c4countdown

This is a campaign I've just got involved with: Give Your Vote. The idea is that you give your vote in the next election to someone in another country by voting on their behalf. What do you all think? (to answer that fully you'll have to have a little look at the website)

No, bad idea.
Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.

No.

You've just given me the idea of auctioning my vote on eBay though.

NO

The turnout in elections here is pretty poor anyhow - this is a really unhelpful idea.

Good to see a range of kneejerk reactions already. Nevertheless I must admit I don't really see the point of this. If you want to represent the interests of Ghanaians/Indians/whoever then why not just vote accordingly? You're in a better position to know the relevant parties than they are. The website never addresses this, maybe Mikey can.

Charlie Reams wrote:If you want to represent the interests of Ghanaians/Indians/whoever then why not just vote accordingly? You're in a better position to know the relevant parties than they are. The website never addresses this, maybe Mikey can.

Maybe I can. 1) I might know the parties better than them but I don't know their concerns as well as them. This is particularly obvious in the debate over Afghanistan - you don't need to look far to find an opinion of whether we should be there, when or if we should get out etc. But all those opinions come from non-Afghans. 2) They should be able to get to know the parties to some degree through the internet and also more directly by being able to give questions to the MPs through their proxy ("On behalf of Mnoge Botwana who I represent, what is your party planning on doing about the dumping of subsidised chickens on Ghana and the destructive impact on Ghanaian farmers?" etc.) 3) It is to a great extent symbolic. Obviously a few thousand different votes isn't going to make a huge amount of difference one way or the other, particularly when you take into account the almost identical foreign policies of the major parties. But I think the campaign will help to move global (and important) issues further into the public sphere. 4) Giving my vote has two effects - one is to transfer my vote to another person, obviously, and the second is to say "I want to vote for global issues" or something like that. If you vote Green you probably don't think that the green party will get into power, and you probably don't even want them to but it's not a wasted vote because you're adding your name to the growing list of people who are putting green issues as a priority, and the politicians recognise this. If 200 people sign up to this campaign, it's likely to be ignored by MPs, but they would definitely change their policies if 2 million people signed up.

Does that help? Also, this is just my slant on it, I'm not an official voice.

Peter Mabey wrote:The turnout in elections here is pretty poor anyhow - this is a really unhelpful idea.

I don't know if I really agree with the idea that it's your duty to vote, but personally this campaign has engaged me in politics for the first time. I can't see it really persuading anyone to not vote, but it should encourage some people who are apathetic and disaffected to get involved - that's what has happened to me.

Mikey Lear wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:If you want to represent the interests of Ghanaians/Indians/whoever then why not just vote accordingly? You're in a better position to know the relevant parties than they are. The website never addresses this, maybe Mikey can.

Maybe I can. 1) I might know the parties better than them but I don't know their concerns as well as them. This is particularly obvious in the debate over Afghanistan - you don't need to look far to find an opinion of whether we should be there, when or if we should get out etc. But all those opinions come from non-Afghans. 2) They should be able to get to know the parties to some degree through the internet and also more directly by being able to give questions to the MPs through their proxy ("On behalf of Mnoge Botwana who I represent, what is your party planning on doing about the dumping of subsidised chickens on Ghana and the destructive impact on Ghanaian farmers?" etc.) 3) It is to a great extent symbolic. Obviously a few thousand different votes isn't going to make a huge amount of difference one way or the other, particularly when you take into account the almost identical foreign policies of the major parties. But I think the campaign will help to move global (and important) issues further into the public sphere. 4) Giving my vote has two effects - one is to transfer my vote to another person, obviously, and the second is to say "I want to vote for global issues" or something like that. If you vote Green you probably don't think that the green party will get into power, and you probably don't even want them to but it's not a wasted vote because you're adding your name to the growing list of people who are putting green issues as a priority, and the politicians recognise this. If 200 people sign up to this campaign, it's likely to be ignored by MPs, but they would definitely change their policies if 2 million people signed up.

Does that help? Also, this is just my slant on it, I'm not an official voice.

So it's just a publicity stunt? Huh.

Marc Meakin wrote:No, bad idea.
Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.

No. I don't see why people are so bothered anyway. People whinge on about low turnouts etc. but so what? Does it really matter? By making people who don't give a shit vote, you're probably going to get some pretty pointless votes anyway and it goes against the idea of civil liberty.

I can understand why people individually should care more, but not really why other people should care if they don't care.

I know it's apparently voter apathy that gets the BNP in, but I don't think we need to worry too much about them getting into power right now.

Marc Meakin wrote:Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.

I'd vote for the party who promised to get rid of this.

Marc Meakin wrote:No, bad idea.
Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.

Compulsory anything, for adults at least, is a bad idea in my view. Fair enough, the government has to stop you doing things, that's the rule of law. But once the ground rules are set, they should keep out of your life.

[quote="Marc Meakin"Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.[/quote]
No it wouldn't - under compulsion, lots of people would register a protest by voting against the Government irrespective of its other policies.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Compulsory voting (or a huge fine) would be a good idea though.

I'd vote for the party who promised to get rid of this.

