The Angry Exile at Orphans of Liberty has made an intriguing suggestion, though. He dislikes compulsory voting for its illiberal nature; I'm less worried about that but am concerned at the practice of "donkey voting" that he describes in Australian elections, where voting is compulsory. Apparently, a donkey vote is to turn up (and avoid the fine) but vote for the candidate at the top of the paper - whoever that is. As a result, Australia now has to list candidates in a random order, which helps but does not solve the problem.
Mr Exile has a better idea:
The thought that crossed my mind was that if the majority of constituents don’t vote at all couldn’t it be seen in a way as a vote for no MP at all? Not just a positive rejection of the candidates to be followed by a by-election, but a signal that the majority are so disengaged from their governance and representation in Westminster that there’s not actually any point in them having an MP at all, at least for this Parliament.I think that's quite cool.
And what might be the effect the first time a Returning Officer steps forward and announces that due to majority indifference there will be no member for Apathy-on-Thames until the next general election? Either of two things, I reckon. First is that Apathy-on-Thames actually gets on so well without an MP that even more don’t bother next time, but I think that most people will not want to be left without any representative and turnout will go up everywhere, especially if those current stay at homers who wanted to had a way to express their dislike of all the candidates and maybe get some fresh ones.
The constituency were too apathetic to vote? No MP.
The candidates were too bland to attract any interest? No job for them.
The incumbent was too lazy, useless or objectionable even to garner token support from his or her existing base? Sacked.
The additional cost to the rest of us? Nil (indeed, a small saving...)
Yup agreed, I have proposed this before (although perhaps not on my site). It is better than "none of the above" and "donkey". It might also encourage people who say "they are all the same" to stand themselves to represent what they believe.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I think this is potty.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I live in Apathy-on-Thames and I vote. I desperately want to be represented and desperately need an MP. It's not my fault if my neighbours don't vote. But I lose representation and the assistence of the MP.
I've always thought you were secret communist (or at least a hard core communitarian) - this kind of support for collective guilt - regardless of the actual state of the individual, settles it.
Certainly, if you lived in Apathy-on-Thames and you lost your MP in these circumstances, we'd hear about it on this blog.
Albert, if you are so keen to have an MP then you should be campaigning for one of them or even standing yourself. Or do you think that the system should just work without any contribution from you whatsoever? Your attitude is typical of the entitlement society we seem to have created in the UK. "Someone else must sort everything out for me!".
ReplyDeleteYour attitude is typical of the entitlement society we seem to have created in the UK. "Someone else must sort everything out for me!".
ReplyDeleteAnd you are typical of someone who judges too quickly. I'm simply maintaining the just rights of the individual against you opponents of them.
I could do all that you propose and other people still may not vote. Or perhaps I'm too elderly or ill to do all that. Or perhaps my business is struggling (owing to poor governmental economic management) and I therefore do not have the time or the money to campaign. I still really need an MP therefore, but I'm not in a position to do much about it.
But perhaps I don't have any of those excuses - do you still wish to remove my democratic representation? Wouldn't that be a little unfair, after all, you might be as lazy as me but live in a constituency with a good turn out. Why should you be represented, but not me?
Or is your idea that only those who are politically active should be represented. If so, how do you propose to maintain such a system fairly?
You wish to remove my democratic representation for the "sins" of others. I think that makes you undemocratic and hardly in a position to complain about the democratic credentials of others.
No, I disagree.
ReplyDeleteUnless we have one MP for each voter, you have to accept that the choice of representation is not exclusively yours. Therefore, it is inherent in any system of democracy that the decision reached is a collective one with which you may well disagree.
For example, if I lived in a Labour-held area then I would regard myself as unrepresented. I would have no faith in my MP's ability to understand the problems that I face as a partner in a small business or to approach them sympathetically, and would therefore regard myself as effectively unrepresented. There would therefore be no MP to whom I could turn, and no-one in Parliament to represent my views. The person in Parliament who spoke on my behalf would be someone with whom I vehemently disagreed and who I felt was actively working against my interests. It would, in every sense of the word, be a decision imposed upon me.
