I think it just reflects the fact that people don't agree with how Parliament is being run, hence we don't want any party with a majority.

What we don't deserve is to have all the little piggys stuffing their piggy little faces (/carr) with our money and not keeping the Banks in check.

To say we 'deserve' to be in this situation is ridiculous. We 'deserve' better.

I think it also indicates that we want the parties to work together to get us out of this mess and give us a system we're proud of.

And who would be paying. The public do not seem to be worried about a hung parliament. They do want things to be done.

Perhaps "we" do. However, Joe Schmo with his colour-based [LIFTED] doesn't. Years, of that guys a tosser and remember this guy etc. have brought us here. Joe Schmo brought us here with his partisan, fear-based bollocks.

But that's not the case though, is it? That'd require immense organisation. What's happened is we've been shown a desperate need for reform. What was it, Labour got something like 8 million votes and are awarded 251 seats, the Liberals get 6 million votes and are awarded 51? What's wrong with this picture?



I'd agree we deserve better, but only when we're involved enough with the system to deserve it.

I agree totally with that. The Tories in the talks with LibDem are already trying to say that the public are more interested in the economy and reform is a minor thing. No, not for me.


Quite right. I guess I talk from the perspective of someone who gives a crap about fairness and society. I happily pay more and more tax for example as I earn more, this society enables me to do that so I pay it back to make that society better.

I often forget that a good whack of the population don't vote, so I hear what you're saying. It should be made compulsory. That's not at odds with 'Democracy', with democracy comes responsibility.

I don't think making voting compulsory is a terribly good idea.
People don't vote for a variety of reasons - lazy, nobody matches their views sufficiently to get their vote, they are happy with the current system, or they don't think their vote will make a difference.

The problem is that, at present we have no idea which of the above reasons and in what proportions apply to those who haven't voted.

IMHO if you want to encourage more people to vote then it needs to be very clear what a not vote actually means, for instance if you don't vote then it's counted as being happy with the current system. If that's not the case then you would need to get off your backside and vote. For that to work though you also need people to see that their vote does count (i.e. some sort of PR) and also to give people a countable method to register their discontent (i.e. a none of the above option on the ballot).

Is any of that likely to happen? I wait with baited breath but I'm not overly optimistic.

Very true, I maybe being naive but I'd liked to think that if people saw their vote counting equally in some form of PR then they may be more likely to vote.

To allay the fears of BNP having seats under PR, which they may do to begin with, look at what actually happens when they get into power and people then see what they're like. The BNP lost all of its 12 council seats in Barking & Dagenham and the one in Redbridge. Yes we may see them breifly in Parliament but they would disappear sooner than by just ignoring them.

I think my wanting to enforce democracy, well, it's not well thought out. I'm just fecked off with MPs and those public who are annoyed by the system but don't really want to do anything about it.

People died for democracy, the least we can do is provide a fair system that encourages people to vote.

I don't think being made to vote is the right idea at all; it certainly wouldn't be done for the public's benefit if we're honest and realistic, and right now you couldn't engender more loathing towards politicians quicker than by doing that. It just doesn't feel right to me in a modern society (up there with ID cards and databases of the population), though I know other countries do it.

Not to mention Mugabe springs to mind

Locally, there's nobody I could trust/believe/support. Nationally, there's nobody I could trust/believe/support

It's worth remembering that people in the main seem to vote for parties over the personal touch, and that's what creates a lot of problems for me personally... I would love a NOTA option though, either way

Compulsory voting would be fine if there were option(s) to show a lack of interest, or dissatisfaction with the system.

I can support that. And if not enough people vote for them they get a salary cap as well.

I am in favour of compulsory voting though considering that many polling stations could not cope with an increase shows that they could not cope with mandatory voting.

Yes, that was something I forgot to put in my post

Compulsory voting shouldn't be enforced just because there's been a failure to engage millions with the 'democratic' process, that's just tarring everyone with the same brush, and many people have every right not to vote. Bare minimum, consider/try other options first - PR as an example, window of voting opportunity being rigidly enforced at the polls under the guidelines (new ones if necessary), the option of NOTA, politicians voting by conscience where necessary...

you were doing so well until you got there

I knew I should have tripled the ' '

Compulsory voting is an absolutely horrendous idea.

I can't believe so many people on this forum are coming out in favour of it.