Increasing vote turnout

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 2:09am #1

We've had, by and large, falling turnouts in general elections and referendums for decades. A lot of people say parties won't represent them, but they never turn out to vote anyway so their voice is unlikely to be heard - further alienating the base that is likely to vote.

I'm just wondering as to what kind of action you would support in order to increase the turnout, or if we should even bother at all.

Again, I'll set it to private so people don't see your vote itself.

FISMA. · 13-12-2016 2:11am

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm just wondering as to what kind of action you would support in order to increase the turnout

Free pints!

Zaph · 13-12-2016 2:14am

Give people enough viable options on the ballot paper where they believe that those who they vote for will a) stick to their pre-election promises; and b) actually make a difference rather than giving us the same old crap that we've had for years. Without that it's impossible to get people to engage and actually care about voting and no amount of changes to the voting system/inducements/threats will make the slightest bit of difference.

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 2:16am

Zaph wrote: »

Give people enough viable options on the ballot paper where they believe that those who they vote for will a) stick to their pre-election promises; and b) actually make a difference rather than giving us the same old crap that we've had for years. Without that it's impossible to get people to engage and actually care about voting and no amount of changes to the voting system/inducements/threats will make the slightest bit of difference.

Surely by voting being mandatory, parties are going to court those votes and have to follow through on their promises or face decimation at the next election?

Ken. · 13-12-2016 2:19am

They should add a 'none of the above' option on the ballot like other jurisdictions. If 'none of the above' "wins" then all of the people on the ballot have to be replaced and a revote takes place.

Some info on NOTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

Zaph · 13-12-2016 2:19am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surely by voting being mandatory, parties are going to court those votes and have to follow through on their promises or face decimation at the next election?

You really believe that? It's never bothered them before now so I fail to see why it should just because people are being compelled to vote. And all that will happen with mandatory voting is that so many people won't bother voting that it would be almost impossible to collect all the fines imposed, or have enough prison space for those who refused to pay them.

hatrickpatrick · 13-12-2016 2:21am

Internal absentee voting would massively increase young voter turnout. The number of friends I have who couldn't vote last time due to living away from home for college and being in the middle of Spring exams / study (so not worth taking a one day trip home) was ridiculous. People should be able to vote by post if they are not going to be present in their constituency on the day of the election.

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 2:23am

Zaph wrote: »

You really believe that? It's never bothered them before now so I fail to see why it should just because people are being compelled to vote. And all that will happen with mandatory voting is that so many people won't bother voting that it would be almost impossible to collect all the fines imposed, or have enough prison space for those who refused to pay them.

Well, I mean, we have a country to compare with that does run a mandatory voting system - Australia.

At their last election, Australia had a turnout of 91% - ours was only 65%

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 2:24am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Internal absentee voting would massively increase young voter turnout. The number of friends I have who couldn't vote last time due to living away from home for college and being in the middle of Spring exams / study (so not worth taking a one day trip home) was ridiculous. People should be able to vote by post if they are not going to be present in their constituency on the day of the election.

Surely you could register wherever you're staying locally and vote there?

ken wrote: »

They should add a 'none of the above' option on the ballot like other jurisdictions. If 'none of the above' "wins" then all of the people on the ballot have to be replaced and a revote takes place.

Some info on NOTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

I quite like that, but would the NOTA need the largest plurality of the vote or an actual majority?

Zaph · 13-12-2016 2:30am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Well, I mean, we have a country to compare with that does run a mandatory voting system - Australia.

At their last election, Australia had a turnout of 91% - ours was only 65%

And yet at the last election Australia had over 1.4m people who didn't vote despite it being mandatory and the turnout was actually down 2% on the previous election. Using the same turnout as Australia it would still mean that nearly 300,000 people here would be fined and/or imprisoned for not voting. The legal system is already stretched enough without adding all that administration to it.

Ken. · 13-12-2016 2:30am

AnGaelach wrote: »

I quite like that, but would the NOTA need the largest plurality of the vote or an actual majority?

