"David" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 May 2015 23:04:16 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 2 May 2015 10:29:29 GMT, David wrote:

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate.
Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can
agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results -
spoiled papers can be an accident.

Pretty sure they'll be included in the full results that the Returning
Officer produces. The media on the other hand don't bother to report
them.

If you really want a "None of the above" then simply make voting
compulsory as it is in Australia(?).

As to who to vote for. Assuming this is for your MP, vote for the person
that actually represents and fights for the constituency and doesn't
just sit on their fat arse being whipped.

The ballot paper has the candidates address. Is it in the constituency?
The Labour one for here, Penrith & Borders, lives in the Wirral... From
memory of the ballot paper all the others actually live in or very close
to the constituency.

Spoiled papers may be included in the full results, but this isn't a clear
indication that the vote was deliberately spoiled.

Also, the returning officer would have to announce "none of the above" as
part of the results and this would be a clear statement that someone took
a positive decision to record a protest vote.

I am not in favour of compulsory voting - granted you have the right to
vote, that doesn't mean you should be forced to exercise the right.

For an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City

" There are a number of rights traditionally but apocryphally associated
with freemen€”the right to drive sheep and cattle over London Bridge; to a
silken rope, if hanged; to carry a naked sword in public; or that if the
City of London Police finds a freeman drunk and incapable, they will
bundle him or her into a taxi and send them home rather than throw them
into a cell. While sheep have occasionally been driven over London Bridge
on special occasions, the rest of these "privileges" are now effectively
symbolic."

All very noble, but I would not expect all freemen of the City of London
to be FORCED to drive sheep and cattle over the bridges whilst carrying a
naked sword on pain of prosecution.

I think enforcement might turn ugly.

To note, again from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Compulsory_voting "As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having
laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these
laws in practice."

So half the countries have the laws but are not enforcing them.

We have enough "media sound bite" laws already which are unenforced and/or
unenforceable without adding more.

Those who do not wish to vote can live with the consequences.

I think this may tend to keep politics fairly bland for the
most part - so as not to upset the silent majority.

In fact there isn't any evidence that it does keep politics fairly
bland for the most part given that those countrys that do not
have compulsory voting tend to have the least bland politics.

Oh, and for Australia "At the 2010 Tasmanian state election,
with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were
fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine"

The fine is rather higher than that in the bigger states.

So 2/3 who ignored the law also ignored the fine.

Had a valid excuse, actually.

Maximum respect for the law there.

No.