Voting in elections.

[Workingman]

John Bercow has stated that online voting should be available in the 2020 General Election. The idea is to get more people to vote. Other commentators have suggested e-voting and even voting from a mobile phone via some 'Vote App' in order to get young people and 'busy' people to place their x next to a candidate.

So what they want is quantity over quality.

Personally I would do away with postal votes except in a very few cases. Going to vote, getting off your lardy ar5e and making an effort, should be the way to go. Making things easy leads to a popularity contest. At least if people have to make and effort, even if it is only 50% of us, there is a fair chance that some of us will be making an informed choice.

[Rodo]

Although it could enable invalids and the bed-ridden to vote.

[medsec222]

I quite agree Frank. Postal voting should be only in exceptional circumstances when the person voting is unable to attend the polling station because of ill-health. I am not satisfied that postal voting is above board and I would suspect there is quite a lot of fraud involved.

[Workingman]

Although it could enable invalids and the bed-ridden to vote.

Rodo, I think they count as part of the very few cases I would allow.

However, I think Meds is right about fraud being a problem with all these 'alternative' systems.

[cromwell]

In general people are fed up with politics and politicians. This is reflected in the falling percentage of people bothering to vote in general elections and by elections.

So what the politicians want is a method to get the voting figures up, to prove what a dynamic thriving and participatory democracy we are, as opposed to being people who are turning our backs on politics.

Various methods have been suggested, electronic voting being one and compulsory voting another.

Electronic voting would be way too easy to hack, and fix the results of elections.

Postal voting is wide open to fraud too.

[Workingman]

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Cromwell.

In general, the public have turned their backs on mainstream politics, so to reverse that trend they will offer us any opportunity of voting. But, as I said earlier, quantity does not equal quality, and all the politicians want is quantity and will seek to get it in any way.

[Aggers]

In general people are fed up with politics and politicians.

You're right there, Cromwell. It's a sad fact, but oh so true.
I don't know what has gone wrong, but somehow politicians
today do not inspire confidence. (Well, in me they don't.)
Come to think of it, they are not the only section of society
who I consider have lost integrity - the list seems endless.

[Suff]

All true, but inspiring confidence or not, voting is a responsibility in a democracy. Not an optional extra. A message which appears to have become lost over they last two decades or so.

If the current crop of shysters don't inspire confidence, then vote for someone else. There is always an option. But people seem to think that if they can't find a "trustworthy" member of the "party" they "should" vote for, then they should not vote. Unless we exercise that vote and use it to communication our displeasure, then the only thing we can expect is to get what we voted for. If that is nothing, then we get nothing we want.

In the US they teach English and Government. Perhaps it's about time we started teaching government, how it works and what our vote means to the people of the country.

I'm sure no current politician will go for that. They would have to pull their socks up rapidly...

[cromwell]

Gordon Bennett. Sky news were working themselves up to a froth this morning, with the Sky "Poll of Polls" and in depth analysis - it was just like election night!

We've got another three months of this. Hell's bells.

[Suff]

Well they've got to start now if their fairy story is to be believed....

I looked at the sky website article today and then I ran the video of the levels of support. It's a complete bunch of BS.

I've paused it at the poll of polls.

%support

Labour 33
Cons 32
UKIP 16
LD 8
Others 12

Scotland

Labour 26
Cons 14
SNP 47
LD 5
Others 8

Then we come to the forecast for seats....

UK as a whole

Labour, 33% 282 seats
Cons 32% 270 seats
UKIP 16% 2 seats
LD 8% 20 seats
Others 12% 23 seats

Then for Scotland

SNP 47% 53 out of 59 seats.

As I said, fairy story. What complete idiot wrote those figures up?16% of the vote == 2 seats and 12% of the vote == 23 seats or 8% of the vote == 20 seats???? Then we come to Scotland 47% of the vote gives them 90% of the seats? Well, perhaps, if they are spread evenly over very constituency. But we know they are not and we know that some constituencies will not fall for Labour.

The biggest joke of all though is the LD figure. Honestly with 8% of the vote I can't see them taking 20 seats. But someone does....

I'd like to see some very detailed figures before they start making up such fairy stories.