That would need to be worked out. In my opinion if in a 4 seater someone got the quota on the first count they are elected. If NOTA was second highest then all the rest are eliminated. If NOTA was top with no quota for anyone then all are replaced.

Ken. · 13-12-2016 2:35am

If mandatory voting were brought in here I'd make the penalty for not voting that you are not allowed vote in the next 3 nationally held voting opportunities(national,local,presidential,European,referendums).

Zaph · 13-12-2016 2:35am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surely you could register wherever you're staying locally and vote there?

That's something that bugs the hell out of me. The amount of people I know who "head back home" to vote whenever there's an election is ridiculous. They've been living in Dublin for years, Dublin is their feckin' home ffs! One guy tried to explain it to me that he was going home to vote because the local TDs had a better idea of the issues that affected his town, despite the fact that he'd been in Dublin for years and had no intention of ever moving back home because of the job he did not being available there. And he just couldn't understand my point that his local issues were now the issues affecting the part of Dublin he was living in.

Arcade_Tryer · 13-12-2016 2:48am

Run candidates who inspire people.

See: Barack Obama, Tony Blair.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2016 3:01am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surely by voting being mandatory, parties are going to court those votes and have to follow through on their promises or face decimation at the next election?

No. Making voting mandatory means parties don't have to motivate or enthuse voters to vote; the law does that for them. Mandatory voting doesn't solve a problem of voter disengagement; it just helps to conceal it.

Under a mandator system, the parties don't have to persuade people to vote. They just have to persuade people to vote for them, rather than for some other party. Which means that campaigning is directed at attracting the attention of voters who aren't interested and, given their druthers, wouldn't vote at all. Which means shallow, superficial, personality-based campaigning which focusses on telling people what they want to hear, and reaffirming what they already believe.

We have compulsory voting in Australia and it's no coincidence, in my view, that Australia is also the home of the vanity party.

Stasi 2.0 · 13-12-2016 3:12am

If there is mandatory voting and on polling day one is
1) Sick
2) In hospital
3) Away from home
4) abroad
5) Caring for dependents
6) dead
how does one go about proving it and how much administrative resources are devoted to chasing the matter up ?

Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and giving non-residents a vote is even worse.

If people dont vote thats their problem. In a democracy people get the government they deserve and those who dont vote deserve it most of all.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2016 3:44am

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

If there is mandatory voting and on polling day one is
1) Sick
2) In hospital
3) Away from home
4) abroad
5) Caring for dependents
6) dead
how does one go about proving it and how much administrative resources are devoted to chasing the matter up ?

In Australia it works like this: If you don't vote, they send you a letter saying "You didn't vote. Send us $50, please, or a plausible excuse." If you send them the $50, that's an end to the matter. If you send them the plausible excuse, they expect documentary evidence - a copy of your plane ticked showing you were away from home, documents evidencing a stay in hospital, that kind of thing. If you do neither they send you a summons, and if you are convicted in court you'll get a fine which is likely to exceed $50.

In fairness, part of the deal is that they do make it very easy to vote. You can vote at any polling station, not just the one nearest your home. If you expect to be away, or in hospital, or whatever, you can vote up to three weeks before the election, either by post or in person at a designated place (of which there are many). if you're in hospital, in a nursing home, working in a remote area, etc, odds are that a mobile polling station will visit either on election day or in the days before so that you can vote.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and giving non-residents a vote is even worse.

I agree, on both counts.

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 3:50am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Well, I mean, we have a country to compare with that does run a mandatory voting system - Australia.

At their last election, Australia had a turnout of 91% - ours was only 65%

That's nice... our government are still ****e.

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 3:52am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Making voting mandatory means parties don't have to motivate or enthuse voters to vote; the law does that for them. Mandatory voting doesn't solve a problem of voter disengagement; it just helps to conceal it.

Under a mandator system, the parties don't have to persuade people to vote. They just have to persuade people to vote for them, rather than for some other party. Which means that campaigning is directed at attracting the attention of voters who aren't interested and, given their druthers, wouldn't vote at all. Which means shallow, superficial, personality-based campaigning which focusses on telling people what they want to hear, and reaffirming what they already believe.

