Campaign Launch 4/ Holding Placards outside Parliament
Posted by malcolmclark on January 14, 2008 | Comments (0)
Campaign Launch 4/ Holding Placards outside Parliament
Originally uploaded by make votes count
MVC supporters raise the issue to Parliament that Democracy isn't Deskbound.
An invitation to a party, a farce in three acts
Posted by pauldavies on May 04, 2006 | Comments (0)
(with apologies to Bill and Tom)
Prologue
Two parties, both alike in rapacious greed,
In fair Westminster, where we lay our scene,
An ancient game, a play on which both feed,
Where civil unrest makes civil hands unclean.
Act 1
[A street; enter SAM and ALAN, two hard-working men in positions of relative responsibility, discussing life's woes, an air of disappointment marks their words]
ALAN: The times, they are a-changin', my dear Sam. Last week, my wife went to see the doctor after having a fall, caused by our over-attentive new cleaner working too hard polishing our kitchen floor so as to avoid being sent back to her native land. The poor wife came out sicker than when she went in. It's okay, though, apparently, because more of my money is being taken from me to pay for the increased inefficiency, and these things take time to sort themselves out.
SAM: Aye, 'tis a confusing time, and no mistake. My sister, who you'll remember had a husband who lost his life in Iraq due to military negligence, won her case against the MoD, who have consequently cut her war widow's pension as a rather curious gesture of apology. It sometimes seems that everything in life is riddled with incompetence, which I have no choice but to pay for.
ALAN: Right you are Sam. No choice. Where else can we turn? What else can we do? And if we, the silent majority, do nothing, the organised minority, a rabble of racists, ruffians and ragamuffins, get to wield unwarranted power. If only there was something that could aid our woes.
[enter HYTHLODAY, of the House of Labour, armed with a handful of gaudy leaflets and a questionably-sincere smile]
HYTHLODAY: Gentlemen, I couldn't help but overhear. It sounds like you need a party. Worry no more. I know just the place.
SAM: Excuse me, sir, but who are you are where did you spring from? Have you been surreptitiously tracking our movements?
HYTHLODAY [grinning maniacally]: Of course not, don't be silly. I hold the solution to your problems. You want to be listened to, to be included, to exert your proper influence, to be a real part of society.
ALAN [interrupting]: Who is this joker? He sounds like a televangelist. Speak man, what have you to give me, when all hope is hidden behind an insurmountable wall of difficulties and shirked responsibilities?
HYTHLODAY: As I said, my fine fellow, a party. A masquerade ball to be precise, a place where your problems vanish, and where society will complete its triumph over the forces that would bring it down.
SAM: Whither would you have us come?
HYTHLODAY: To our house, the house of the great and supremely powerful Labour. If you be not of the House of Camerons, I pray, come and crush a cup of Cristal and you find your Utopia.
SAM: Sir, there is no such sight to be shown, but I'll go along all the same, should this splendour actually become mine own.
[Exeunt]
Act 2, Scene 1
[A hall in the House of Labour; enter PAIN and LOON, chief members of the House of Labour, and HYTHLODAY, their humble servant and part-time adviser; the ball guests are entering the hall]
PAIN: 'Tis a fine turnout Hythloday, you've publicised it well.
HYTHLODAY: Thank you sir, it is a masquerade most worthy of publication. I made sure I prepared everything to the best of my abilities, although I have to apologise for one or two hiccups; sir will have to understand that I was rather rushed.
PAIN: That's quite all right Hythloday old chap, they say the devil is in the details, so we best keep them to ourselves.
LOON: Speaking of the devil, some of these masks are really jolly frightening. Were it not for that extravagant elephant head over there, yours, my dear PAIN, would perhaps be the most frightening of them all.
PAIN: Fear is a powerful tool, my friend, we wield it wisely.
LOON: Right you are. Talking of which, it's most refreshing to see that repulsive gang of thugs kept out of here this evening.
PAIN and HYTHLODAY [in unison]: Agreed.
LOON: Yes, everyone can agree on that.
PAIN: I say, the hall appears to be all but full and I'm informed that our master has been kept elsewhere and will be unable to join us; perhaps now would be an opportune moment to welcome everyone to our home.
