Britain - The Official Thread

[MatskiMonk]

Or it's saying you have have no faith in any of the parties at present. I respect peoples right to not vote as much as their right to vote. Personally, there's not a single main party whose policies I full support or trust at the moment.

Spoil your ballot. Not voting doesn't demonstrate disapproval of any of the parties any more than it does approval. I'd much rather we had a 'None of the above' vote as spoiled ballots don't send a clear enough message either - but voluntarily disenfranchisement doesn't represent a lack of faith in the parties, it represents apathy towards your rights.

Personally, I think the British voting system needs a major overhaul and the public should have a greater say on party policies. Or rather, scrap voting for parties themselves and vote purely for policies on the various matters and it's up to government to carry out the will of the public.

I'm not a fan of 'set-menu' politics either, and have often said the same thing - but in practice I don't think it's a good idea. You cannot make major specific policy decisions based on the gut feeling of the average person in the street who is likely equal parts uninformed as they stupid, and/or only motivated by self interest at a superficial level, and even without two party politics you'll still end up with socialists and free market capitalists advocating for opposing decisions and effectively campaigning accordingly. Major policy doesn't exist in a vacuum, principally it has to be paid for, but it also impacts many, many other things. Even with the best of intentions - giving people all the facts, costs, risk assessments, SWOT analyses etc so they can make an educated vote, you're just going to bore the crap out of people and get a low turn out.

Every MP has a chequered history, Boris, essentially being Boris, Starmers failure in relation to the Post Office scandal or whomever else, there's not a single capable and trustworthy one among them IMO.

This is too much like saying "they're all as bad as each other" for my liking, and in practice is no different to saying something like 'all Labour supporters are woke', or 'all Tory supporters are gammon fascists'.

 

[Famine]

Not voting doesn't demonstrate disapproval of any of the parties any more than it does approval.

Exactly: not voting is an entirely ambiguous signal. It could be you didn't want any of them. It could be you didn't mind which one. It could be you don't care. It could be that you didn't get the chance to vote because you were unable to for some reason.

Showing up and voting (using the right of universal suffrage that was hard-fought - especially for women) is your one and only way to participate in our society as a whole. Even if your vote is nearly meaningless because a plurality of spods in your area always vote for [tie colour] because [arcane reasons], it's a signal of what you want - and spoiling it is an almost unambiguous signal that you feel strongly enough to vote and strongly enough to not pick from the options given to you. Spoiled ballots are counted, recorded, and announced (as "rejected"*), even if Wikipedia doesn't include them in the turnout.

This is too much like saying "they're all as bad as each other" for my liking, and in practice is no different to saying something like 'all Labour supporters are woke', or 'all Tory supporters are gammon fascists'.

Or that MPs in blue ties are "Tory scum"...


*Any papers considered unclear are classed as "bad and doubtful" and subject to more scrutiny - which will end up in some being counted as votes for candidates; the bad news is that if you hate one candidate and draw a CDC over their line and their line only, it may count as a vote for them...

 

[TheCracker]

*Any papers considered unclear are classed as "bad and doubtful" and subject to more scrutiny - which will end up in some being counted as votes for candidates; the bad news is that if you hate one candidate and draw a CDC over their line and their line only, it may count as a vote for them...

Such is the way when some people, despite the clear instructions at ballot boxes, to 'vote for the candidate you want to vote for by placing an 'X' in the box next to their name'.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Such is the way when some people, despite the clear instructions at ballot boxes

I have to confess, as simple as it is, I read that instruction with the same determined focus I do when trying to opt in to HSBC's option of removing myself from marketing communications, by ticking each of the following that I don't want to apply, postal, e-mail or SMS.

 

[Dave A]

Spoil your ballot. Not voting doesn't demonstrate disapproval of any of the parties any more than it does approval. I'd much rather we had a 'None of the above' vote as spoiled ballots don't send a clear enough message either - but voluntarily disenfranchisement doesn't represent a lack of faith in the parties, it represents apathy towards your rights.

A spoiled balot ultimately counts just the same as no vote, it may be counted but it doesn't do anything. Though I agree completely with a none of the above vote, I would be hugely in support of such of an option. But the lack of voting public sends a message itself if enough people don't vote. FTAOD I did, but I still respect the right of those who didn't.

I'm not a fan of 'set-menu' politics either, and have often said the same thing - but in practice I don't think it's a good idea. You cannot make major specific policy decisions based on the gut feeling of the average person in the street who is likely equal parts uninformed as they stupid, and/or only motivated by self interest at a superficial level, and even without two party politics you'll still end up with socialists and free market capitalists advocating for opposing decisions and effectively campaigning accordingly. Major policy doesn't exist in a vacuum, principally it has to be paid for, but it also impacts many, many other things. Even with the best of intentions - giving people all the facts, costs, risk assessments, SWOT analyses etc so they can make an educated vote, you're just going to bore the crap out of people and get a low turn out.

By extension the same public cannot be reaponsible for voting in the main party. Let's be honest, most voters couldn't tell you what they're actually voting for. I do agree with your sentiment, most people wouldn't in a prime position to make an educated vote, but are they now?

This is too much like saying "they're all as bad as each other" for my liking, and in practice is no different to saying something like 'all Labour supporters are woke', or 'all Tory supporters are gammon fascists'.