It is probably easier for a party to remain in power if they cater to a smaller, more specific base of likely voters, than those who have to try and target as many people as possible.

To give you an example of what I mean - Fianna Fail and Fine Gael only held 16 and 17% of the total electorate's vote respectively, yet FG and FF hold just under 50% of the total seats.

We could incorporate the "NOTA" idea alongside the mandatory voting idea, to mitigate the effects of the "lesser of two evils" that you are talking about.

AnGaelach · 13-12-2016 3:57am

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and giving non-residents a vote is even worse.

Yeah, the postal vote for people abroad doesn't appeal to me, nor does giving it to foreign citizens living here - but those are two ideas that are usually trotted out. I'm not even really in favour of lowering the voting age, but again I've heard it bandied about a bit so I included it.

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 4:05am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, the postal vote for people abroad doesn't appeal to me, nor does giving it to foreign citizens living here - but those are two ideas that are usually trotted out. I'm not even really in favour of lowering the voting age, but again I've heard it bandied about a bit so I included it.

Why shouldn't someone who lives here get a say? Forgien or not they are affected just as much as the rest of us.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2016 4:10am

AnGaelach wrote: »

It is probably easier for a party to remain in power if they cater to a smaller, more specific base of likely voters, than those who have to try and target as many people as possible.

To give you an example of what I mean - Fianna Fail and Fine Gael only held 16 and 17% of the total electorate's vote respectively, yet FG and FF hold just under 50% of the total seats.

We could incorporate the "NOTA" idea alongside the mandatory voting idea, to mitigate the effects of the "lesser of two evils" that you are talking about.

No offence, but I think NOTA is an exceptionally dumb idea. If attractive, acceptable candidates were not motivated to nominate themselves the first time around, why on earth would we expect them to nominate themselves the next time around? If the problem you are trying to solve is voters who are not motivated to vote, it seems very unlikely that the solution will be found by looking to candidates who are not motivated to run.

I think the problem here is an attempt to treat voting as a consumer transaction. The customers are offered a selection of goods; if they don't choose any of them, the problem must be that the selection is too poor because, hey, the customer is never wrong, right?

Voting is not a consumer transaction. In classical republican theory a voter does not, or should not, vote to gratify himself or to secure his own advantage, but to contribute to the common good. It's wildly unlikely that the common good is going to be served by thrusting power on people who don't want it and haven't sought it, so it seems reasonable to suggest that, in an election, the voter should be expected to indicate a preference among those who are actually seeking political office. Even if he thinks they are all no great shakes, he should still be capable of forming an opinion as to which of them is the best of a bad lot. If he's not satisfied with the array of candidates who offer themselves, the proper response is not to stamp the foot and demand that somebody else take on the job of finding different array to present to him; it's to be come more politically engaged, and to contribute to a movement that will do what none of the present parties seem willing to do.

SpannerMonkey · 13-12-2016 4:13am

everyone should vote , its their right its their obligation , ive never missed an opportunity to vote and i do believe people are lazy / not bothered , you have no right to bitch about government if you haven't voted . loads of keyboard warriors are very vocal about dissing the govenmnet but have never executed their right to vote , drives me mad :pac:

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 4:23am

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

everyone should vote , its their right its their obligation , ive never missed an opportunity to vote and i do believe people are lazy / not bothered , you have no right to bitch about government if you haven't voted . loads of keyboard warriors are very vocal about dissing the govenmnet but have never executed their right to vote , drives me mad :pac:

That's perhaps because the candidates are useless.

Stasi 2.0 · 13-12-2016 4:31am

What about presidential elections? In Ireland the President has zero input into policy and the campaigns are typically a glorified rose of tralee pagent.

hatrickpatrick · 13-12-2016 4:34am

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surely you could register wherever you're staying locally and vote there?