LOON: You're wise as ever, my friend, I shall do just that.
[Exeunt]
Act 2, Scene 2
[The same hall, only silent, LOON is about to address the congregation from his lecturn. SAM and ALAN are among the crowd]
LOON: Confrères! Welcome! We are standing on the shoulders of history, at the gates of giants. Destiny is calling us and we are answering 'Come on in!'
You are all here tonight, unsure of where life is taking you, in need of answers to questions you may or may not have asked. Well I have the answers. All the answers. We, my friends, are the answer. This masquerade is the answer.
Tonight marks the start of a never-ending party. Stay here as long as you like, and never face the woes of the outside world again. Spread the word, invite your friends, or rather, expend less effort on your friends, instead reach out and embrace the people that always miss these spectacular shindigs. This is what the party is all about. We're all in it together. And the more of us there are, the more important we become, and the more we can achieve. I count you all as my firm friends!
FIDELIN (a retired gardener): Friend! Rubbish! I was dragged here against my will, how does that make you my friend?
[Enter GOONS and AIÉRD, two of LOON's servants. They swiftly move through the crowd, gagging and removing the elderly FIDELIN]
LOON [continuing, unashamed and unabashed]: The Lilliputian-brained heathens that stubbornly subject themselves to the masochistic horror of 'sitting about' simply don't know what they're missing. We must bring them in and teach them. Look around you, this goes beyond mere fun; attending this party is a duty we each owe not just to ourselves but also to each other.
Remind these public scoundrels that, as a House and as a divine Family, we've long asked much more of this fair city, and each time it has acquiesced, and are we not the better for it? Bring them hither. By any means possible. In time, they'll thank you for it.
[Glasses and cheers are raised in appreciation]
To be at this party is to do more than meet, drink and be merry. It is to learn. About us, about the world, even about the slimy reptiles that worm around in the House of Camerons. Knowledge is power. We know, and we are powerful. You can be powerful too.
d'VILLE (a local businessman): And how does the good gentleman come to such a conclusion? The kind sir has recently had an epiphany that deems that the share of the products of our toil to which he is entitled is actually higher than first thought. This hasn't, however, made my friends and I stop to work out why this should be the case or how we could lessen the burden. It's too complicated, and not worth the hassle. One or two might make the effort, but we don't. We get on with other things, like working out how to spend what little we have left to live on.
LOON: The admirably inquisitive man worries too much. I have been put here by higher powers to do the thinking that this man cannot. I believe in the party. Everybody! Come! Believe with me!
d'VILLE: [muffled by the sounds of clinking glasses and cricket-ground applause] That's not what I was getting at, and you know it.
[Enter GOONS and AIÉRD]
[Exit GOONS, AIÉRD and d'VILLE]
PAIN [to LOON]: Splendid my friend, that went marvellously. Hythloday, fetch the brandy and my footstool, we'll be here for some time.
[Exeunt]
Act 3
[Later on in the evening, the crowd is getting tired. The Cristal has run out, old factions are fighting. An administration blunder has stocked the kitchens with nothing but meat, and all the guests are vegetarian. A whip-round is taking place to pay for the error. The situation is promised to be rectified within the next four years, although once the money is collected, it is commandeered for use in a game of poker happening in the master's quarters.]
PHILLIP (a party-goer): I thought this was supposed to be a sanctuary, a place to escape the problems that blighted our lives before. The catering alone is enough to prove that I'm still unrepresented and unlistened-to. This is a joke. A plague o' this House!
[A handful of guests manage to slip out and meet up with the unruly gang that were barred entry. They still can't get in, but tired souls are a welcome feast for the gang's foremost rhetoricians. They send a molotov over the fence, managing to set fire to a curtain by an open French window.]
[The main hall begins to burn, smoke fills the air, it's hard to tell what's going on, impossible to distinguish between the many different problems that have arisen across the room. Through their gargantuan masks, LOON and PAIN have no idea what is happening, all they can see is a room full of people, moving, making noise and seemingly getting involved with the evening's events. All is well, they think, together. They and their retinues go to bed happy men, their troubles, for now at least, blissfully behind them.]
[Exeunt]
The New Statesman: spot on
Posted by pauldavies on May 04, 2006 | Comments (0)
From their leader on the compulsory voting debate.
