Why should I bother voting?

[Senex]

It's a serious question.

This is a safe Labour seat with a good, hard-working MP who's certain to get back in. (That seems to be the general opinion. I've never encountered her myself, just as I've never had contact with my constituency MP in any constituency I've lived in.)

The consequence of its being a safe seat seems to be that here this might almost be the election that never happened, as no party seems to be making any great effort—understandable, given the way Britain's FPTP system works and the fact that in practice it's a government party being chosen, not a genuine local representative.

Locally, this has certainly been by far the quietest general election campaign I have experienced in six decades of being eligible to vote. There's been a leaflet by routine Royal Mail delivery from each of the candidates, but no canvassing. No posters to be seen, no sign of party stickers in house-windows, and (for me) nothing in my social media. Obviously, like everyone else, I've been able to follow all the coverage in the national media, so I'm aware of it all at that level.

This prompts me to ask my question, "Why bother voting?" Here, and in all the constituencies like this one, is there any real democracy, or does FPTP mean that effectively several million of us are to all intents and purposes excluded from the crucial business of choosing a government?

 

[PGAT]

If you like your MP why not boost her majority? If you don’t, why not build momentum for somebody else? Politics is unpredictable and what at the moment seems like a safe seat could be completely different in half a decade

 

[birchesgreen]

Higher the vote for a party that wins makes the moral case for the victory higher, also it helps with short money (though thats probably more a factor for the smaller parties).

 

[jfollows]

Personally for at least two reasons:

1. if someone I really didn’t want to win did so on a toin coss after an equal number of votes, it’d have been my fault. Vanishingly unlikely I know.
2. it gives me personal moral authority to complain or praise after the election.

On top of the ones about voting for/against specific candidates of course.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

It's a serious question. This is a safe Labour seat with a good, hard-working MP who's certain to get back in (no, I've never encountered her myself, but that seems to be the general opinion). So in this constituency this might almost be the election that never happened. There's been a leaflet by routine Royal Mail derlivery from each of the candidates but no canvassing. No posters to be seen, and no sign of party stickers in house-windows (and nothing to me in my social media). Obviously like everyone else I've been following all the coverage in the national media, so I'm aware of it all at that level. But presumably locally this is seen as a saf seat, not worth the parties putting any real effort into. So in this, and in all the seats like it, is there any real democracy? Doesn't FPTP mean that effectively several million of us are to all intents and purposes excluded from the crucial business of choosing a government? As for the lack of local "noise", this has certainly been by far the quietest general election campaign on the local ground that I have experienced in six decades of being eligible to vote.

If your MP is good and hard working I think they deserve your vote, you said it yourself.

As much as it's unlikely, it's not impossible that enough people think like that that someone else is able to get in.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

So in this constituency this might almost be the election that never happened.

Similar here. 10,000+ Labour majority in my local parliamentary constituency at the 2019 General Election. Cast iron Labour hold this time around. The only aspects of any interest in 2024 are by how much their majority will increase, and which of the other six candidates will lose their deposits (likely at least five of them will).

 

[edwin_m]

I believe we should express support for our democracy, as "the worst system apart from all the others" (allegedly from Churchill although he may have been quoting someone else). I have voted at every election I was entitled to except for the first one for Police and Crime Commissioner, as that seemed nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. The likes of Xi and Putin want to discredit and destroy Western democracy.

However, as I've posted many times elsewhere, I do believe our type of democracy is deeply flawed, and this year I'm likely to vote for someone other than my preferred party in an attempt to deny the seat to the party I like less.

 

[SteveM70]

If everyone thought the same as you, the Labour candidate wouldn't win

 

[The exile]

Anyone who chooses not to vote has no moral authority / right to moan about anything the next government does / doesn’t do.

 

[dosxuk]

Cast iron Labour hold this time around.

Only if the people who would vote for that candidate don't assume everyone else is doing it and stay at home.

 

[birchesgreen]

I've always lived in a rock solid safe (usually well above 20K majority) Labour seat but always vote, i was even in the 12% turnout when we had a PCC by-election a few years ago.

 

[Busaholic]

Brexit happened because of this attitude. Get out there and vote!!

 

[MotCO]

Brexit happened because of this attitude. Get out there and vote!!

Did it? Or did more people want out than wanted to stay in? We'll never know because we do not know how the absentee voters would have voted - it could even have increased the majority vote.

 

[Deepgreen]

'Safe' seat or not (and that has been proved a false assumption before), voting is a democratic 'luxury' not afforded to so many other people around the world. The higher the turnout the more meaningful any result is. I could not countenance not voting, and I live in what was until now a safe Tory seat - now far less so!