Yet if that result was arrived at democratically, then whilst I do not rule out the possibility that I might complain, often, and loudly, it would still be the correct decision and not one that I could object to on principle.
Thus, whilst I often expressed my dismay at having Blair imposed on me as my Prime Minister, I never once questioned the validity or the correctness of his appointment. Brown was another matter; I objected both to the policies that he pursued and to the absence of a democratic mandate for pursuing them, but always kept clear the difference between these two.
So this is not about being communist or communitarian, it is about interpreting the collective wish of the voters of a constituency. It is arguable that if a majority of them choose to stay at home on the sofa, if they cannot even bother to register for a postal vote, then the collective decision of that constituency is that they simply cannot be bothered. In which case, the "can't be bothered" party wins.
As ever, if you don't like the result in your constituency, then either move, help with campaigning next time, or learn to live with it.
(Oh, and I'm no more a Communist than you are a kiddie fiddler. I'm also similarly insulted by the suggestion, and surprised to hear it from you.)
(Your last reply crossed with mine, Albert, but would not have changed the reply that I posted)
ReplyDelete...and I have to say that Blue Eyes has a point. You expect representation of a type that is satisfactory to you to be provided, but do not expect to have to do anything to assist in its production.
ReplyDeleteIt is no use pleading age, infirmity, lack of time and so on. Those with the motivation find the time and the energy to do these things. Those without it, find the excuses.
(Oh, and I'm no more a Communist than you are a kiddie fiddler. I'm also similarly insulted by the suggestion, and surprised to hear it from you.)
ReplyDeleteMy apologies - it was meant entirely as a leg-pull. Of course I don't think you're a communist. I apologise for not being more obvious.
But I still disagree with what you say. I think that you miss the fact that MPs do a lot more for their constituents than just represent a political view-point. MPs have surgeries which are designed to help with such things. Hence, Catholics often voted for Ian Paisley, not because they agreed with his political or religious positions but because they found him to be a good constituency MP.
Moreover, if I have an MP, then even if they are not the person I voted for, I still have the option of appealing to them to vote differently. I did this on a number of occasions in the last Parliament. So even if you don't get the MP you asked for, you can still have your views represented by them - provided you are motivated enough. Your argument is an unmotivating counsel of despair, for it takes even that opportunity has been taken away - simply because of the behaviour of others. I think the long-term effect would be to demotivate the electorate.
But I don't think your logic works anyway in the present system. Why does the principle work only if the majority do not vote? Why not apply the principle if the majority do not support the winner on FPTP?
It is no use pleading age, infirmity, lack of time and so on. Those with the motivation find the time and the energy to do these things. Those without it, find the excuses.
Really? Are you serious? A person terminally ill in hospital with cancer? An elderly person in a similar situation - committed politically but now confused, lacking in energy etc. Just looking for excuses!
Albert, the winner would be whoever gets the most votes. So if Labour get 15,000; the Tories 6,000 and UKIP 43 and 15,250 people don't vote then the don't get an MP party wins. Really quite simple.
ReplyDeleteThe first time around lots of people would not have an MP. If it was a disaster as you suggest then then more people would get out there and vote next time. If we had a recall procedure (which I support) then if lots of people wanted an MP after all then they could have a by-election.
Albert I don't know where you live, but if there was a majority of people in your constituency in hospital with cancer or just elderly and lacking in oomph then I would suggest there was a bigger problem than not having an MP! Maybe (just maybe) activists would be willing to help these people get to polling stations, organise postal votes etc.. A bit like they do now?
ReplyDeletethe winner would be whoever gets the most votes. So if Labour get 15,000; the Tories 6,000 and UKIP 43 and 15,250 people don't vote then the don't get an MP party wins. Really quite simple.
ReplyDeleteNot at all simple - entirely contradictory. You said the winner would be whoever gets the most votes. Clearly on this example the one with the most votes is Labour. Don't vote means don't vote.