It must be more than a coincidence that Liverpool Riverside, one of the poorest constituencies in the UK, also provides the lowest turnout, the argument goes on. This is a case, however, of compelling evidence leading to the wrong conclusions. The people of Riverside undoubtedly feel alienated, but they know that their votes count for virtually nothing. Labour has sent an MP to Westminster from there for as long as anyone can remember. The same can be said of certain Conservative heartlands. While reform of our voting system might not be a panacea (and some variants are more attractive than others), a refusal to change our first-past-the-post procedure will guarantee further low turnouts.
The ippr report, for all my joshing, wasn't that bad; it just would've been a bit more worthwhile if they hadn't started with the conclusion and they hadn't (seemingly) rushed the thing out in a couple of hours.
Compulsory voting - an academic speaks
Posted by pauldavies on May 03, 2006 | Comments (0)
"My basic contention is simple: people vote in order to affect the output of government in ways that are meaningful to them. Low turnout thus reflects a paucity of choices or a lack of evident connection between electoral choice and policy change. Raising turnout by making it compulsory does not directly affect either of these critical variables but may mask their effects." —Mark N. Franklin, "Electoral Engineering and Cross-National Turnout Differences: What Role for Compulsory Voting?" British Journal of Political Science, Volume 29, 1999, pp205-216
The shorter ippr report on compulsory voting
Posted by pauldavies on May 03, 2006 | Comments (0)
(tidied up for truly abhorrent spelling, punctuation, grammar and use of excel)
Note for ippr's lawyers: this is just a bit of fun.
No one votes anymore, especially young and poor people.
This is bad.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Governments make us do loads of stuff we don't want to already, what's an extra trip to the local school on top?
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Re-engaging people properly is really hard; this way we can at least pretend that all is well.
Turnout has fallen for loads of reasons, possibly because people have more idea of what actually goes on, but more likely because they like single issues more. This is especially true of young people, who also like Bono more than Blair.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
In deprived communities, people hate everything, especially things other people do, thus social norms are hard to establish.
Voting reform may tackle some of the underlying issues, but it wouldn't do a great deal to turnout (not as much as compulsory voting anyway) and besides, it's not as simple.
While we're at it, move elections to weekends, and do them at the same time. Keep up this postal voting lark too. Oh, and let people register to vote after the election has been announced.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Loads of countries have compulsory voting.
Evidence from Belgium suggests that the sense of civic duty instilled by making voting compulsory is a sham, as if they abolished it, turnout would drop to the levels seen everywhere else. This is bad. High turnouts are good, remember. Er, what was our argument again?
Ah yes, compulsory voting increases turnout.
Compulsory voting shifts the electioneering focus from mobilising supporters to attracting new ones.
Because it's only compulsory to turn up, rather than vote, no rights are impinged upon. The right to sit on one's arse is not a real right.
Compulsory voting would not lead to everyone voting for the lefty parties because they've got nothing better to do because compulsory voting is absolutely not the thing of party politics. Geoff Hoon told us so.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Compulsory voting increases turnout.
Do it now.
A compulsory quickie
Posted by pauldavies on May 03, 2006 | Comments (0)
If anyone can offer evidence for or against the following, shout.
Compulsory voting wouldn't actually change an awful lot, assuming we kept First-Past-the-Post. Most of the fall in turnout since 1992 has come from safe Labour seats. This has barely mattered, as Labour still hold the seats, and votes don't count for anything outside of their respective constituencies. Therefore, compulsory voting would just strengthen already safe Labour seats, plus lead to them probably gaining a couple more, meaning Labour would be even more nonchalent and uncaring in the face of the people it has spent a decade alienating.
Compulsory response
Posted by pauldavies on May 03, 2006 | Comments (3)
A few more takes on the compulsory voting issue have hit the blogs, so another little(ish) round-up before I pollute the waters further myself...
