Why is the current voting system in the UK flawed and how can it be improved?

[beamthegreat]

Whenever I start discussing about this topic, I always get negative response and people say that I'm stupid for asking such a silly question.

However, if you think logically, your vote has absolutely no impact on the results. Even if you manage to convince your family, friends and a hundred more people to vote exactly like you, the results would still be the same.

It takes a minimum of hundreds of thousand of people perhaps a million to slightly alter the results of an election in a country that has a population of around 300 million.

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you cannot change the results of an election. It have already been predetermined by the mindset and opinions of millions of individuals across the country.

Does anyone think the same way I do? What are your opinions?

 

[collinsmark]

[...] It have already been predetermined by the mindset and opinions of millions of individuals across the country.

You need to expand on that point: It has already been determined by the mindset and opinions of millions of individuals across the country who voted.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So what happens when those 300M people take your advice. Then what?

 

[Rick21383]

However, if you think logically, your vote has absolutely no impact on the results. Even if you manage to convince your family, friends and a hundred more people to vote exactly like you, the results would still be the same.

Your view is actually very illogical. I wouldn't say you're stupid...but this is a pretty silly question.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the only "stupid" part:

It takes a minimum of hundreds of thousand of people perhaps a million to slightly alter the results of an election in a country that has a population of around 300 million.

You are way, way off in your estimate of how much a single vote matters. There are Presidential, federal Congress, state and local elections. Only in the Presidential election does everyone who is eligible vote for the same people and even then there aren't 300 million eligible voters. It is quite common in the local elections for them to be determined by dozens or even single digit votes.

And even in the Presidential election, small numbers of votes can matter due to the Electoral College system. Bush won Florida and thus the Presidency in 2000 by just a few hundred votes.

But mostly, I want my vote counted whether it impacts the outcome or not. I want the candidates to know exactly how many people do and don't support them.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

In addition to the excellent point raised by russ_watters in his post above, it should also be noted that your decision to vote does not take place in isolation from the rest of society. While you may believe that your specific vote may not amount to much, you may be surprised to learn that your decision to vote has an impact on those you interact with. If the people within your social circle see and are made aware that you see no point in voting, then they may question whether it is even worth voting for them (I believe social scientists refer to this phenomenon as social contagion).

If enough people conclude that voting is pointless, then a significant fraction of the people may in fact decide not to vote, essentially disenfranchising them and keeping them out of the decision-making process on choosing who is the next political leader. So all those "non-votes" will actually end up making a difference.

 

[Danger]

There are Presidential, federal Congress, state and local elections. Only in the Presidential election does everyone who is eligible vote for the same people and even then there aren't 300 million eligible voters. It is quite common in the local elections for them to be determined by dozens or even single digit votes...
...But mostly, I want my vote counted whether it impacts the outcome or not. I want the candidates to know exactly how many people do and don't support them.

The first applies where you are, but remember that not everyone is. In my area, we have municipal, provincial, and federal elections. Each election lasts for one day only, and has no impact upon the others (other than smaller ones somewhat being popularity polls for the larger ones). We vote for the candidate or the party, according to our own preference. Mayoral candidates don't usually sport a party affiliation, while Representatives do and all Provincial and Federal ones do. I always vote for the person that I like best for mayor, and almost always for the party or independent of my choice for the others.
As to the reason, I agree totally with your second statement. There's pretty much no chance that Alberta is going to kick out the PC's within my lifetime (although we did manage to eject their leader and thus Premier during her term; another Conservative replaced her). Federally, it bounces back and forth among 3 major, one intermediate, and a few minor parties (plus the oddball independents). So here, a few hundred votes could actually make the difference in who is Prime Minister.
The saying here is that if you don't vote, you have absolutely no right to complain about what you get.

 

[physicsshiny]

I vote for emotive/personal reasons more than anything else to be quite honest; I don't trust any of the main parties. Thing is, in the UK there's quite a lot of voter apathy and quite a lot of the people who are most fervent about voting also tend to support the more xenophobic parties.

I'm an immigrant.

You can see why this is a problem: I'm fed up and scared of the rampant xenophobia in some quarters. I'd rather it not get any worse because I've pretty much built my life here. And even though my vote is only one among the millions of votes out there, at least I can cast one vote against the xenophobes rather than just shut up and let them screw me over. Heck, I can even have a stab at convincing the thousands (at the very least) of people out there who don't vote that keeping the worst of a bad bunch out of power is worth it - I'm willing to bet that if more of us spoke out, we could drown out the shouting about how immigrants on benefits are destroying British society.

 

[russ_watters]

Even so, you need to convince "a few hundred people" to vote exactly like you to change that result.

So you at least acknowledge you were way off in your estimate of how many votes matter, right?

