Why is the current voting system in the UK flawed and how can it be improved?

[Dr Transport]

I vote because I went to war to protect our right to do so and I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite. Also, in the US, there are only two responsibilities stated in the Constitution for the citizens, to vote and to serve on a jury of your peers, and I know many people who shirk both of them.

 

[BobG]

Kinda relevant here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/opinion-roundup-mandatory-voting/

Apparently it is more or less mandatory that everyon vote in Australia. The impact of such a law appears to be that people who are less passionate and therefore less partisan who ordinarily wouldn't vote do vote. That results in candidates being less partisan because they have to appeal to a broader base instead of just motivating their hardcore voters to turn-out. Sounds like a good idea to me (not that it necessarily would be easy to implement).

Easier to implement? Nebraska State Legislature elections

Which party controls Nebraska's State Legislature?

Actually, it's no big secret which party supports which candidate, but a person would have to follow politics at least a little to know which was which. The truly uninformed voters are turned into random noise. Just leaving one letter off the ballots makes a big difference. And, you might notice, that even without that missing letter, some candidates are able to obtain quite large majorities (and I don't mean the single candidate elections).

Of course, within the legislature, the politics seem to be as partisan as ever. Even though all members of the State Legislature are officially non-affiliated, they do associate themselves with one party or the other for practical purposes - to the point that some in the legislature complained the legislature was becoming too partisan. They had a big debate about that, followed by a vote. Reportedly, the vote went entirely along party lines. (I'm not sure if this last is true or just myth, but I thought it was funny. If it is true, it probably happened in the last twelve years, as this study surely would have mentioned it.)

 

[OmCheeto]

Your reasons are totally different from the thesis of the thread and much more logical/reasonable. I often leave certain races blank on a ballot if I'm not well enough informed or don't care, similar to your logic. That is a responsible thing to do.

I like that idea, of leaving blanks. I always vote against something if I don't understand the full ramifications of a measure. My logic for voting against such things was that, if I couldn't understand it, as a brilliant scientist, how was a commoner going to understand it.

Also, here in Oregon, our Voters' Pamphlet, published by the Secretary of State, contains arguments for and against measures, and lists who it is doing the arguing. Do other states have such things?

I find it much handier than trying to decipher flyers. I received one a few weeks ago regarding a candidate who was accused of not using her blinker when changing lanes on the freeway. wooooo... I wish I'd saved that one, but it went in the wood stove with the rest of them.

 

[Danger]

I often leave certain races blank on a ballot if I'm not well enough informed or don't care, similar to your logic.

We have a hostile variation of that here, which I don't know if any other country does. If we truly hate all of the candidates or referendum choices, we "spoil" the ballot by marking more than one or writing in our own option. (Write-in ballots are actually counted; spoiled ones are thrown out.) That way we still vote without having to choose the lesser of multiple evils.

 

[RonL]

I find it much handier than trying to decipher flyers. I received one a few weeks ago regarding a candidate who was accused of not using her blinker when changing lanes on the freeway. wooooo... I wish I'd saved that one, but it went in the wood stove with the rest of them.

I'm sure this is a rant for another thread, but I feel I'm being very generous when I say there might be 1 out of 1,000 reasons why someone else not using their blinker would cause me to have an accident. The simple solution "pay attention to your own driving and stay alert to what conditions are around you"

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm sure this is a rant for another thread, but I feel I'm being very generous when I say there might be 1 out of 1,000 reasons why someone else not using their blinker would cause me to have an accident. The simple solution "pay attention to your own driving and stay alert to what conditions are around you"

Driving styles and Politics... Has anyone mentioned Religion yet?

But, yes, people should pay attention.

Unless you have ADD, and then it becomes; "Oh look! It's raining very hard! I should have cleaned my gutters".

ps. Has anyone started an "Oh my god, the Pubs control both houses now" thread? I've lots of spare time on my hand nowadays. Yesterday, I spent 3 hours making a bowl of soup, and 3 hours building a new and improved ammeter. The soup was very good. The ammeter is making me crazy...

 

[DocZaius]

I do not vote for the following reasons:
1. I am not well informed about the candidates and their positions, but have little interest to be because of #2:
2. Over the years, I have noticed that the differences in the parties and positions of elected representatives have had a very small impact on my personal life and resulted in low variance on my lifestyle and tax burden. This is indeed a selfish approach.
3. It is highly unlikely (but possible - a risk I am willing to take because of reason #2) that whichever side I wanted to win either tied or lost by a single vote (which would have been my vote). I don't understand why upon hearing this, people argue "well if a lot of people thought like you..." But my point would still be valid since I am comparing the quantity (the number of people voting for my side) to (the number of people voting for my side plus one). The difference between those quantities is 1 no matter what reasoning other people chose to or chose not to adopt. And a difference of 1 is still highly unlikely to result in a change in outcome of the winner (but again, not impossible).

