« Populism: Hell Yeah! | Main | Three things »
April 07, 2006
Spoiling vs shirking
Quickie before everyone departs for an early-evening pint in the sunshine…
Is it better to spoil your ballot or simply stay at home?
Two heavyweights of the blogosphere, in two great posts, are in disagreement. Justin opts for the former, Chris for the latter.
As I see it, the question is fairly simple.
Spoiling a paper is a clearer sign that you are rejecting all the candidates, as you actually bothered to go and write 'sod the lot of you' or whatever on the ballot paper. However, it will always remain a minority pursuit and will be ignored completely by everyone, thus losing its bite somewhat.
Not voting at all is a potentially more effective statement, as the number of people doing it is so much greater, especially under FPTP where not only do most votes not count, but where political parties are encouraged to alienate huge chunks of the electorate so as to entice a few more of the special voters. Turnout figures make headlines. Politicians pay attention to headlines. This can have pernicious consequences, in that politicians then waste time on all sorts of useless solutions like compulsory voting to hide the fact that their legitimacy is a joke. However, low turnout can also be ignored as it could be seen as a sign of contentment. The problem of low turnout is already well established, and only idiots and pathological liars think it's a sign of contentment. The problem of spoilt ballots would only take hold if the numbers spoiling their ballot 'won' in a constituency or two, which isn't going to happen.
So personally, I'm with Chris, but with a caveat. Chris sees a tipping point, when the oldies die off and turnout tumbles further still. However, I think we may well see compulsory voting, or, god forbid, a better voting system, before then, which will either mask the tipping point, or swerve round it.
Posted by pauldavies on April 07, 2006
Comments
The problem - as I see it - with abstention is the fact that it so often gets painted as "voter apathy" which irritates me. I don't want to give the impression that I "can't be bothered" voting... a message which actually reinforces the willingness of politicians to act in their own interest ("Well, if they can't be bothered telling us what they want, then we'll just have to give them what we want!")
Of course, spoiling your vote with "None of the above" can get you lumped in with morons who don't know how to use a ballot paper.
However if you manage to mobilise enough people to write "None of The Above", there will be a massive (relative) increase in the number of spoilt papers. Whereas if you campaign for abstentions; even if your campaign is successful it will only register as a small percentage increase in the number of stay-at-homes, as that's already a very large number (especially in the locals).
So as a political tactic designed to make a statement, a campaign to spoil ballots has a far greater change of success (statistically speaking).
Posted by: Jim Bliss at April 8, 2006 03:31 PM
I guess the main points of difference are that a) I don't believe anyone outside celeb-world can organise a big enough spoil ballot get-together, and b) even if they could, I don't think anything would change.
By there already existing a link between competitiveness of seats and turnout, electoral reform IS looked at when the issue of disengagement is addressed, and however small the chance might be of anything happening, it starts from a much stronger position. If the turnout fell below 50% in a GE, there is no chance it would be put down to apathy. Hell, the apathy thing was hardly trumpeted around last time. 'Disillusionment' is way more in vogue :)
Posted by: Paul Davies at April 10, 2006 10:20 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