Anyway, Statguy's point was good as well. Voting or not voting is a cultural thing and you are a part of that culture and have an impact on whether others choose to vote. You could also become an activist if you wanted, with the potential to influence thousands of votes directly.

Think of it this way: if you, your family and your friends are the last voters in the country and the results have been tallied and unveiled to you, would you still bother voting?

Again: I also want to make sure my vote is counted so my representatives know whether I voted for them or not. A person will govern differently if they earn a small vs a large majority of the votes.

 

[russ_watters]

FYI, here's a list of close national-level votes, including many ties and single-digit margins of victory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

And as I said, on the state and local level, such things happen all the time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is the only "stupid" part

I wish that were so.

First, the statement that "[ones] vote has absolutely no impact on the results" because one is in a large pool of voters is demonstrably false. It shows sloppy writing, and one can reasonably conclude sloppy thinking. There have been a number of elections that have come down to a single vote - there have even been ties in elections with tens of thousands of voters.

Second, it assumes that the only measure of political power is how often one is the single deciding vote. Again, this is demonstrably false, as a quick glance at the literature of the mathematics of voting systems will show. (Google Banzaf and Shapley-Shubik)

Finally, it makes the assumption that a candidate who wins by a small margin will govern exactly the same as they would had they won in a landslide.

 

[lisab]

Again: I also want to make sure my vote is counted so my representatives know whether I voted for them or not. A person will govern differently if they earn a small vs a large majority of the votes.

Exactly. They need to know someone is watching.

 

[gmax137]

To the OP: yes you're right, you shouldn't bother voting. Leave that chore to us.

 

[Astronuc]

Adding to what Russ and the other voters mentioned, I vote in order to participate in the process of maintaining a local, state and federal government. My one vote is one of many statements of support for the person I choose, whether or not that person wins election, and it is statement of disagreement with the political opponent.

I also vote on local and state initiatives. I also plan to become more active with the parties in order to better understand them and to make my opinions known.

We live in a 'participatory democracy'.

 

[Danger]

if you, your family and your friends are the last voters in the country and the results have been tallied and unveiled to you, would you still bother voting?

That's a totally irrelevant question; in Canada, at least, it's illegal to release poll results until the last vote is in. There is a system in place to allow for time-zone differences, of which we have 5 1/2 (Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern and Atlantic... and 1/2 hour later in Newfoundland). The media are allowed to release projected outcomes based primarily upon "exit polls", but not the real thing in a zone where the polls haven't yet closed.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a totally irrelevant question; in Canada, at least, it's illegal to release poll results until the last vote is in.

It isn't the law in the US, but it is a guideline...not that it is always followed:

The Voter News Service's reputation was damaged by its treatment of Florida's presidential vote in 2000. Breaking its own guidelines, VNS called the state as a win for Gore 12 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Although most of the state is in the Eastern Time Zone, counties in the Florida panhandle, located in the Central Time Zone, had not yet closed their polls. More seriously, inconsistent polling results caused the VNS to change its call twice, first from Gore to Bush, and then to "too close to call".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...#Exit_polling_and_declaration_of_vote_winners
I think though that that debacle probably solidified the guidelines for better election reporting since.

 

[russ_watters]

Kinda relevant here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/opinion-roundup-mandatory-voting/

Apparently it is more or less mandatory that everyon vote in Australia. The impact of such a law appears to be that people who are less passionate and therefore less partisan who ordinarily wouldn't vote do vote. That results in candidates being less partisan because they have to appeal to a broader base instead of just motivating their hardcore voters to turn-out. Sounds like a good idea to me (not that it necessarily would be easy to implement).

 

[Danger]

It isn't the law in the US, but it is a guideline...not that it is always followed...

...I think though that that debacle probably solidified the guidelines for better election reporting since.

Yeah, some of our laws aren't always strictly adhered to, but someone is definitely going to raise unholy dang if they aren't. The most-broken one is that it's illegal to have a campaign ad or poster or sign publicly viewable on election day. Some idiot always tries to keep one on his lawn right near the polling station.
In the instance that you cited about Florida, I have no idea as to whether that was an accident or election fraud. (Doesn't matter; the election there was fraudulent anyway.) Modern technology has really made those poll result laws archaic, even though they are good and proper. In the most primitive case, a radio or TV broadcast signal can easily skip across the border from Saskatchewan to Alberta, even though Saskatchewan's polls close an hour earlier. (And one town is actually straddling the border, so try sorting that one out...) Things like cable and satellite TV, not to mention the net, make it essentially impossible to isolate results. We just have to hope that people are smart enough to go ahead and vote anyway for the reason that you mentioned of making sure they know where they stand even if it's not where you want them to be.

Your view is very egocentric and self-centered.

Pardon your redundancy? :p

 

[russ_watters]

A representative can't know whether or not you voted for him...

Not me as an individual, me as a statistic. I want him to know how many people actually want him in power.