 

[Busaholic]

Did it? Or did more people want out than wanted to stay in? We'll never know because we do not know how the absentee voters would have voted - it could even have increased the majority vote.

We do know because of the surveys that were conducted after the event. The London-based complacents alone would have reversed the vote. Some blame Cameron and Osborne, and I'm always happy to see them slagged off, but the younger trendies are the true baddies.

 

[Snow1964]

My view is if you can't be bothered to vote, then shouldn't ever complain if don't like what they do (or fail to do what you want)

On another note, don't know if you have ever walked around one of the big war cemeteries in the Somme or Normandy and look at ages on gravestones, then when you realise the died so you get a choice, will probably feel it is disrespectful to the fallen, if you take a can't be bothered attitude.

 

[THC]

Too many people gave too much, some paying the ultimate price, for the right to vote. So please consider exercising that right, for it was hard-won. The case for Parliamentary reform is a separate issue and, although I despise the man and what he stands for, Farage showed how, over time, to take a marginal issue into the mainstream and win lasting change.

THC

 

[adc82140]

People died in the past in order to enable us to vote in free and fair elections. Everyone should do their duty and go and put a mark on a ballot paper. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your ballot. All spoilt ballot papers have to be shown to all the candidates and their agents.

 

[bcarmicle]

There's a good Jay Foreman video about voting:

Briefly in summary:

• Larger parties will analyse the results of the election and consider the votes for smaller parties to be lost ones, so they may adjust policies to be more like those
• Winning by larger majorities means MPs can be more outspoken and confident in their policies
• And if you spoilt your ballot, you're at least indicating that you're more likely to vote for a party if there were one that agreed with your values

Which all seem to be good points to me and good reasons that everyone who can should make the effort to vote.

 

[Ediswan]

There's a good Jay Foreman video about voting:

At least one of his examples of a spoiled ballot (tick rather than cross) would be allowed.

 

[Trestrol]

There was an item on our local news last week about wether people were going to vote. They asked this young woman with a child who she'd be voting for. She said Labour because her Grandad had told them they had to vote Labour. All those Suffragettes were turning in there graves.

 

[Hadders]

People died in the past in order to enable us to vote in free and fair elections. Everyone should do their duty and go and put a mark on a ballot paper. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your ballot. All spoilt ballot papers have to be shown to all the candidates and their agents.

Absolutely this! I've voted at every possible opportunity since I turned 18, even once turning out to vote in a Parish Council by-election!

 

[yorkie]

It's a serious question. This is a safe Labour seat with a good, hard-working MP who's certain to get back in (no, I've never encountered her myself, but that seems to be the general opinion). So in this constituency this might almost be the election that never happened. There's been a leaflet by routine Royal Mail derlivery from each of the candidates but no canvassing.

I wouldn't expect her to knock on everyone's door, nor would I want her to.

No posters to be seen, and no sign of party stickers in house-windows (and nothing to me in my social media). Obviously like everyone else I've been following all the coverage in the national media, so I'm aware of it all at that level. But presumably locally this is seen as a saf seat, not worth the parties putting any real effort into. So in this, and in all the seats like it, is there any real democracy? Doesn't FPTP mean that effectively several million of us are to all intents and purposes excluded from the crucial business of choosing a government? As for the lack of local "noise", this has certainly been by far the quietest general election campaign on the local ground that I have experienced in six decades of being eligible to vote.

In that case, vote for a party that supports proportional representation.

That's what I am going to do; although I will of course be happy when Labour wins the election, I will vote for a party that more aligns with my views on matters such as rejoining the EU, the situation in Gaza and electoral reform.

But if the Tories had a chance of winning this seat, and if tactical voting was needed here, then of course I'd vote Labour.

I still think votes are important, even if realistically we aren't going to change the seat.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

People died in the past in order to enable us to vote in free and fair elections. Everyone should do their duty and go and put a mark on a ballot paper. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your ballot. All spoilt ballot papers have to be shown to all the candidates and their agents.

Exactly. 10/10

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We do know because of the surveys that were conducted after the event. The London-based complacents alone would have reversed the vote.

Well of course London-based 'complacents' would have reversed the vote: London was a strongly remain city and contains a significant proportion of the electorate so if - as is on balance of probabilities likely - London non-voters had similar views on average to Londoners who voted, then a stronger turnout in London alone would tip the balance.

Trouble is - by exactly the same logic, a stronger turnout in - say - the SouthWest or Essex or Kent would likely have significantly increased the margin of victory for Brexit.

But unless there are sound polls that show that people who couldn't be bothered to vote were across the nation more pro-Remain than people who were motivated enough to vote, none of that tells us very much.

