Metropol

I'm sure it would be good if all candidates went away and pondered the figures about "spoiled votes", and how that reflects on them.

However, the Returning Officer doesn't make it clear who scrawled "none of the above", and who put a cross in every box - so as protests go its entirely ineffective.

The ONLY people I saw questioning the validity of the ballot slips were the SNP - as I observed several slips which used their "x" symbol with a hoop at the bottom (see below)



instead of a plain "x". The SNP unsuccessfully argued that this should be taken as a clear vote - but in the counts I witnessed this was not allowed.

So, as I say, unless the candidates know what is "spoiled in protest" and what was merely completed by an idiot, then it is a waste of time going all the way there to do this.

You'd be better having a placard outside the polling place or the count centre - as then the candidates would know what your point of view is.

I think there is considerable merit in having a "none of the above" option on the paper, to cater for people who don't find any of the candidates acceptable, but who don't want to be considered lazy or apathetic.

Somebody who has actively decided that they don't feel able to vote for any of the candidates on offer is arguably more engaged with the election and is making a more considered decision than somebody who votes for a particular party simply because they always vote for them.

But, who actually cares if someone was to vote for "None of the above", and the number collated? The winning government wouldn't for sure, and the opposition parties, while they may bring attention to the number of people who didn't vote for the winners, wouldn't want to put too much focus on the number of people who also disagreed with their policies. And if nobody actually cares about the number of people who've voted for nobody, is it worth the expense in actually collating the result?

At the end of the day, a "none of the above" vote is still an invalid vote for choosing which person you want to be your local MP, and providing it as an option would probably result in even less valid votes.

dosxuk wrote:But, who actually cares if someone was to vote for "None of the above", and the number collated? The winning government wouldn't for sure, and the opposition parties, while they may bring attention to the number of people who didn't vote for the winners, wouldn't want to put too much focus on the number of people who also disagreed with their policies. And if nobody actually cares about the number of people who've voted for nobody, is it worth the expense in actually collating the result?

At the end of the day, a "none of the above" vote is still an invalid vote for choosing which person you want to be your local MP, and providing it as an option would probably result in even less valid votes.

but does this not prove there is something wrong with our system where people think voting is pointless? Maybe it is time for PR to come in to operation in the uk. hopeful if a Hung parliament happens, lib dems will ask for PR elections in any deal.

I'm not convinced that representation is the problem: I think it's good at the moment that there is a clearly defined remit for each representative consisting of a number of towns and places. With PR I don't really know who would represent what. Maybe that's because I haven't thought about it very well though!

Sput wrote:I'm not convinced that representation is the problem: I think it's good at the moment that there is a clearly defined remit for each representative consisting of a number of towns and places. With PR I don't really know who would represent what. Maybe that's because I haven't thought about it very well though!

We could always have STV vote: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc... that way there would only be one mp.

barcode wrote:but does this not prove there is something wrong with our system where people think voting is pointless? Maybe it is time for PR to come in to operation in the uk. hopeful if a Hung parliament happens, lib dems will ask for PR elections in any deal.

In my experience, the majority of people who think voting is pointless do so because they don't trust any of the parties to represent their views properly. Changing the way the winners are worked out won't solve this, and this issue of trust is a much bigger problem for British politics than whether we should use FPTP/PR/STV.

On the build up to this election, I've seen many more people complaining that there isn't a party that they actually trust and believe will actually implement their policies if they get elected than those complaining that whatever they vote, so-and-so will get in anyway. I've seen a lot more people making their choice based on which party is the least worst option.

this does mean that Ukip, or BNP could sneak in,

Beg you pardon on the pedantry, but the title of this poll / thread is erroneous. An exit poll is usually conducted after someone has exited a polling station. As the election isn't until May 6th, this should be an OPINION poll.

Perhaps we should have an Exit Poll actually on the day; that is, if people are prepared to divulge for whom they voted.

Alexia wrote:Beg you pardon on the pedantry, but the title of this poll / thread is erroneous. An exit poll is usually conducted after someone has exited a polling station. As the election isn't until May 6th, this should be an OPINION poll.

Perhaps we should have an Exit Poll actually on the day; that is, if people are prepared to divulge for whom they voted.

Well, its a vote for when you exit Metropol (or Metropoll at the moment), after reading all the fine political debate, see?

...or indeed when you exit doing work and enter metropol!