Null and Void?

mike65

Just a thought, should a result in a referendum be made null and void if turnout does'nt reach 50% + 1.

I'd say yes, its hard to view any result based on less as representing the views of the "the people".

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
Just a thought, should a result in a referendum be made null and void if turnout does'nt reach 50% + 1.

I'd say yes, its hard to view any result based on less as representing the views of the "the people".

I'd disagree.

Once people are warned sufficiently in advance (one month should be enough to be honest), you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of the population will have the opportunity to vote, as well as the knowledge as to when they should do this.

If a person chooses not to vote, they are in effect saying that the outcome is of no concern to them. They have, therefore, voiced an opinion - that they dont care.

This lack of caring is no reason to refuse an outcome as voiced by do care.

jc

DMC

I'd agree, if turnout was less than 50%, half the population has offered no opinion, so we don't know what they have said, and we dont know if yes or no is their personal preference.

In my opinion, the Referendum Commision have done a first rate job on getting the Nice Treaty into plain english (agus gaeilge) so everyone should be able to make an informed decision on what it is all about from the booklets they've provided.

The only problem with null and void case is, it would have to go for a referendum to make that change :rolleyes:

People who don't bother voting at all really get on my tits. They'll say what's right or wrong with the government or in this case the Nice treaty, but wont bother their arses to go out and help make a decision that affects all of us, and see it as an inconvenience having to go to the polling station. Like I hate it when I hear that turnout has been affected by the weather. Yes, some old folk, I wouldn't blame them in the slightest, but for the rest of the population, C'mon! I dont mind if you even spoil your vote, at least your opinion has been noted, unlike the masses who stay away...

meglome

Interesting point... with say only 40% of the population voting it can't be said that the people have spoken. EVEN if we were all given the chance to vote. Maybe something like this would encourage more people to vote in the first place.

Sand

Doubtful- some people honestly do not care what particular bunch of chancers are in power so long as their taxes are low and they have a good job. Thats their opinion.

Voiding elections referendums with less than x amount turnout will just mean a lot of voided referendums.

Annasopra

what about making it compulsory to vote?

mike65

Compulsory voting is used in some democracies like Austrailia though I understand many resent it there, I think it would be a good idea so long as every voting
paper contained a "I'm only voting 'cos I have to" option.

Mike.

DMC

Interesting to note that in Serbia, they are not recognising yesterday's vote for President, because less than 50% of the population voted. Its been declared invalid.

Borzoi

Another way to put it would be that if you want to change the constitution, you need 50%+1 of the entire electorate. It might cut down on some of the frivolous referanda

Typedef

If the vote is free and fair and unimpinged, then it is valid.
How would you enforce the 50%+1 criteria on a vote or Referendum?

Force people to vote? Peanalise them for not voting? How could one register a protest then, if one could delibrately not vote, but one was obliged to do so by law?

Sounds a wee bit draconian to require people to vote, otherwise if you didn't require people to vote, but still required 50% +1 vote for a Referendum to count, you would simply have votes that 'never' had a valid yea or nay due to a lack of voter turnout.

Imagine that, if people were sufficiently disinterested, you might 'never' be able to elect a new government and imagine that, if for example 60% of your populos were starving to death due to bad governance and couldn't reach a polling station?

In short no, even if one person were to vote in an election where six billion had reasonable access to voting facilities, that single vote is enough to count.

seamus

Originally posted by mike65
Compulsory voting is used in some democracies like Austrailia though I understand many resent it there, I think it would be a good idea so long as every voting
paper contained a "I'm only voting 'cos I have to" option.

Mike.

Agreed. As Bonkey said, many people actually do state their opinion by not voting, so to say "we don't know the true opinion of the non-voters" isn't correct. They mightn't care, and that's their opinion.

Many people apparently voiced their opinion in the General Election by spoiling their vote (writing "Bertie is a bollix" etc on the ballot), as reported by the papers. I think, while voting should never be mandatory, there should always be a 'neutral' option in votes. For example in Nice there should be 3 options, Yes, No, and Don't care. In general Elections, there should be a box which states, "I choose not to vote for any of the above candidates.". At least then we could get some sort of idea as to people's actual opinions......

Beruthiel

it shouldn't matter what percentage comes out to vote, it should stand, because those who didn't, either didn't care or didn't know which way to vote.
in some other countries people have died for the right to vote so if you couldn't be arsed to do so then you deserve what you get.

bonkey

Originally posted by DMC
People who don't bother voting at all really get on my tits.

They used to get on mine, and then I realised something.

The people who come out saying things like "people died so we could have the vote, therefore we should be obliged to use it" get on my tits more

Voting is a right, and as with most/all rights, I believe the individual also has the right to choose not to avail of it.

I take exception to someone telling me that part of the freedom I enjoy is the obligation to do something. Thats not freedom, its just a different type of oppression. One I could live with if I had to, but one I'm glad I dont suffer under.

If I want to say "I dont want any of these options" or "I dont know" I will go and spoil my vote. If I want to say "I dont care", I wont vote. Both are valid choices.