 

[Busaholic]

Anyone think the percentage voting this time is going to be well down overall, despite all the volatility? Hope I'm wrong, but I predict 5% or more down on last time, particularly in the youngest and oldest age groups.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Anyone think the percentage voting this time is going to be well down overall, despite all the volatility? Hope I'm wrong, but I predict 5% or more down on last time, particularly in the youngest and oldest age groups.

Most estimates I've seen (the electoral calculus website seems to be having issues currently so I can't get a large sample) had a couple % down on turnout.

 

[GusB]

To those who feel that they can't be bothered voting - it's your choice and if you decide not to for whatever reason, I'm not going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. I'd prefer that you spoil your ballot rather than not vote at all, but the whole "people died for the right to vote so you must" doesn't sit right with me; as far as I'm concerned, freedom to participate in a democracy also includes the freedom not to participate.

 

[The Ham]

Always vote, there's a few things which are worth being aware of.

If a candidate doesn't get a given amount (typically 5%) of the view they lose their deposit, so by voting for a party which may well have no hope of winning they may at least not be out of pocket.

Minor parties get some funding from the government, this is called Short Money and you can find out more here:

Short Money - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

However the key bit is:

General funding for opposition parties From 1 April 2022, eligible parties receive £19,401.20 for every seat won at the last election plus £38.75 for every 200 votes gained by the party.

Whilst that's only valid for parties which win at least one seat in parliament (and not the party in power), it's still helpful to the parties to have that extra bit of money.

Also, things change, it wasn't long ago that the seat I live in was >70% of the vote was Tory, it's now almost a coin toss as to if it'll be lost to another party (and it may be even closer to being a loss than the polls think, even though they would still be a significant surprise). By setting a party with an increased number of votes, it becomes more acceptable for people to vote for that party, so locally the share for other parties has been slowly increasing each election.

To those who feel that they can't be bothered voting - it's your choice and if you decide not to for whatever reason, I'm not going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. I'd prefer that you spoil your ballot rather than not vote at all, but the whole "people died for the right to vote so you must" doesn't sit right with me; as far as I'm concerned, freedom to participate in a democracy also includes the freedom not to participate.

Whilst I agree with you, to a point, I would say that I also quite like the idea of the Australian law which means that you have to cast a vote, it just results in a lot of spoilt ballots - which others have already highlighted also makes a point.

Conversely I also like the idea of being able to "write in" who you wish to vote for, so you could potentially have enough of a local groundswell to elect someone not officially on the ballot. For example you could elect a UKIP candidate, when the one on the ballot had been kicked out of the party for threatening to "place a bullet between the eyes" of the Tory candidate:

Ukip candidate suspended for threatening to 'put a bullet in' Tory rival

Robert Blay filmed telling journalist that Conservative candidate Ranil Jayawardena is ‘not British enough to be in our parliament’

www.theguardian.com

In the footage, Blay is heard to express his frustration with suggestions that Jayawardena has a bright political career ahead of him and especially at the possibility that he could rise to be Britain’s first prime minister of Asian descent.

“If he is, I will personally put a bullet between his eyes,” says Blay. “If this lad turns up to be our prime minister, I will personally put a bullet in him. That’s how strong I feel about it.

“I won’t have this ****er as our prime minister. I absolutely loathe him,” he said. He went on express grievances about Jayawardena’s father, who migrated to Britain from Sri Lanka.

Note, I'm using this as an example as to why some may wish to have that option without using a very recent example. It's also fairly clear cut as to why the UKIP candidate was suspended, with few likely to have sympathy for them but it could have been the case that at least some still may have liked to have voted for a UKIP candidate.

 

[edwin_m]

Well of course London-based 'complacents' would have reversed the vote: London was a strongly remain city and contains a significant proportion of the electorate so if - as is on balance of probabilities likely - London non-voters had similar views on average to Londoners who voted, then a stronger turnout in London alone would tip the balance.

Trouble is - by exactly the same logic, a stronger turnout in - say - the SouthWest or Essex or Kent would likely have significantly increased the margin of victory for Brexit.

But unless there are sound polls that show that people who couldn't be bothered to vote were across the nation more pro-Remain than people who were motivated enough to vote, none of that tells us very much.

However, in the case of any referendum for change it's reasonable to expect that the people who support the change will be more motivated to vote, unless a strong campaign is mounted to convince people that the change is for the worse. In the case of the Brexit referendum that didn't happen, the general expectation was that Remain would win anyway and in any case it was only an internal squabble not something that affected anyone else much. Polls in the last few days before the vote were suggesting otherwise, but this probably didn't register with the average voter. As seen in opinion polls later, public opinion swung against Brexit once the consequences started to be understood. So, while I agree there is no definitive evidence, it's highly likely that apathy was a significant factor.