Marcel Berlins at the Guardian rightly says that it's not about turnout, saying that "The question that really matters is whether or not a law compelling people to go to the polls will achieve a truer outcome." Which is good. What is less good is that he doesn't provide any evidence in answering this question, but concludes that it would be just groovy anyhow. He also, naively in my opinion, expects "the new system to be abused, and for many ballot papers to be of no use. But I'm also confident that most of the reluctant voters would play by the rules, just as those annoyed at being summoned for jury service take their task seriously once in court." By "play by the rules" he means vote for an actual candidate, rather than spoiling the ballot, or leaving it blank or some other nasty rebellious trick. Which misses all sorts of points. Are we really obliged to vote when we don't agree with anything on offer - does that encourage the politicians to play better? Compulsory voting could have a beneficial long-term effect if the number of blank ballots was so high that politicians realised that there were a whole load of voters out there casting blank ballots and waiting to be won over (like there are already), but this wouldn't happen.
Compulsory voting gets people voting for candidates at the top of the ballot, ones with silly names or ones who, although completely useless, seem less completely useless than the others.
Sorry. Less commment, more round-up.
Pickled politics has four reasons to support compulsory voting. (My brief comments in italics)
1) It may force people to take politics more seriously, read up on party policies and vote accordingly.
It may. We can but hope. However, there's a part of me that believes that the ill-informed vote will always outweigh the informed one to such an extent that a small increase in voter knowledge is of little significance. Also, there is a strong-ish argument that increased knowledge of party politics makes one less likely to vote for any of them. The communication revolution is arguably one reason for the fall in turnout in recent years. There are better ways to make people take politics more seriously. Making the politicians take it more seriously (perhaps by making every constituency competitive) would be a start.
2) It would more accurately reflect the support of smaller parties. The BNP for example deliberately spread lies during their campaign to get people angry and make a protest vote.
There are two ways to read this, but I think PP means that when the average person wouldn't vote BNP, but also stays away, the BNP are disproportionately better off. He's right. They'd never win a thing under compulsory voting (we hope).
3) It could make parties more unwilling to take hugely unpopular decisions if they know they will be punished at the polls. Thus, Labour could no longer rely on apathy to stay in power.
This I completely disagree with. Where turnout has fallen most is in the Labour vote. When forced, many would vote Labour again, but not really mean it. This can make them MORE complacent. Labour wouldn't need to rely on apathy to stay in power - they could rely on people voting for them because they don't know where else to turn.
4) The signs from other countries (Australia) are good.
Debatable. They're not that fussed about it, but under compulsory voting it's much harder to measure disengagement, because everybody votes, so you can't see which groups are being excluded so easily. It's a mask, therefore signs are a bit hazy. When Stalin controlled all the output figures, it looked like the Soviet economy was doing rather well. It failed to show the doctoring and the unsustainable plunder of the country's vast resource base.
Elsewhere, in the ayes column:
Roger Darlington
And the antis:
Mr Eugenides
Garry the Curious Hamster
Chris Applegate
One Perfect Rose
Longrider
Kel
And it's nice to see that a good number of people realise that the problems compulsory voting seeks to (but fails to) address can be better met with a better voting system. Well done everyone (except Hain and Hoon, of course ;))
Compulsory voting: the easy bit
Posted by pauldavies on May 02, 2006 | Comments (0)
The ippr report is long (and in bad need of a decent sub-editor), and time is crammed, so I'll report back on that later. However, in the meantime, the compulsory voting debate has found some new legs. They're a bit short and stumpy at the moment, but they might yet grow up big and strong.
See The Herald and Chris Applegate for two contrasting views.
Chris's contains three very important points:
1. It is stupid to pick the most desperate option when none of the more moderate ones have even been attempted.
2. The high turnout thanks to compulsory voting is entirely cosmetic.
3. Finally, and most importantly, the entire sentiment behind it, to “restore” universal suffrage and re-enfranchise the poor, is nauseatingly moralising and hypocritical. Despite all the hand-wringing about the poor and working-class being disenfranchised, they have failed to realise that it’s the Labour party that has disenfranchised them more than anything else.
As I've said before, fixating on turnout is silly (mainly because it is but a mask - 'cosmetic' as Chris A puts it), but the ippr report does at least claim to concentrate on the inequality of turnout, which should be more relevant, although judging from the conclusions, I'm sceptical as to how much more interesting. We shall see. Shortly.