What is so bad about it?
Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Marc Meakin wrote:What is so bad about it?
Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Yeah, well... go and live in one of them then since you love it so much.

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:What is so bad about it?
Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Yeah, well... go and live in one of them then since you love it so much.

Nah, they don't show Countdown in Nauru.

Marc Meakin wrote:Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Other democratic countries don't do it, so why should we?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Other democratic countries don't do it, so why should we?

Ok, ok, I was just being flippant.
What I really meant was we should have a compulsory referendum on adopting the Euro.

Marc Meakin wrote:Ok, ok, I was just being flippant.
What I really meant was we should have a compulsory referendum on adopting the Euro.

Why do you think that?

Marc Meakin wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Other democratic countries do it, so why not us.

Other democratic countries don't do it, so why should we?

Ok, ok, I was just being flippant.
What I really meant was we should have a compulsory referendum on adopting the Euro.

I think it should be left to people who actually understand macroeconomics. Well, economists at the very least. I'd rather not have such an important thing decided by a bunch of jingoistic (or otherwise) morons.

Edit: I think I missed some humour by not reading the thread. Ignore me.

I really like this idea.

For those of you who are sceptical, perhaps an animated featurette might help? I created this, it's probably my second best achievement ever.

That is a great idea, mainly because you all know the name of the US president right now!

The US has got a president? Are you sure? Aren't they a colony?

As far as compulsory voting goes, I used to think that voting should be compulsory, but it does kind of undermine the whole 'free country' idea. If politicians want more people to vote they should start by pulling their socks up. Also voting levels could be indicative of most people actually being pretty comfortable, and therefore having no need to care. Similarly, I am at a loss to see what you going to the polling station to give the vote of someone who knows nothing about our domestic infrastructure achieves. If you're going to do that you might as well research your own opinion and give your own vote (as I believe the system intended).

Yes, we do have a president!

In my mind, Barack Obama is a winner!

Mikey Lear wrote:For those of you who are sceptical, perhaps an animated featurette might help? I created this, it's probably my second best achievement ever.

That was fantastic, although I'm not entirely sure if I was supposed to find it as funny as I did, perhaps there's something wrong with me...

Lesley Hines wrote:Similarly, I am at a loss to see what you going to the polling station to give the vote of someone who knows nothing about our domestic infrastructure achieves. If you're going to do that you might as well research your own opinion and give your own vote (as I believe the system intended).

Obviously these two approaches achieve quite different things. If I give the vote of someone who knows nothing about our infrastructure instead of my own researched opinion, then I'll be representing the other person's interests instead of my own. And since the other person can't represent their own interests (because they don't have a vote), I'm giving them that chance. Also, by giving up my own vote I'm saying to my MP "Issues which affect other countries are important to me" or something like that.

Mikey Lear wrote:Also, by giving up my own vote I'm saying to my MP "Issues which affect other countries are important to me" or something like that.

To which your MP might respond, "Why should I care? You don't have a vote."

Then I fail to see how this system can cope with much of the corruption that goes on around the world. While I was in the Far East, and Egypt, I was cheerfully assured by locals that yes, they could vote, as long as they voted for the right people. Otherwise less friendly people would turn up on their doorstep and make sure they didn't make that mistake again.

How can you be confident that the person whose vote you intend to cast in place of your own isn't receiving pressure from other parties that have an interest in gaining a political foothold, or other reasons for destabilising our own political system? There have been instances of marginal political groups who are banned in the UK but I'm sure still have activists. What if your delegated person's vote stands in direct conflict to your own views, and wants an extremist faction (to which you're opposed) to receive a vote. I would be extremely concerned about the motivation of a foreigner who would want to use a vote in our elections. I'm interested in world politics but I don't think I should get a say in it, beyond the vote I already have here.

I don't like it. I think this undermines democracy, not adds to it.

Lesley Hines wrote:Then I fail to see how this system can cope with much of the corruption that goes on around the world. While I was in the Far East, and Egypt, I was cheerfully assured by locals that yes, they could vote, as long as they voted for the right people. Otherwise less friendly people would turn up on their doorstep and make sure they didn't make that mistake again.

How can you be confident that the person whose vote you intend to cast in place of your own isn't receiving pressure from other parties that have an interest in gaining a political foothold, or other reasons for destabilising our own political system?

I suppose I'm not that confident. The campaign's only just been launched though, so I don't think there's any danger of the bad guys abusing it yet. They probably haven't heard of it.

Lesley Hines wrote:I would be extremely concerned about the motivation of a foreigner who would want to use a vote in our elections. I'm interested in world politics but I don't think I should get a say in it, beyond the vote I already have here.

I don't really understand your problem here. An Afghan citizen would have an obvious reason and a legitimate claim to want to affect the decision-making process in the UK. A UK vote might even be more valuable to them than an Afghan vote, mightn't it?

David Roe wrote:

Mikey Lear wrote:Also, by giving up my own vote I'm saying to my MP "Issues which affect other countries are important to me" or something like that.

To which your MP might respond, "Why should I care? You don't have a vote."

I think he might care. Like in the next election if he saw lots of people giving away their votes he might adapt his policies to being more globally focused, so that instead of me giving away my vote I might use it to vote for him instead.