...the difference between getting 58,228,253 voters or 58,228,254 voters won't even matter in the slightest.

Agreed. But who's fault is that? It's your fault, not mine. I voted, you didn't. It is your fault (and the fault of others who think like you) that not everyon's opinion got counted. Not doing your civic duty because others won't either is still a your failure and just because others failed too doesn't make it ok.

Your view is very egocentric and self-centered. Assuming that your vote can tip the scale because you think that the vote will become tied is just wishful thinking.

Nonsense. And your attitude is really offensive to me. It isn't wishful thinking that one vote can and often does change an election result, it is a fact. It isn't self-centered to think you might be that one vote, it is a duty. A responsibility you (and others like you who also don't do their duty) have to your country to be that deciding vote. Your attitude -- and the failure to do your duty that manifests from it -- is what can cause societies to fail.

And it doesn't just apply here. Ever been a pall-bearer? Participated in a game of tug-of-war? Been the lazy team member in a group project? "Do you vote and why or why not?" is something I'd ask in a job interview. To me, this is a matter of character and ethics.

 

[russ_watters]

As of about now, the Connecticut governor's race margin (with only 60% of votes in) is 7 votes out of 700,000.

 

[Vagn]

A representative can't know whether or not you voted for him, also, the difference between getting 58,228,253 voters or 58,228,254 voters won't even matter in the slightest.



Your view is very egocentric and self-centered. Assuming that your vote can tip the scale because you think that the vote will become tied is just wishful thinking.

Surely this argument is actually saying if you want your vote to count then you should be out campaigning, rather than don't vote.

 

[Nikitin]

lol at all the rage.

Come on, he is obviously right in a way: due to the statistics involved his vote will not matter in a major election. However, as what most of you seem to be trying to say, a democratic society will break down if his mindset takes root and people stop caring and hence it's in his interest (as he is a part of the society) to involve himself and vote.

But IMO the more interesting question is why people get so mad in this thread? Sure you should try to convince him, but at the end of the day it's his choice if he doesn't give a fk. Maybe it's the terrifying thought that you alone, despite all your American individuality and sense of importance, are just another vote, another number, as far as the politicians are concerned?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Assuming that your vote can tip the scale because you think that the vote will become tied is just wishful thinking.

That you would argue this even after being pointed to counterexamples is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalala! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

We usually expect better reasoning here.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm going to go against the tide here. I'm not entirely against votes - there has to be some consent based decision making system. But there are a couple reasons I don't vote.

1) I'm not informed. I have no idea about unintended consequences or the complexity of issues or how candidates actually fit into them despite their rhetoric.

2) it runs against my neutral philosophy, this essentially fits into 1), or rather 1) is one of the reasons behind adapting a neutral philosophy:

If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.

3) I'm more interested in change through education and discussion (social change) than legal change. I think art and science and social media are more powerful in that respect than formal elections (whereas elections are the hand of social change). I don't see winning by 1% of votes on an issue as really winning because you have 49% of the people unhappy with the results.

Anyway, I'm not against voting in general, and I think a particular group of people will always vote if they can, but that's not quite my social function.

 

[OmCheeto]

Hopefully, lisab is still listening, as I'm sure I've posted this analogy once before, and she has a great memory for t-shirty slogan thingys.

Anyways...

Beamthegreat, you vote every day. Voting is just a form of economics, much like energy.

For example:

You go to the store, and see a variety of dishwashing liquids.

If you are a democrat, you look for a union label. (a bit spendy)
If you are a republican, you look for the manufacturers label, to determine if you are invested in their stock. (a bit less spendy)
If you are a green partier, you look for something, well, green. Whatever. (holy Moses, nobody can afford this stuff)
If you are a libertarian, you look for the cheapest stuff on the shelf, because all these manufacturers are stealing from you. (cheap as dirt)
If you are a tea-partier, you ignore everything, because you shop at Walmart, and everything you buy is dirt cheap, and made in China.​

So you get home, with one of these 5 products, and determine the following:

Democrat: Works
Republican: Works
Green Party: Works
Libertarian: Took a whole bottle to clean two dishes.
Tea-Partier: Whatever. I'm eating buffalo wings. Just throw the dishes in the trash. Paper is cheap, and paper grows on trees.​

So why is it worth even bothering to vote, in an election?

hmmm...

I don't really know.

But I voted yesterday, and everything I knew anything about, won.

 

[RonL]

Maybe it's a little quantum, all about the one, yet has nothing to do with just one

 

[Czcibor]

Whenever I start discussing about this topic, I always get negative response and people say that I'm stupid for asking such a silly question.

However, if you think logically, your vote has absolutely no impact on the results. Even if you manage to convince your family, friends and a hundred more people to vote exactly like you, the results would still be the same.