If it was a disaster as you suggest then then more people would get out there and vote next time.
If someone is that apathetic as not to vote the first time, then I don't think they will be likely to vote the second time just because some people are cross not to have an MP.
if there was a majority of people in your constituency in hospital with cancer or just elderly and lacking in oomph then I would suggest there was a bigger problem than not having an MP!
Quite! But the point is they lose all recourse to an MP even though they have voted. Hence the following is not to the point:
Maybe (just maybe) activists would be willing to help these people get to polling stations, organise postal votes etc.. A bit like they do now?
I was thinking that too - a majority in a typical constituency is about 25,000 people. If that many are terminally ill, then that's one huge hospital... :-D
ReplyDeleteIn Blue's example, then the apathy party has won. The concept is that a non-vote is classed as an apathy vote.
I also suspect that a few constituencies would go without an MP the first time. That would then bring home to them how important it is to have an MP, by way of the voters fussing that they were not happy. (Or, they might get on just fine, in which case the rest of us - and our MPs - would find out just how important an MP isn't, under the current system.)
Either way, people would be alerted to the importance of participation in elections. It addresses the huge elephant sitting in our democratic room. It highlights the consequence of opting out; at the moment, that consequence is not directly apparent.
Finally, you seem to assume that not having recourse to an MP would cause hardship. I can see that many do provide useful help at the moment, but they are not the only source of help. Some people can cope alone, some people volunteer their help, many professionals provide pro-bono help. Just because one thing is lost does not mean nothing will step in to take up the slack.
The concept is that a non-vote is classed as an apathy vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's the "classed as" that is key there. It isn't that people have voted "no" but their vote is being taken as such. If this is the case, then why not actually require the winner to have more than 50% of the entire electorate. Those who don't vote are (on your understanding) voting "No" to the candidate. Those who vote for someone else are a fortiori definitely voting "No" to the candidate. Therefore, I think the logic is that you need someone to have 50% of the elctorate. In order to achieve this you would need some kind of AV or PR (or similar) with all the problems they entail.
a majority in a typical constituency is about 25,000 people. If that many are terminally ill, then that's one huge hospital
The point is not that they don't vote, but that they do vote but (in your penal democracy) they get punished because others have not voted. Your justification is that they have no excuse for not campainging themselves. I would need only one individual, geuninely unable to campaign to make your position unfair on them.
I don't see that you have addressed my point about being able to influence your MP - but not if you don't have one.
I can see that many do provide useful help at the moment, but they are not the only source of help.
Clearly, in some situations, that's true. But sometimes MPs help because they have a privileged route to Government (even if they are not in power). There is no alternative to this if there is no MP.
"It's the "classed as" that is key there. It isn't that people have voted "no" but their vote is being taken as such. "
ReplyDeleteYes, that is the proposal. Glad you have finally understood the idea.
Glad you have finally understood the idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd your answer to my objection to it is what exactly Blue Eyes?
All seems a bit statist to me.
"All seems a bit statist to me. "
ReplyDeleteActually forcing an MP on an electorate that has not actively chosen to have an MP is more statist. But if we are trading insults then all I can say is that you must be excruciatingly unintelligent if you don't agree with me.
BE, the statism is in the interpretation.
ReplyDeleteA person fails to vote and the state decides what this means. But in any case, even if it isn't statist, there are still my other objections that haven't been addressed.
all I can say is that you must be excruciatingly unintelligent if you don't agree with me.
Well, you would have to say that!
Albert, I was punished for 13 years because other people voted the wrong way. That's democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou're moving on from a discussion of what to do if a majority fails to vote for an MP, to how a majority should be defined. Which I shall take as an indicator that I'm right. :o)
forcing an MP on an electorate that has not actively chosen to have an MP is more statist. - yes, that sums it up.
I was punished for 13 years because other people voted the wrong way. That's democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou were not deprived of access to an MP. You were still represented in Parliament, even if you did not like the way the MP voted.
