Thursday's Euro-election.

[SteveH]

If you want to vote in the European election on Thursday, do so. If you don't, don't. Please refrain from self-righteous, hectoring posts telling everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so. It's none of your business! (Thought I'd get that in in advance of the self-righteous brigade!)

[ProfessorDavey]

If you want to vote in the European election on Thursday, do so. If you don't, don't. Please refrain from self-righteous, hectoring posts telling everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so. It's none of your business! (Thought I'd get that in in advance of the self-righteous brigade!)

I do think people should vote and I'd favour making voting compulsory as occurs in other countries as to strengthens democracy by getting the views of the widest range of people rather than (as is often the case) a relatively small number of voters. So it will be interesting to see whether turnout is higher on Thursday but historically turnout in EU elections has been about 35% - so frankly any attempt to portray the results as the 'view of the people of Britain' is non-sense.

But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.

[Anchorman]

I do think people should vote and I'd favour making voting compulsory as occurs in other countries as to strengthens democracy by getting the views of the widest range of people rather than (as is often the case) a relatively small number of voters. So it will be interesting to see whether turnout is higher on Thursday but historically turnout in EU elections has been about 35% - so frankly any attempt to portray the results as the 'view of the people of Britain' is non-sense.

But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.

   




Yep.

(And I've already voted by post.)

[SteveH]

Definitely not compulsory voting. People have a right to care not a fig for politics, and it is compulsory voting that would give a distorted view of where the nation's sympathies lie, not optional voting, as at present, since under the current system we know what proportion of the populace doesn't care enough about politics to be bothered voting. I am aware that under compulsory voting systems, voters are usually provided with a "fuck the lot of them none of the above" option, but the point still holds. It is up to politicians to make us care enough about politics to vote.

[Roses]

I am not in favour of making voting compulsory, I think people should have the choice to vote or not to vote.

[SteveH]

I am not in favour of making voting compulsory, I think people should have the choice to vote or not to vote.

I'm glad - and mildly surprised - that we agree about that!

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is a little game for you all:

The is little doubt that Farage's Brexit party will gain the largest number of votes and seats on Thursday (results come out on Sunday). Farage will no doubt claim he has won and that it is a clear vindication for his brand of brexit.

But will the Brexit party get more or less votes than:

1. The 17,410,742 who voted for leave in the 2016 referendum

2. The 16,141,241 who voted to remain in the 2016 referendum

3. The 13,636,684 who voted Conservative in the 2017 General Election

4. The 12,878,460 who voted Labour in the 2017 General Election

5. The 6,083,303 who have signed the petition to revoke article 50 and remain in the EU

6. The 4,376,635 who voted UKIP in the 2014 European Parliament election

[Nearly Sane]

My guess is it will be slightly higher than 5. But 5 is anomalous in the list as it is non election/referendum figure. It doesn't really matter though if they are the significantly largest party,   that's the news

[Nearly Sane]

And just to note D'Hondt, modified or not, is an abomination.

[Harrowby Hall]

I suspect that you are right, Prof.

The thought has occurred to me that - should (eventually) the UK not leave the EU, then the largest British contingent in the European Parliament, until the next election, will be Farage's collection of turdheads. The United Kingdom will have no effective representation.

Another medal that Theresa May can wear with pride.

[wigginhall]

As NS  said, winning the election will give Farage a boost.   He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP.   But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.

[Nearly Sane]

As NS  said, winning the election will give Farage a boost.   He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP.   But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.

What is a Brexit party for at  the next GE if we have left? It's basically a company set up to indulge Farage. Which makes it fucking dangerous.

[ProfessorDavey]

The thought has occurred to me that - should (eventually) the UK not leave the EU, then the largest British contingent in the European Parliament, until the next election, will be Farage's collection of turdheads. The United Kingdom will have no effective representation.

But that's exactly what happened after the 2014 election, albeit the MEPs were from UKIP rather than Brexit - although the latter is really the evolution of the former given that UKIP in 2014 and Brexit in 2019 are in effect the same party, lead by Farage.

[SteveH]

And just to note D'Hondt, modified or not, is an abomination.

Absolutely. Who imposed this madness on us? (Answer: Parliament, not the EU - countries can choose their own method of electing MEPs, so it must have been Westminster.) NI uses single transferable vote, and so should the rest of the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

As NS  said, winning the election will give Farage a boost.   He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP.   But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.

The 2014 EU election which UKIP, under Farage, won gave them such a boost that less than a year later in the 2015 General Election they won exactly 1 seat.

They were nobbled not only by FPTP, but also turnout - so in 2014 they got 4.3 million votes, but on a 36% turnout - clearly enough to win the EU election. A year later, they'd retained most of those voters - they got 3.8 million votes, but on a 66% turnout.

[ad_orientem]

I won't be voting. I simply can't be arsed.

[ad_orientem]

But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.

On the contrary. Politicians are meant to serve all the people, not only those who voted for them, but for those who voted for others and for those who never voted at all.

[Harrowby Hall]

I won't be voting. I simply can't be arsed.

In the UK or Finland?

[ad_orientem]

In the UK or Finland?

In Finland, as I live there. Never been moved to vote in European elections. I do vote in local and national elections.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the contrary. Politicians are meant to serve all the people, not only those who voted for them, but for those who voted for others and for those who never voted at all.

Indeed - politicians should serve everyone, including those unable to vote.

But that wasn't my point - my point was that if you are eligible to vote (which is the process by which we choose those politicians) and you choose not to then you are in no position to complain about the person chosen in that manner. You had your opportunity to influence that choice and chose not to take it.

[ad_orientem]

We'll have to agree to differ mate. In my opinion one who chooses not to vote does not forfeit the right tocomplain about the politicians others voted in, after all they make decision that affect all of us.

[Roses]

Whilst I don't think voting should be compulsory by law, I think a person who chooses not to vote is in no position to moan about those who subsequently come into power.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm with ad_o here, particularly as I'm finding it harder to vote for any of the shower. If someone who's suffered because of the Windrush scandal hasn't voted, they still not only have a right to complain but are right to do so.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm with ad_o here, particularly as I'm finding it harder to vote for any of the shower. If someone who's suffered because of the Windrush scandal hasn't voted, they still not only have a right to complain but are right to do so.

Yes a problem I'm having too. When I look on some website for voting tactically it advise me, being a supporter of Remain to vote for the Libdems.

Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies.

Labour, usually the home of my vote, is so hopelessly lost thanks to Corbyn on the question of Europe that I find myself without a decent resting place for my cross.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?