They're not voting because...
- there is no minimum % of eligible voters...
there is no minimum % of eligible voters required. How can a system be called democraratic if a majority of eligible voters can choose 'none of the above' and a minoirty candidate is declared the winner
PLUS the boundaries are fixed; the system gives votes to whoever the ruling party is; its 1st-past-the-post; it is £1000 deposit which excludes the poor and is undemocratic
written 12th Apr 2005
and the electorate are kept politically illiterate
Responses
-
Matt replies: I think the assumption that people who don't vote are choosing "none of the above" is jumping to conclusions a little. Many people have no interest in politics, some forget to vote, some decide not to vote because they are in a safe seat; it is impossible to say how many are trying to cast a "None of the above" vote.
In order to ensure a majority of our ever-increasingly apathetic population elect a leader we would have to make voting compulsary (which is an infringement on civil liberties but done in some European countries) and then eliminate the lowest scoring candidate(s) until each constituency only has 2 people running- then have a second, third or twenty sixth round of voting between the 2 survivors...
Finally, I believe you get your £1000 deposit back if you get more than a certain percentage or certain number of votes. I think this is fair enough as it excludes people standing for a laugh and making a mockery of the British political process.
written 12th Apr 2005