If you're in college and make regular trips home, combined with the requirement to register weeks in advance, you won't always know where you'll be on that given day. Postal / advance absentee voting makes far more sense. You really should be able to vote in your home town from anywhere in the country - travel commitments should not be a barrier to participating in democracy.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2016 4:36am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you're in college and make regular trips home, combined with the requirement to register weeks in advance, you won't always know where you'll be on that given day. Postal / advance absentee voting makes far more sense. You really should be able to vote in your home town from anywhere in the country - travel commitments should not be a barrier to participating in democracy.

You can be registered in as many constituencies as you have a residence in, so long as you only actually vote in one of them.

Didas · 13-12-2016 4:42am

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

What about presidential elections? In Ireland the President has zero input into policy and the campaigns are typically a glorified rose of tralee pagent.

Leaving aside turnout, I'd like to see Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland get a vote in the presidential election. The president is really just a 'ceremonial representative' of the Irish people, so it would be fitting for Irish in the North to get a vote.

SpannerMonkey · 13-12-2016 4:47am

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

That's perhaps because the candidates are useless.

agreed but there is always one better than another and that should be your vote

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 5:02am

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

agreed but there is always one better than another and that should be your vote

It's a sad state when our votes should be based on "who is the least biggest prick?" Sad state indeed.

Arguably wouldn't those who didn't vote for the cancer that fills the Dáil Éireann be the ones who are best to complain? It's rather hypocritical to vote someone in the say "look at that tosser".

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 5:02am

tonygun wrote: »

Leaving aside turnout, I'd like to see Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland get a vote in the presidential election. The president is really just a 'ceremonial representative' of the Irish people, so it would be fitting for Irish in the North to get a vote.

No they shouldn't. Sorry but they aren't affected by our government and as far as I'm concerned they are not Irish they are British. 90% would tell you that too. We don't get a say in the British votes why should they get a say in ours?

Didas · 13-12-2016 5:26am

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

No they shouldn't. Sorry but they aren't affected by our government and as far as I'm concerned they are not Irish they are British. 90% would tell you that too. We don't get a say in the British votes why should they get a say in ours?

Interestingly enough, your concern is not what dictates the official policy of the UK, NI and Irish governments on nationality in the North. All NI citizens are entitled to both British and Irish citizenship. In the 2011 UK census, 28.4% of NI, over half a million people, identified as Irish. The President of Ireland is essentially a ceremonial representative of the Irish people, the office holds no real effective power over government in the South, so it would be fitting for Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to have a voice on who that should be.

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 5:35am

tonygun wrote: »

Interestingly enough, your concern is not what dictates the official policy of the UK, NI and Irish governments on nationality in the North. All NI citizens are entitled to both British and Irish citizenship. In the 2011 UK census, 28.4% of NI, over half a million people, identified as Irish. The President of Ireland is essentially a ceremonial representative of the Irish people, the office holds no real effective power over government in the South, so it would be fitting for Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to have a voice on who that should be.

Which means 81.6% identify as British. So why should those get a say? We don't get a say in their votes what it's to do with them.

Didas · 13-12-2016 5:41am

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

Which means 81.6% identify as British. So why should those get a say? We don't get a say in their votes what it's to do with them.

No, 48.4% identify as British, 29.4% identify as Northern Irish, but that's beside the point. I explicitly stated Irish citizens in NI should get a vote, not all people in NI.

Atari Jaguar · 13-12-2016 5:42am

tonygun wrote: »

No, 48.4% identify as British, 29.4% identify as Northern Irish, but that's beside the point. I explicitly stated Irish citizens in NI should get a vote, not all people in NI.

When they live in what may as well be another country no they shouldn't. If the vote has no effect on you then why should you vote?

I'll say it again - we don't vote in British elections.

Didas · 13-12-2016 5:47am

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

When they live in what may as well be another country no they shouldn't. If the vote has no effect on you then why should you vote?

I'll say it again - we don't vote in British elections.

Because they are Irish citizens, living on the island of Ireland, and therefore should, as a symbol of unity, get a vote on who the ceremonial President of Ireland is.