To illustrate further my last point, compare these universes (bearing in mind my point about one vote and its associated likelihood in changing the results of an election!)

-The one in which I voted Tuesday
-The one in which I did not vote Tuesday

And tell me how different they are, without an appeal to emotional concepts like "sense of duty" etc..

Now consider the universes in which I either decide to jaywalk across the street or not (hit by a car?), in which I decide to eat this relatively old piece of food that's been in fridge too long (sick from old food?), in which I decide to apply for this job or not (marked change in my income?). I understand that all these choices are not mutually exclusive, but I hope you can understand what I spend more time worrying about.

 

[Orodruin]

Well, the alternative would be something like in Franchise by I. Asimov ...
Personally, I am happy not to live in a system where one particular person's vote is certain to be decisive as such systems tend to be dictatorships. The entire point of a democratic system is to reach majority decisions. In the end, you have (more or less, depending on country/region/etc) the same amount of say as each and every one else in the electorate.

 

[dlgoff]

... To two-thirds of voters that chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, ...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/...minds-the-gop-a-majority-didnt-vote-for-them/

See. You don't need to vote to be heard. :D

 

[nikkkom]

Whenever I start discussing about this topic, I always get negative response and people say that I'm stupid for asking such a silly question.

However, if you think logically, your vote has absolutely no impact on the results. Even if you manage to convince your family, friends and a hundred more people to vote exactly like you, the results would still be the same.

Let me borrow your logic
One drop of water can't possibly affect the weather.
The rain consists only of drops of water.
Therefore, the news about flooding from torrential rains I just read in the news are lies.
LOL.

Another angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Look at first, say, 40 entries - the richest countries.
Most of them are democracies (countries where people can vote). A few exceptions such as Kuwait are rich because they have vast oil deposits.
This is empirical evidence that this voting thing *is* making a difference.

 

[BHL 20]

Let me borrow your logic
Most of them are democracies (countries where people can vote). A few exceptions such as Kuwait are rich because they have vast oil deposits.
This is empirical evidence that this voting thing *is* making a difference.

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

 

[nikkkom]

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

Wrong.
Counter-example.
North Korea has low corruption. Literally: people there very rarely dare to break the law. And yet, it is extremely poor.

 

[Danger]

The more I see and hear about USA politics, the more I'm convinced that the only reliable source of information about the subject is "The Daily Show".

 

[Orodruin]

Wrong.
Counter-example.
North Korea has low corruption. Literally: people there very rarely dare to break the law. And yet, it is extremely poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

 

[Danger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

 

[Orodruin]

There are differences in what would be considered rampant corruption. A few years back, the Swedish corruption was "rampant" when it turned out the new minister of culture had not paid the TV-licence fee...

 

[OmCheeto]

Correlation and covariance. Voting isn't what makes the difference. Democratic rights and wealth are both inversely proportional to the amount corruption in a country.

I have no idea what you just said. I'm somewhat linguistically illiterate, and would appreciate if you could turn your word problem into a mathematical equation, or, provide links to backup your claim.

On the other hand, when asked, by the people showing up at my front door for the last two months, what I thought was the biggest problem, I said; "Corruption".

So, somewhere, in the back of my head, I think I somewhat agree with you.

Though, we had someone here at the forum, years ago, that posted his presidential picks for the last 50 years, and it appeared he always voted for the loser. My only conclusion was that he was a pollster, knew who the mostly likely winner was, voted against them, and therefore could blame all problems in the world on everyone else.

People love to point fingers.

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

I think it may be because the USA has the best financed Hollywood type media to tell us that we do not live in a corrupt society.

It's all Obama's fault.

 

[nikkkom]

Given that the top 20 "non-corrupt" places include the USA and we Canucks, both of which have rampant corruption, that is a truly frightening chart.

It's you just not knowing what real "rampant corruption" is.

For example, when you expect that winning a court case _always_ requires bribing, even if you are 100% right anyway - that's "rampant corruption". If getting a passport or a driver license _always_ requires paying bribes (in addition to official fee) - that's it.

I believe US and Canada are far from being that bad.

 

[Danger]

I believe US and Canada are far from being that bad.

Point taken (although in some parts of both countries it is that bad.)

 

[RonL]

Well I'm feeling the affects of a couple of orange vodkas and watching cooking shows with my wife and daughter, so I'm in a tender mood and must confess "I traded my vote for love".
I'm for most part republican, my wife is a "yellow dog democrat" (we are almost 30 years married, it must be love"):) not being so happy with choices this year, I voted straight line D and now I'm so high on a pedestal that I'm afraid to try getting down for fear of breaking my neck.
I don't feel I made a difference, but I did my part, I did feel my vote went to people I have the most respect for at this particular time and I hope that is the most important thing in voting.:D

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Though, we had someone here at the forum, years ago, that posted his presidential picks for the last 50 years, and it appeared he always voted for the loser. My only conclusion was that he was a pollster, knew who the mostly likely winner was, voted against them, and therefore could blame all problems in the world on everyone else.