It takes a minimum of hundreds of thousand of people perhaps a million to slightly alter the results of an election in a country that has a population of around 300 million.

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you cannot change the results of an election. It have already been predetermined by the mindset and opinions of millions of individuals across the country.

Does anyone think the same way I do? What are your opinions?

The answer that in such case usually give economists, is that in such way I build at relatively low expense (I need like half hour to go to vote and back home) reputation of a responsible citizen. It is valuable. :D

(I vote in a country of 38.5 mln people)

More seriously - I just consider that as a citizen duty. (As duty I mean making an informed decision) Like in similar cases, I hope that the rest would more or less do their job, so the system would work.

 

[russ_watters]

lol at all the rage.

But IMO the more interesting question is why people get so mad in this thread?

Seemingly on purpose false statements and personal attacks annoy me regardless of the subject matter.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm going to go against the tide here. I'm not entirely against votes - there has to be some consent based decision making system. But there are a couple reasons I don't vote.

Your reasons are totally different from the thesis of the thread and much more logical/reasonable. I often leave certain races blank on a ballot if I'm not well enough informed or don't care, similar to your logic. That is a responsible thing to do.

 

[dipole]

I know people like the OP in this thread. He wasn't posting this thread to actually inquire why people vote - he was posting this thread to insist everyone is wrong for voting, and that we're all sheep who are suckered in by the system, while he is enlightened and can see what's really going on.

They don't listen, and they're quite zealous about refusing to vote, as if they were fighting against some great social injustice. I really didn't read past the first few posts, but I bet what I describe fits the OP well.

 

[Dr Transport]

I vote because I went to war to protect our right to do so and I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite. Also, in the US, there are only two responsibilities stated in the Constitution for the citizens, to vote and to serve on a jury of your peers, and I know many people who shirk both of them.

 

[BobG]

Kinda relevant here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/opinion-roundup-mandatory-voting/

Apparently it is more or less mandatory that everyon vote in Australia. The impact of such a law appears to be that people who are less passionate and therefore less partisan who ordinarily wouldn't vote do vote. That results in candidates being less partisan because they have to appeal to a broader base instead of just motivating their hardcore voters to turn-out. Sounds like a good idea to me (not that it necessarily would be easy to implement).

Easier to implement? Nebraska State Legislature elections

Which party controls Nebraska's State Legislature?

Actually, it's no big secret which party supports which candidate, but a person would have to follow politics at least a little to know which was which. The truly uninformed voters are turned into random noise. Just leaving one letter off the ballots makes a big difference. And, you might notice, that even without that missing letter, some candidates are able to obtain quite large majorities (and I don't mean the single candidate elections).

Of course, within the legislature, the politics seem to be as partisan as ever. Even though all members of the State Legislature are officially non-affiliated, they do associate themselves with one party or the other for practical purposes - to the point that some in the legislature complained the legislature was becoming too partisan. They had a big debate about that, followed by a vote. Reportedly, the vote went entirely along party lines. (I'm not sure if this last is true or just myth, but I thought it was funny. If it is true, it probably happened in the last twelve years, as this study surely would have mentioned it.)

 

[OmCheeto]

Your reasons are totally different from the thesis of the thread and much more logical/reasonable. I often leave certain races blank on a ballot if I'm not well enough informed or don't care, similar to your logic. That is a responsible thing to do.

I like that idea, of leaving blanks. I always vote against something if I don't understand the full ramifications of a measure. My logic for voting against such things was that, if I couldn't understand it, as a brilliant scientist, how was a commoner going to understand it.

Also, here in Oregon, our Voters' Pamphlet, published by the Secretary of State, contains arguments for and against measures, and lists who it is doing the arguing. Do other states have such things?

I find it much handier than trying to decipher flyers. I received one a few weeks ago regarding a candidate who was accused of not using her blinker when changing lanes on the freeway. wooooo... I wish I'd saved that one, but it went in the wood stove with the rest of them.

 

[Danger]

I often leave certain races blank on a ballot if I'm not well enough informed or don't care, similar to your logic.

We have a hostile variation of that here, which I don't know if any other country does. If we truly hate all of the candidates or referendum choices, we "spoil" the ballot by marking more than one or writing in our own option. (Write-in ballots are actually counted; spoiled ones are thrown out.) That way we still vote without having to choose the lesser of multiple evils.

 

[RonL]

I find it much handier than trying to decipher flyers. I received one a few weeks ago regarding a candidate who was accused of not using her blinker when changing lanes on the freeway. wooooo... I wish I'd saved that one, but it went in the wood stove with the rest of them.

I'm sure this is a rant for another thread, but I feel I'm being very generous when I say there might be 1 out of 1,000 reasons why someone else not using their blinker would cause me to have an accident. The simple solution "pay attention to your own driving and stay alert to what conditions are around you"