You're moving on from a discussion of what to do if a majority fails to vote for an MP, to how a majority should be defined.
You are just avoiding the logical outcome of your position: no MP should be elected unless he has over 50% of the entire electorate. I can only wonder why you don't want to be drawn on that one!
Albert, your first point is a misunderstanding and your second point is a non-sequitor.
ReplyDeleteHow?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the misunderstanding and the non-sequitor?
It is your desire to impose the state's interpretation that a non-vote is a no vote that is the non-sequitor.
The reality is that you are stuck between two horns of a dilemma: either make the lack of an MP a punishment or make fiddle the result so that it looks democratic.
Albert, you made cogent points. I'll refrain from saying BE is on a bender :-)) and patently advocates tough love. Tough love usually doesn't work if there is no pre existing connection between the parties.
ReplyDeleteIt is statist to assume those that don't vote count. Those that don't vote don't use MPs (or, as you pointed out, can't reach a polling station). Has anyone explained to these non voters why they should vote? If so, the arguments are more academic than applied. To label them simply as just apathetic is arrogant. Amen. ;-)
Thanks Measured. Of course, the way to reduce Patently and BE's position ot absurdity would be to add a box for "Don't have an MP" on the ballot paper. Then those who don't vote would have both voted not to have an MP and voted against not having an MP.
ReplyDeleteYou're still mixing the means by which the winning candidate is decided with the question of what meaning to impute to a decision not to vote.
ReplyDeleteYou could have FPTP, AV, or PR, and you could have any of them with and without an inferred meaning for a non-vote. Inferring a meaning is, in a way, just a less authoritarian version of compulsory voting. So long as you make it clear in advance what meaning will be inferred, and ensure that alternative voting methods such as proxy and postal votes are available to those who need them, I don't see that there is any harm to any group apart from the apathetic. And they rarely complain* ;-)
Yes, some constituencies may go without an MP for a term. If that brings home to people how useful an MP is, then that is probably a useful result (although that does not of itself justify the change, as it is dangerously close to the ends justifying the means). If the constituency finds out that it gets along just fine, the other MPs will get a salutary lesson - that would probably be no bad thing either (again..., ends & means).
The problem, as I see it, is that the House of Commons is too cosy and arrogant a place. Our MPs need to be made uncomfortable, made to realise who is actually in charge. The problem is that all the suggestions for reform (such as AV) have to be made and approved by the very people that the reforms need to challenge. The simple fact is that such reforms are not going to happen, therefore.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Or perhaps we could take a vote? ;-)
----------------------
*this is a joke, not a suggestion that we routinely abuse the rights of those that are unlikely/unable to complain, just in case you're wondering.
Inferring a meaning is, in a way, just a less authoritarian version of compulsory voting.
ReplyDeleteLess authoritarian, means it's still authoritarian - still statist. Or you could just take a non-vote as a...well non-vote.
So long as you make it clear in advance what meaning will be inferred, and ensure that alternative voting methods such as proxy and postal votes are available to those who need them, I don't see that there is any harm to any group apart from the apathetic
Apart from the group that happens to be unexpectedly ill that day or otherwise unexpectedly somewhere else for some good reason. You simply cannot impose your interpretation. I have in any case, dealt with this problem by suggesting a "no MP" choice on the ballot paper.
the House of Commons is too cosy and arrogant a place.
Perhaps that is the price of democracy. I'd rather that than live in a country in which the state "interprets" the voting result - how much more arrogant is that?
Patently, you have identified *a problem* but you have to acknowledge the strengths of our culture. Letting people be is one of them. I cannot think of a satisfactory solution which is possibly why where we are at. Two phrases come to mind. He who wants to rock the boat needs to justify it and if it's not broken, don't fix it.
ReplyDeleteAlbert, I am enraptured you are still amongst us.
Albert, I am enraptured you are still amongst us.
ReplyDeleteThanks measured. I just noticed that the Holy Father has been planning things for the autumn - always a good sign the world isn't going to end.
Unless Allah has different plans.
ReplyDelete