Vote no, go on, it'll be funny
Posted by pauldavies on March 17, 2006 | Comments (0)
…and I thought, yeah, why not, a none of the above option and compulsory voting, sure, people'd do it for a laugh, like when Hunter Thompson nearly got elected Sheriff of Aspen on the 'Freak Power' ticket, there could be empty seats all over the Commons… okay maybe not all over, but in some places in the country the cynical pockets might well outgun the 'normal' voters… and besides, if we were forced to vote, there has to be an option to say "sod 'em all", right? simply handing in a blank ballot paper isn't enough: without a NOTA option, people are unconsciously forced into ticking one of the boxes, whether they give a toss about any of the candidates or not, and what's wrong with encouraging a bit of anti-everything? seems only fair when one's been made to go to the crappy run-down school or old people's home or wherever to vote in the first place, and it's not like it'd be that mean against people who want a representative – if no representative wins, it's democracy in action, under first-past-the-post at least, although perhaps people fearful of NOTA winning will lump disproportionately behind the candidate they think will run NOTA closest, which is a bit screwy… if returning no MP is a bit harsh, there could be a RON (re-open nominations) box instead, not nearly as amusing, and deadly dull if RON keeps on winning and people keep on having to vote again, perhaps give people one more go, then RON becomes NOTA, that might work… whatever, it's a minor issue right now, but it could come up, and we need to be prepared to talk nonsense about it when it does, or…
Fact of the day
Posted by pauldavies on March 09, 2006 | Comments (4)
In Brazil and Ecuador (and possibly other places too) voting is compulsory, except if you happen to be old or illiterate. In Brazil it's also voluntary for 16-18 year olds.
Which is all rather fun. What I want to know is how they test the literacy, specifically how stringent they are? Is there a little comprehension test attached to the ballot paper? Or perhaps a multiple choice quiz on The Count of Monte Cristo. The potential is fantastically silly, thus I'm all for introducing it over here.
Thou shalt have "democracy", whether ye want it or not
Posted by pauldavies on August 05, 2005 | Comments (0)
Following on from the debate I highlighted happening at politicalbetting, the Guardian today reports of plans to boost the number of people registered to vote.
Estimates suggest that as many as four million entitled to vote are not on the electoral register - meaning that voter turnout has fallen by more than is currently recognised.
That's a bit of a scary thought, if not that surprising. It's alright though, postal voting multi-ballot nonsense meaning some people had three or four votes made up for it. However stupid this all is, it is quite funny.
It appears to be mainly the poor that are disenfranchised – the young, those that live in squat-like accommodation and the like. This is probably why Labour are pushing it quite so hard, although as some commentators in the politicalbetting thread point out, they could be misguided. If these changes were to happen, turnout would probably collapse, and the chances are that compulsory voting would quickly join in the fun.
It also throws up interesting questions for the boundary changes, as most non-registered people live in the inner-cities.
Let's not make too big a deal out of this: if people were really that bothered about voting, they'd probably find a way to do it. Low turnout is not necessarily a government problem (beyond the fact it questions their mandate somewhat – not that any government with a working majority is actually bothered by such things). As mentioned before, the MPs aren't out of touch with the people, the people are out of touch with them (to an extent, obviously). Blame can't just be one-way, even if it is easier like that.
It's clear something has to be done, if Hoon can see it, anyone can, but all the pointless posturing about dumbass ideas like compulsory voting, when a much simpler solution exists... bah.
Is compulsory voting Labour's secret weapon?
Posted by pauldavies on August 05, 2005 | Comments (1)
Likely to be a very interesting discussion: go to politicalbetting and join in.
Geoffrey from 'Rainbow' was much cooler than Mr Hoon
Posted by pauldavies on July 06, 2005 | Comments (0)
With nothing much to talk about, save a couple of long (probably) posts whose starts have been stymied by the beast of procrastination, it's back to Geoffrey, and some comment I missed when talking about it earlier.
For those a bit short of time, and because the harsh realities of competition are very much in favour today, being Olympic decision time an all... Talk Politics' piece takes the gold, Stumbling and Mumbling a close silver and Politicalog a creditable bronze.
All three also belatedly added to the blogroll.
Say what, Geoff?
