http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOGAAlHzF4o

Thanks for the link to an interesting paper. After reading the paper though – despite its opening statement that it will address the critics of compulsory voting and their argument that it is an unjustifiable imposition of personal autonomy, "that the cost to personal freedom is not justified by the gains to democracy" (which is indeed the point in question here) – it then proceeds to completely skirt the issue, preferring instead to use statistics to suggest that compulsory voting is necessary to maintain voter turnout.

Now, of course, in the real world compulsory voting is the only way to provide absolute voter turnout, but the end does not justify the means. The logic you suggest and indeed the paper delicately supports:



Is flawed. It stipulates that if an individual does not speak (surely saying nothing is one of the greatest freedoms an individual has? I.e. "You have the right to remain silent") they will be punished. That is an absolute disgusting breach of fundamental individual rights and freedom.

Being punished for not voting sets a dangerous precedent, as while today an individual could be punished for remaining silent at an election, tomorrow they could be punished for remaining silent for anything.

Man, do I sound like a Cornish fisherman now

I loved the long Euro ballot paper. I thought it was quite funny how people go on about the bureaucracy in Europe being rubbish, then the ballot paper for it is 4 or 5 times longer than the "local" (see what I did there ) one!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/loca ... s-map-2009

Well labour haven't won a single majority in any council

Wow. I'm shocked. Here we go again. At the next general, everyone will vote Conservative. They'll come in continue the same path we're currently on and in 10 or so years, we'll get fed up with them and vote Labour again - for a change.

Yawn.

It's a two (point five) party system. What do you expect?

The two-point-five party system is not helped by the media.

As you know, and apologies for banging on about it but I happen to think it's important, I've been following the progress of the Jury Team.

http://www.juryteam.org/about.php

The number of times I see a forum or blog post on the site there where they moan about the media "not getting it" is impressive. The party system in British politics is so ingrained that it's actually hard to convince people that you're truly an independent candidate if you run under an umbrella organisation.

If we all feel strongly that we need a proper change to the current ping-pong (or should that be wiffwaff?) system, then we must embrace the idea that independent candidates can make a real change for the better and actually vote for them. Help by spreading the word - there are alternatives and they don't have to be swivel-eyed eurosceptics or raving fascists.

I'm prepared to stand in my constituency as an independent with the help of the Jury Team - the hardest part is going to be to explain the manifesto I'm standing by contains my own ideas, and not those I'm instructed to use.

Politics without parties - I am convinced this is the only way we can save the political system, and this country.

*gets off soap box*

No time to investigate now, I'm off to work. But that does sound interesting.

The reason I voted MK is because their policies appear to be driven not by partisan thinking, but by championing the needs of my county. Politics without parties is good. But in my view, *maybe* "politics" is a little irrelevant altogether, if MPs aren't "left or "right" or whatever, just representative of their constituency?