Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Election turnout & democracy in the UK.

solid~liquid onwards

12:38 / 21.11.02

"Do poor turnouts in recent elections suggest that democracy is under threat in the UK?"

ok, this is an essay question for politics, but ive been thinking about it a lot lately and ive been having long discusions on the subject, and im wondering if an 'lithers here can inject some new thought into the subject???...go on, knock yourself out and help me while your at it.
much appreciated

14:53 / 21.11.02

Depends rather whether you think the current system is democratic anyway, I think... I reckon it's still pretty oligarchic (the current Lords is more full of placemen than either House has been since the Great Reform Act), and the quangos etc don't help matters either.

I think there are a lot of ways in which the democratic system could be improved (I know I'm always banging on about this, but proportional representation, anyone?). BUT, given the fact that no party appears capable of delivering on their election promises (because of the pernicious influence of business, etc) even when they intend to keep them, and the increasing tendency for the major parties to occupy the same political ground (the moderate centre-right), I don't think people should be surprised that a proportion of the polity feels unrepresented and uninterested. Why vote for a party when they can't do what you want them to do?

I think people should vote, but I also think disenfranchisement is a major problem and that dismissing poor electoral turnouts as apathy is not constructive.

Have to go to seminar, more later...

solid~liquid onwards

16:17 / 21.11.02

thanks for some fresh info, dude

tom-karika nukes it from orbit

18:17 / 21.11.02

I love proportional representation in principle. But I understand that in most countries where it is used, it has actually reduced election turnouts. There tends to be higher turnout for people voting for the extreme parties on the left and the right, but a big dip in turnout overall, with the missing voters being those who usually vote for a moderate established party.

Aside from the turnout, proportional representation has a disheartening tendency to create hung, weak and unleadable parliaments, who can't pass any really radical laws. Great, some people may say, no hope of a dictator, police state etc.

But then there is the other problem with PR - getting rid of bad parties. In the current system, if the governing party messes stuff up badly, then they are hopefully voted out, at least for a few years. But with PR, they will almost certainly stay in government, albeit to a lesser extent. They can hold the other parties in a governing coalition to ransom ('Pass this law, or we're walking out and the others get power'). And there is no really effective way to deprive this party of government.

(Sorry. This wasn't an intended thread-derailment post on the merits of PR)

I don't think apathy has too much to do with low turnout, nor people's views being unrepresented, nor even simple voter contentment.

I reckon that people turn up to vote they don't go to vote someone IN (unless it is a politician they beleive is really pretty great), they go to throw the others OUT. That's been the crux of the Lib-Dems election campaign for a few years in this constituency (We may not be likely to reach government, but WE'RE NOT THE TORIES!). It worked well in 1997. (They turned out to be pretty imcompetent and got kicked out last time).

So if people reckon that the ruling party doesn't need kicking out, they won't care less if the opposition is better than them or not.

The ruling party gets to call when elections are. It could be that over the years, politicians have got better at working out when voter turnout will be low. Because low turnout almost always benefits the ruling party.

18:29 / 21.11.02

I'm not sure that I completely agree, KKC. I may be splitting hairs here, but I think that the issue is not of whether parties can deliver on promises, rather it is the case that an established part of the political process is lying to the electorate. For instance, you get politicians talking about cuts in taxation and increases in spending. The electorate seems largely complicit in this. So you get party disloyalty and revised opinions absolutely frowned upon, when it is clear that discouraging people to take principled stands and occassionally reconsider issues breeds dishonesty in politics.

That said, you are probably right about the influence of business on politics. However, while I understand that, I can't help feeling that apathy feeds itself. Not voting guarantees you don't have a say.

Also, and this will probably be unpopular, I think that alternative politics could do more to remedy the situation. This is all hopelessly anecdotal but it seems that the complete unwillingness to engage in the elctoral system leaves it to the establishment. I don't think that politics is so corrupted in the UK as to make it entirely invalid. Plus, I often get the uncomfortable feeling that when some anarchists talk about freedom and democracy for the people, they mean freedom to be anarchists and vote anarchist.

19:09 / 21.11.02

It was mentioned in one of the threads on the recent American elections, that if the voting was more convenient, more people would.

If they made it a holiday, straightened out where you need to go, or did it on the weekend, would it help? The Ontario government brought in a permanent voters list (instead of doing door-to-door enumeration)a few years back, the result being that during the last election, thousands either weren't registered in time, couldn't register, or had to travel around the city trying to find where to vote.

I'm a fan or proportional rep. A hung parliament is a lot better than other cases:

Ontario: the Tories got 42% of the vote and about 70% of the seats. Should they be able to rule as a majority government?
British Colombia: The Liberals (big 'L', centre-right) got about 60% of the vote and have 95/97 seats in parliament. Not fun or very representative.

10:18 / 22.11.02

This is all hopelessly anecdotal but it seems that the complete unwillingness to engage in the elctoral system leaves it to the establishment. I don't think that politics is so corrupted in the UK as to make it entirely invalid.

I do think people should still engage with the existing system - and in fact a year ago I would have said that change from within was the only viable option - but I find myself increasingly frustrated by the way in which the government can ignore the electorate, its backbenchers, the opposition... and so am increasingly starting to think that opting out of the system is a valid alternative. Yes, it leaves it to the establishment, but so much of that establishment is not accountable to the electorate anyway that I'm not convinced it would make that much of a difference. And I do think that the structure of government is inadequate at the moment, when heavy-handed whipping combines with the Labour party's majority to negate the opposition, and when the second chamber is utterly redundant. There's no real check, and no balance.

10:21 / 22.11.02

On the other hand... this happens and yes, perhaps opting out isn't such a valid choice after all...

11:43 / 25.11.02

Not going to get into a big thing here (lunchbreak) but I feel that maybe we should vote, or become involved because it is so frustrating and so difficult. "These things are sent to try us" and all that..

solid~liquid onwards

14:56 / 02.12.02

my personal opinion (although its still a bit fetal) is that, yes, we should vote...and encourage others to do so. sure its not the most effective route to change, but its a nice compropmise between being controled and everybody being able to effect political change too easily (sure theres environmentla pressure groups, but there are bastard nazi skinheds too.

solid~liquid onwards

15:05 / 02.12.02

i just remembered i saw a book by tony benn in a second hand book shop called "if elections changed anything they'd ban them" is it worth reading?

02:22 / 03.12.02

There are those who wonder whether localising power would make people feel more engaged in the political process, that it would make them feel part of it. You'd think that'd make sense, unfortunately I find I have to look toward the recent mayoral election in Mansfield, the voter turnout went below 20% despite the mayor having power over council tax.
I'm still confident though. That poor turnout, which was roughly mirrored in similar elections around England, may have been down to voter unfamiliarity which should be overcome with time and with the efforts of the new mayors. I believe if democracy and interest in politics is to be rebuilt in Britain you have start locally. We need to give council and mayoral elections as high a profile as general elections. A good start might be to avoid tagging councils elections onto the back-end of general elections, it undermines them and confuses the electorate, so it should be scrapped and council elections given the limelight they deserve.

At least that's one direction I think we should be heading in.