If someone decides the weather is more important than their voicing an opinion on a subject, then thats their choice. Sure, it'll be annoying to hear them crow over victory or mourn defeat down the pub, but this too is part of the freedom of expression we have. I let them moan/gloat on and simply find someone else to talk to.

jc

DMC

I agree I don't like that well hackneyed line myself, there was merit in it 50 years ago, some may say there is still some merit now, but I think its for the good of your country and every other person if every who is eligible and in good possession of the facts to go out at vote, in whatever way they can.

A vote is a careful decision. It is the only method that we can make changes to our lives as a collective, by changing the way we are ruled, and it is the only opinion that politicians listen to. If you choose not to vote, like the reasons bonkey outlined, with thought, that's your decision and fair play to you if you don't. But you are not sending a valid signal to the rest of the country, because you are mixing yourself with the "couldn't be arsed" group, and your decision is getting lost amongst the rest. The most effective way to show you're disgruntled or don't care is to spoil your vote. I've learned this since the electronic voting came in. You can't spoil your vote. That's a real pity, and I hope its a decision that will change in time, otherwise, turnout will get smaller and smaller, because people wont be able to protest against every option presented in front of them, if they wanted to. A spoiled vote is counted, just as much as a yes or a no vote. Its a pity that this right is going, as that is as much a part of democracy as valid papers.

But staying away from the polling booth says nothing to no-one.

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
They used to get on mine, and then I realised something.

The people who come out saying things like "people died so we could have the vote, therefore we should be obliged to use it" get on my tits more

"The fewer people that vote, the more my vote counts for" is how I like to think of it...

bonkey

Originally posted by DMC
If you choose not to vote, like the reasons bonkey outlined, with thought, that's your decision and fair play to you if you don't. But you are not sending a valid signal to the rest of the country, because you are mixing yourself with the "couldn't be arsed" group, and your decision is getting lost amongst the rest.

Fair point.

The most effective way to show you're disgruntled or don't care is to spoil your vote.

But one should ask whether "dont care" is closer to "couldnt be arsed" or "disgruntled". Not an easy question.

I've learned this since the electronic voting came in. You can't spoil your vote. That's a real pity, and I hope its a decision that will change in time, otherwise, turnout will get smaller and smaller, because people wont be able to protest against every option presented in front of them, if they wanted to.

Thats not a real pity - its a travesty. There should at least be a "none of the aboe" or "Atari Jaguar" option available.

Actually, now that I think about it - Id probbly support mandatory voting if it included "dont care" and "none of the above" as options

Borzoi

Originally posted by DMC
I've learned this since the electronic voting came in. You can't spoil your vote.

But staying away from the polling booth says nothing to no-one.

Of course you can still spoil. Go to vote, register at the table, then leave, don't go near the machine. The number of spoils is then the register count vs the votes on the machine.

DMC

That figure doesn't show up in the final tallies, there is a subtle difference.

With paper, when you place the ballot in the box, it must then be counted. The same thing applies with electronic voting; your vote is counted once you have pressed the "Cast Vote" button. On the ballot sheet you can scrawl as much as you want on it to spoil and put it in the ballot box. Its then counted, and the number of spoiled votes is announced by the returning officer. You don't have that opportunity, you can't with electronic voting, only valid votes can be accepted before the "cast vote" button flashes, which is when you know its ok to vote. Hence, the number of spoiled votes in Meath, Dublin North and Dublin West was 0 at the General Election in May.

If, like you say, get the slip of paper from the presiding officer and then walk out, its not counted. By not pressing the "cast vote" button, its the same as not putting the ballot paper into the box.

Elmo

Lets put it this way if only 20% of the electorate go and vote on saturday and they all vote yes for the nice treaty the government will be happy to except the result.

Sin e.

Question: Why are we not voting on the Council of Rome and the Death Pen. again?

Answer: because the government got a yes vote which they wanted yet still only 35% of the electorate went out and voted. I don't remember what the no side were saying about the council of Rome, do you? Do you know what it is for?

It is the hyprocarcy of the government and the opposition parties.

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
It is the hyprocarcy of the government and the opposition parties.

There is nothing hypocritical about it.

The government can choose to ask the people to make a decision. This rerun has exposed a blatant loophole in that the government can ask the same question again in a very short timeframe. This is something which may need to be addressed....I'm still not sure (ewven after the long running debate with Typedef on this issue)

However, the public can also ask the government to hold a referendum on a topic.

Therefore, if enough of the public wanted a second referendum on some issue like the Treaty of Rome, they could very easily have brought one about. How else do you think that this nation has had referenda where the government has opposed the change being sought?

Now, you can say "enough of the public" vs "the government" is an unfair comparison, and it seems to be, until you consider that the government represent the elected voice of the majority of the nation.

Yes, they have that neat advantage, but there's nothing hypocritical about them doing what they were elected to do...acting for what they see as the best interests of the nation.

jc

Elmo

What is Hyprocrital about the government is that if the public had voted yes the last time round we would not be having this rerun of the nice ref.

The government as part of their argument for the rerun is that only 35% of the electorate went out to vote thus they must rerun the ref. on the nice treaty. Note that we are not getting to vote again on The Council Of Rome and The Death Penalty, why because the government/ main opposition parties were happy with the reslut yet only 35% of the population went out to vote on these topics.

Thus IMO the government and main opposition partys are hypocritical/undemocratic.