About Me

"Setting the world to rights"...one blog at a time! Plus anything else that comes to mind

Wednesday 28 April 2010

11 Voting - less rant, more reason

I've been re-reading my last post and I realise the last part became more rant than reason.

The only thing I have to add about how we vote is that we should try and vote according to conscience, not strategically. Consider the following possibility - the current government, party A, does not please us but although we think party B is better we've heard via the opinion polls that party C is more likely to get in. We might then be tempted to vote C instead of B simply because we don't want to 'waste' out vote. To me, this seems a waste in itself - we haven't made our view known. If sufficient others act the same way there could be a totally different outcome than might otherwise have been.

The whole point of an election is to find the party favoured by the majority. If we vote according to what we THINK the majority will vote we are not getting a true reflection of the views of the country. To this end I think polling should stop as soon as an election is called. Publishing polls, independent or otherwise, influences the way people decide how to vote. Best we vote honestly and wait for the result, don't you think? Could I suggest to all parties that they trust in their policies to get them into government, not in manipulating the electorate according to the latest poll?

Having got that out of the way I'd better address the 'rant' part of my last post. I do feel rather strongly about voting in person. Firstly, it shows commitment. It's not as though we have to fear being gunned down in the streets because we've had the temerity to get out there and lend our voice to the electoral procedure. I still say the type of person who makes an effort to go and vote will also be more likely to be the sort of person who's thought it through and will give as informed a vote as they are able.

Secondly, I feel it's less open to abuse. I can more easily believe that electronic or postal voting systems can be tampered with than paper ballots submitted in person. It would be quicker and easier to register fraudulent votes by computer or post than it would by making multiple visits to a polling station. Computer systems break down and can be hacked into, postal systems can be intercepted. I'm not saying paper ballots in person can't be tampered with, just that it would be more difficult.

If anyone can prove my concerns are groundless then fine, otherwise I shall remain opposed to any method other than paper ballots.

2 comments:

  1. Hi there Malmesbury,

    when the French vote for their next president, there are two rounds. In the first round which usually has candidates from all the range of parties, the top two get through to the second round. This gives voters the chance to reconsider during the second round if their candidate did not get through. In 2002, to everyone's surprise the National Front candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, came second in the first round which meant that the normal left-wing candidate had been eliminated and that Le Pen had a chance to win - so loads of French left-wing voters voted for Chirac just to make sure Le Pen did not win.

    My point is, that it isn't always so straight forward, and that maybe the British voting system needs updating/reviewing.
    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I aqree, Anonymous, our system definitely needs updating/reviewing ... but how? The million dollar question!

    ReplyDelete