People love to point fingers.
...

Ouch! Never trust your memory, when googling is so easy:

My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

Perhaps I was just confused by his lack of political consistency. Rep, Dem, Rep, Rep, Dem, Dem, Dem.

That was a fun thread. I like fun threads.

It's not often I get to quote Юлий Борисович Бринер. (You-Lee-eh Borees-oh-veech Breen-air?)

 

[dlgoff]

Well I'm feeling the affects of a couple of orange vodkas and watching cooking shows with my wife and daughter, so I'm in a tender mood and must confess "I traded my vote for love".
I'm for most part republican, my wife is a "yellow dog democrat" (we are almost 30 years married, it must be love"):) not being so happy with choices this year, I voted straight line D and now I'm so high on a pedestal that I'm afraid to try getting down for fear of breaking my neck.

My girlfriend of 40+ years has money running out of her ... because she never spends it due to her reclusive ways. Probably because she meet me during the hippie days (I never had much money; still don't), yet she voted D also. Bless her soul. :k

Have a good night with your wife.

 

[Choppy]

The statement that voting is irrelevant because it is unlikely to make a difference comes off as rather arrogant in my opinion.

Not that I'm any kind of expert in political matters (nor do I particularly want to be), but as a citizen of a democratic nation I understand that one of the basic tenants of living in a democracy is that no one person is really supposed to be greater than any other. We all have certain rights. We all have certain responsibilities.

When such a statement is made, it implies not that one's vote should "make a difference" (which is never defined), rather, that if one does not have the decisive power in influencing the outcome of the election by voting, the exercise is pointless. And of course you can't have a condition where one person's vote is worth more than the rest, because if you do, you're no longer in a democracy.

If you don't appreciate your right to vote I would suggest taking some time to travel. Don't be a tourist. Travel and see some places in the world that don't (or perhaps at some time in their history did not) have the right to vote. And if you can't travel, read.

 

[nikkkom]

Point taken (although in some parts of both countries it is that bad.)

Really? I thought bribing a judge in US is a dangerous thing to do per se. Well, you can try doing that, but if you get caught, you are done. And you can't bribe your way out of it by trying to bribe e.g. FBI investigators.

Am I wrong?

 

[Danger]

Am I wrong?

From a legal standpoint, no; from a practical one, yes. Some jurisdictions are essentially owned by organized crime or big business enterprises. On the small end of that, think of "speed traps" wherein a speed limit or stop sign is hidden behind foliage and police lie in wait for someone to ignore it. Most people (usually it's in tourist areas) just pay the fine because it would cost more to stay and fight the ticket. As to more important stuff, a lot of students have been put through law school by friends or relatives in mobs, and lawyers go on to become judges, senators, etc..

 

[StatGuy2000]

From a legal standpoint, no; from a practical one, yes. Some jurisdictions are essentially owned by organized crime or big business enterprises. On the small end of that, think of "speed traps" wherein a speed limit or stop sign is hidden behind foliage and police lie in wait for someone to ignore it. Most people (usually it's in tourist areas) just pay the fine because it would cost more to stay and fight the ticket. As to more important stuff, a lot of students have been put through law school by friends or relatives in mobs, and lawyers go on to become judges, senators, etc..

I can't say whether what you state above is especially prevalent in the US (perhaps only in specific jurisdictions), but I'm quite confident that you are exaggerating greatly when you state earlier that corruption is rampant in Canada (and before you say anything else, I live in Canada and am reasonably well-informed about the political situation).

I'm not suggesting that corruption does not exist (it certainly does, as in any country in the world where people are involved in decision-making), but you should be cautious about using the word "rampant", because it implies that somehow that the "rule of law" is somehow dysfunctional in Canada, and there is no evidence that this is the case.

 

[BHL 20]

Seriously people, many of you rubbish the OP, but even though I'm not against voting I have considered this issue myself. Because it seems like such an obvious thing to want to explain rationally (without appealing to being the responsible citizen) I expected that there exists some kind of rigorous analysis of the situation, involving Game Theory or whatnot. I'm surprised to see that such a treatment does not exist.

 

[physicsshiny]

Seriously people, many of you rubbish the OP, but even though I'm not against voting I have considered this issue myself. Because it seems like such an obvious thing to want to explain rationally (without appealing to being the responsible citizen) I expected that there exists some kind of rigorous analysis of the situation, involving Game Theory or whatnot. I'm surprised to see that such a treatment does not exist.

Maybe there is and it's just that the people in this thread aren't well-versed in Game Theory...

 

[Orodruin]

I believe the bottom line is that your vote will matter even less if you do not vote.

 

[Astronuc]

If nobody sings, there will never be a chorus.

Every journey starts with the first step.