Posted by pauldavies on July 05, 2005 | Comments (0)
After yesterday's introduction, the issue of compulsory voting has attracted further attention from various papers and even more various people.
I don’t really have a lot more to say on the matter, so it's over to them, with possibly the odd quip along the way...
Inspiration, not compulsion, is the solution. If people do not care much for the wares on offer in Westminster or Brussels; if they fail to see how their vote makes a difference; if they think all politicians sound the same and promise the same goodies, they turn away from the ballot box.
Some of the other proposals that Mr Hoon raises without actually endorsing them — putting voting booths in railway stations or supermarkets, moving the polling day to a weekend, online or text message voting — merit further consideration. But they all suffer from the same defect: that each is designed to maximise the authority of the existing system. Ministers should also examine ways to enable citizens actually to change that system; by including on a ballot paper, for instance, an option to reject all the candidates. Were a predetermined percentage of voters to tick that box, the poll would be void and have to be run again. Now that really would enable a voter to make his mark. What do you think, Mr Hoon?
PR Campaign gets boost from Hoon, The Independent
"Some have suggested that reform of the electoral system is required to bring in proportional representation. I remain open minded on this particular issue."
"Rather like the introduction of seat belt legislation, it would only require one or two cases to be brought to encourage everyone else to participate," he said.
Ok, maybe I do have to say something. I wasn't there, so I don't whether or not Geoffrey was just taking the piss, but "you what now?" Oh, nevermind, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you can't see the Prescott-sized hole in that analogy.
More:
Common Information Environment
The compulsory voting trilogy
Posted by pauldavies on July 04, 2005 | Comments (0)
Geoff Hoon calls for compulsory voting to eradicate political alienation. The Times. The Guardian.
The Positive View
The problem of electoral turnout in Britain has reached crisis point. After the shocking collapse in numbers going to the polls in 2001, 2005 saw only a very slight rise, despite anticipation of a closer contest, an enormous rise in postal voting and passions raised by the war in Iraq. There's no reason to suggest things are going to get better: old people are more likely to vote; they're also more likely to die.
'The people' are feeling not just apathetic but disillusioned, disengaged and alienated. Distrust towards politicians has never been higher, but so long as the politicians don't really feel as though they need your votes, nothing will change. They can bemoan turnout all they like in private, but so long as they get elected, there's no real reason to care.
Compulsory voting would provide a solution. If people are forced to vote, they will make a concerted effort to find out what they're voting for, thus engaging with their politicians, who in turn will respond to the demands made by the electorate about what they want to see in their politicians. Simple.
The Negative View
People don't vote because they don't want to, they don't like what's on offer and can't be arsed trudging along to the polling station to transform themselves from an apathetic statistic into a 'none of the above' statistic.
One motive behind the idea of compulsory voting might be to give the government more of a mandate. I mean, what sort of government rests on the support of a little over 20% of the electorate? But what if 'none of the above' triumphs? That'd be more than giving the Prime Minister a bloody nose. That would be breaking his nose, fracturing his cheekbone, snapping a few ribs and breaking a limb or two for good measure.
A forced vote is not likely to be an informed vote. Make voting a chore and it will be treated as such. It won't increase engagement, it will increase antipathy. People are far too angry already, let's not increase that by thrusting a ballot paper in their face, commanding them to do something they wouldn't do of their own volition and then fining them if they forget. And think of the bureaucratic mess. Look what happened with postal voting. And if you have to bribe people to vote with a council tax discount, for example, you have to ask 'is it really worth it?
The Cynical View
Mr Hoon is a senior Labour politician. His government relies on a rather flimsy base of support that could be blown away by a small breeze. Labour voters are harder to mobilise than Conservative ones – so force them out there. Force that mandate, whether people mean it or not. Also, rich people can more easily pay the fine for not being bothered, and rich people vote Tory.
Compulsory voting, Mr Hoon tell us, is the most effective way to increase turnout. And? That can't possibly be the point – all about the stats, a government based on pretence?
Compulsory voting is to New Labour what boundary changes are to the Conservatives: an admission of a problem which their crazy careerist eyes cannot recognise the real reason for.
Who cares about alienation, so long as your party stays in power and you stay in a job? But that would make politics "a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." Which can't be true, can it?