Peregrinus · 13-12-2016 5:59am

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

Which means 81.6% identify as British. So why should those get a say? We don't get a say in their votes what it's to do with them.

Maths not your strong point, Atari?

Even if we assume that everybody who didn't identify as Irish identified as British, that still wouldn't give you 81.6%.

In fact, they don't. In the 2011 census, just 39.9% of the population in Northern Ireland identified simply as "British". 25.3% identified as "Irish" and 20.9% as "Northern Irish". After that you get people claiming multiple identities - British and Northern Irish, 6.2%; Irish and Northern Irish, 1.1%; British, Irish and Northern Irish, 1.0%; British and Irish, 0.7%. After that it starts to get idiosyncratic. There are 10 people in NI whose national identity is "British, Northern Irish and Turkish", for example, and 11 who are "Irish and Algerian".

Still, if you add up everyone whose national identity includes some claim to Irishness, it comes to 55.5% of the population.

Stasi 2.0 · 13-12-2016 3:10pm

How do those proposing to give a presidential vote to "Irish citizens" in Northern Ireland envisage it working ?

Most people born in Northern Ireland are automatically Irish AND British citizens the two are by no means mutually exclusive. Requiring a passport wouldn't work as some people don't have passports owing to (shock horror) them not regularly travelling outside Ireland or the UK while others may have more than one passport. So if the use of the term "Irish citizens" is intended to exclude Unionists it is completely unworkable (Not that many Unionists would likely to be interested in participating anyway)

Without the cooperation of the NI government it would be a lot more difficult to implement given that a register of electors, a network of polling stations, count centres, and all the other paraphernalia of democracy would have to be established from scratch.

And do we give everyone there ANOTHER day off school ?

MeatTwoVeg · 13-12-2016 3:21pm

The vast majority of people who don't bother their arse voting are not people I'd want involved in making any decisions that affect how the country will be governed.

It's a stupid idea to force people to vote.
We'd effectively be forcing idiots to go down to the polling station and make idiotic decisions.

ScumLord · 13-12-2016 3:21pm

There's no political party that I trust. I really want a new political party, one that's not based on nationalist ideals from the last century. I want one that based on scientific knowledge, rationality, has realistic goals, actual goals not vague let's make everything better nonsense. One that doesn't have a PR department and tells people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear. Even if that means they lose support, or annoy half the population.

There's absolutely nothing about the current batch of parties that I can relate too.

I think we the people, the rulers of this country need to have time to deal with political issues. At the moment we're like absentee landlords and the elected public servants are running amok while we're distracted working to pay taxes.

I think the working week should be reduced to make way for a day when people can do nation building tasks, whether that's educating yourself on how the state works, attending public meetings, debating the possibilities.

Dravokivich · 13-12-2016 3:40pm

AnGaelach wrote: »

We've had, by and large, falling turnouts in general elections and referendums for decades. A lot of people say parties won't represent them, but they never turn out to vote anyway so their voice is unlikely to be heard - further alienating the base that is likely to vote.

I'm just wondering as to what kind of action you would support in order to increase the turnout, or if we should even bother at all.

Again, I'll set it to private so people don't see your vote itself.

Encouraging or enforcing voter turn out won't change that. Nor will it be done by increasing the Voter Profile.

People need a reason to vote and lately it's been shown that they are more likely to re-act against something, than for anything. With the exception of the recent vote that got same sex marriage sorted out here.

Joshua J · 13-12-2016 4:31pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

The vast majority of people who don't bother their arse voting are not people I'd want involved in making any decisions that affect how the country will be governed.

It's a stupid idea to force people to vote.
We'd effectively be forcing idiots to go down to the polling station and make idiotic decisions.

Haha taking responsibility for the garbage we've be laboured with. But you're not an idiot right?. You're one of the smart lads.

MeatTwoVeg · 13-12-2016 4:35pm

Joshua J wrote: »

Haha taking responsibility for the garbage we've be laboured with. But you're not an idiot right?. You're one of the smart lads.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Increasing vote turnout

Which of the options do you support 30 votes

Comments