to continue to govern because no one votes them out.

No one cares about spoiled votes.

[pkitchen]

FourWheelDrift said:

Spoiled votes will never make a change, it just allows the current idiots to continue to govern because no one votes them out.

No one cares about spoiled votes.

Vote. End of......

[XitUp]

A spoiled ballot does count. It counts towards the number of people voting.
For example if 10 people vote, Labour get 1, Cons get 1, Lib Dem get 1 and 7 are spoiled it says a lot more than if those 7 just don't bother voting. It says "I am not happy with any of these choices" rather than "I don't care".