If people do not use their vote - should it be taken away ?

Question

After having fought so hard for the franchise, fewer people than ever now exercise their right to vote. If you haven't voted when you could have done, do you still have the right to criticise the government ? One way of getting people to value and use their vote might be to take it away if they don't vote in - say - two consecutive elections. Would the threat of disenfranchisement make people vote again ?

No, Nigel I'm not in politics. But I'm a middle class white person, and aware that its people like me who vote governments in (voted Green the past 3 elections btw) I want more young and ethnically diverse people to vote and be more involved in how our country is run (the UK, that is) and trying to think of ways to make them value their vote

James, not everyone lives in the US. In fact only 5% of the world does, so don't lecture me on the US constitution, man. I probably know more about it than you know of the British Constitution, but so what ?

Answer 1

No, it should not be taken away. More should be done to educate and encourage people to vote. Also there has to be some system in place to make politicians keep the promises they make (their manifesto) instead of us having to wait 4 years plus to hold them to account.

Answer 2

Except on one occasion I have voted in every election of every type I have eligible for in the last 30 years.
I am considering not voting at the next election unless I see some significant changes in the attitude of politicians to the electorate.

At present we hear a lot of 'opposition' to government but very little commitment to do anything or not do something.

There is a complete lack of acceptance in the political elite that we have made some terrible decisions that have harmed this country.

Here's one £300,000,000,000 (that's £300 Billion) of British taxpayers money to fund Europe. People wonder way the life style in France is so much better than here well until about 2 years ago France received more money from the EU than it paid in. France still only pays in about 10% of Britain.
The big contributors are Holland, Britain and Germany. Most of the rest get payouts.

How much better would our rail network be if some of that money had been spent updating our railways instead of subsidising the SNCF?

Would we be stopping meals on wheels for the elderly, and cutting back on pensions, if the taxes paid by wealthy pensioners were being used to increase pensions for the poorest in line with inflation and fund the schemes the infirm need?

Would we need the PFI to pay to build new hospitals and Schools
which then take 20- 30 years to pay off and cost 3 times the original price, if we had our own taxes to spend?

Would local councils need to increase your rates so much if a proportion of your council tax was not being used to cover the costs of the 7 regional assemblies no one has voted for and most don't know exist? These are people that have control over planning issues but you can't vote them out?

Those are just a few reasons why the voters are turned off.
As for the greens and the global warming debate can your MEP'S really justify all that flying at taxpayers expense?

Have Carbon emissions in Britian in general or the EU been falling any time in the last 30 years?

Green issues and economic growth are poles apart, any party that claimed environmental issues on grounds of principal ought to follow them religiously or stop telling other people how to live their lives.

Answer 3

I'd love to have a few extra votes if their votes could be passed on to willing takers, one of which is ME!! I doubt that a threat of disenfranchisement would scare them into responsible voting since so many people like to be considered "the disenfrachised" now. It's like a status symbol, in a perverted sort of way. Do they have the right to criticize the government? Oh, they'll remember their "freedom of speech" regardless of whether they know when to vote, who the candidates are, what the issues may be, so they'll mouth-off BIG TIME for their right to complain about the government, even if they don't know who "the government" is. I think it's an issue of irresponsibility on the part of the non-voters, and I don't think punishment will work. And no one can convince me that they had some "reasonable" excuse for not getting to the polls on time to vote. I've heard too many lame excuses, and yet this one-legged old man can get to the polls fast enough to be one of the earliest voters there, and we don't have any public transportation in this very rural northeast Texas region. So, my answer to your question would be yes, and if I can get a chance at using their vote, and shutting them up, I'd be more than welcome to pursue those possibilities. God Bless you.

Answer 4

First of all we do not have the right to vote. As far as in a National Elections I suggest you look at your US Constitution. If you can find in the US Constitution where is says I have the right to vote I would like to know. It may be in the same place where it says I have the right to medical care are any other form of government assistance.
Now there are provisions that prevent limiting voting rights but that is it.
Just to let you know the ability to vote is only offered to you by the state in which you reside. Check it out.

Answer 5

What you want and what you get are two entirely different things.

Why should people be denied the vote simply because they did not vote at an election? Would you do the same to an MP who failed to vote in the lobbies at a division in the House of Commons? No you would not. Not voting is called abstaining. It is how a person deals with an undecided issue. And no, a none vote does not count as a yes or a no. It is simply not counted.

Answer 6

March 6, 2007
hi,
If people do not use their vote it shouldn't be taken away. Education and community involvement can help get people to the voting booths. Educate the students in school and have practice votes. They do this in the schools, elect class officials. Neighborhood groups, where they meet to talk about the conditions of the neighborhood, the safety of the neighbors, and to talk over any recent problems, these are good places to introduce local officials and get people to vote for a reason they care about. I vote almost all the time, and in all the local elections. Thank you.

Answer 7

Yes! This country needs an amendment which requires voting or a very stiff fine - $10,000 - per occurrence.
I do not care how people vote but I am tired with the minority of voters electing our officials. If every eligible voter voted, the politic ans would run for cover. Machines like Daley's in Chicago would be a thing of the past because if citizens had to vote, at least honest people would have a chance of election.

Answer 8

What you are proposing is just about the definition of unconstitutional. People have a right to vote or not vote and as the first amendment allows they also have a right to criticize the government. People cannot be forced to value anything.

Answer 9

If people don't vote, threatening to take their vote away will not bother them at all!. The best way to get people voting is having good honest politicians that listen to the voters in power. Unfortunately, the current government and opposition have just created a climate of distrust in the public and people have a what is the point in voting attitude.

Answer 10

f they don't use it their not going to lose sleep over losing it; besides the British government can use this to their will when it suits them for example when Scotland had a vote to come out of the union the government claimed the no voters as no votes. even though more than 50% voted to come out the rules of the union require a 67% majority also they collect all the lazy cant be bothered sick car broke down etc votes. true!