It might be if it were a go to sentiment, but the fact I don't think there were any good choices in this election isn't the same as they're as bad as each other. Some are worse than others, meaning some mustn't be as bad the others. The the lack of a stand out choice that isn't "anyone but the people who we have in power at the moment" really reflects this sentiment as a wider issue IMO. The choices aren't always this bad, I just didn't personally like any of them, be it Remain, Tories Labour, Lib Dems. All of them have policies and leaders I dislike. It's a case of who I dislike the least.

 

[Famine]

A spoiled balot ultimately counts just the same as no vote

It fundamentally doesn't, as spoiled ballots are counted and no-votes are not.

 

[Dave A]

It fundamentally doesn't, as spoiled ballots are counted and no-votes are not.

Counted or not, they ultimately have no more impact than a no vote. They have zero impact on the outcome of the election, the same as a no vote does.

 

[Famine]

Counted or not, they ultimately have no more impact than a no vote.

Why not?

They have zero impact on the outcome of the election, the same as a no vote does.

In many constituencies, any vote cast for someone other than the party that's been there for the entire lifespan of the consitutency has no impact on the outcome. Should a voter who supports any other candidate not bother?

In every constituency, a vote cast for someone other than the winner has no impact on the outcome. Should those voters not have bothered?

 

[TheCracker]

Counted or not, they ultimately have no more impact than a no vote. They have zero impact on the outcome of the election, the same as a no vote does.

They may count statistically the same, but if there was a sudden wave of increased spoilt ballots reported, then that would be a pointer to the parties that they're just not on the same page as their constituents needs.

At the end of the day, your vote is for your local MP and what they can do to change things where you live, as much as it is for voting in the PM.

 

[Dave A]

Why not?

In many constituencies, any vote cast for someone other than the party that's been there for the entire lifespan of the consitutency has no impact on the outcome. Should a voter who supports any other candidate not bother?

In every constituency, a vote cast for someone other than the winner has no impact on the outcome. Should those voters not have bothered?

Not comparable, if more people spoil their ballots than vote for any one candidate, the candidate with the most votes still gets in. A vote for a candidate increases that candidates chances of winning, a spoiled ballot does nothing, except get counted. Is that not the definition of arbitrary?

@TheCracker I think a marked increase in non-voters suggests the same thing.

 

[Famine]

Not comparable

Why not?

if more people spoil their ballots than vote for any one candidate, the candidate with the most votes still gets in

If more people vote for other candidates than vote for any one candidate, the candidate with the most votes still gets in. That's literally how FPTP works; our MP just got in with 59% of valid votes cast against her (and about 45% of votes not cast at all).

A vote for a candidate increases that candidates chances of winning

Not in any constituency which has voted one way for a lifetime with a huge majority due to [arcane reasons]. Your argument here is that if you don't vote for the person who'll win you may as well not bother.

a spoiled ballot does nothing, except get counted.

Which is by definition more than a no-vote does.

A no-vote is entirely ambiguous. A vote for no-one is not (although it may be slightly ambiguous in intent, but a vote is a vote and doesn't reflect intent).


I would love to see the conversation when spoiled ballots exceeds any other candidate's vote in any one constituency, but so long as we have people believing a valid vote cast for nobody equals not voting at all we're not going to get it

 

[TheCracker]

@TheCracker I think a marked increase in non-voters suggests the same thing.

It means a marked increase in appathy, but that could either mean 'i'm happy with the current regime and see no reason for it to change' or it could mean 'burn the whole system down'. All it really results in, for better or worse, is a percentage increase in support for 3rd or 4th parties.

 

[Dave A]

Why not?

Because one increases the chances of an outcome the other does nothing.

If more people vote for other candidates than vote for any one candidate, the candidate with the most votes still gets in. That's literally how FPTP works; our MP just got in with 59% of valid votes cast against her (and about 45% of votes not cast at all).

Which is exactly my point and what I posted.

Not in any constituency which has voted one way for a lifetime with a huge majority due to [arcane reasons]. Your argument here is that if you don't vote for the person who'll win you may as well not bother.

You still impact the odds, even if not the final outcome. And plenty of constituencies have swung, sometimes unexpectedly.

Which is by definition more than a no-vote does.

But it's arbitrary.

A no-vote is entirely ambiguous. A vote for no-one is not (although it may be slightly ambiguous in intent, but a vote is a vote and doesn't reflect intent).


I would love to see the conversation when spoiled ballots exceeds any other candidate's vote in any one constituency, but so long as we have people believing a valid vote cast for nobody equals not voting at all we're not going to get it

As would I, but at the same time, the low turnout has been a talking point. Perhaps it should be more of one, perhaps if the non-voters spoiled their ballots it might be more of one, but thats conjecture and it still wouldn't change the vote.

@TheCracker I can agree with that.

 

[MatskiMonk]

By extension the same public cannot be reaponsible for voting in the main party. Let's be honest, most voters couldn't tell you what they're actually voting for. I do agree with your sentiment, most people wouldn't in a prime position to make an educated vote, but are they now?

Well, it's certainly a concern, but I think it's easier for people to go for a broad ideology, than it is policy specifics. That said, I don't think most voters even understand the economic ideals of the left or the right, tackling that first would probably help a lot - but if you can't trust people with the basics you certainly shouldn't give them more power over policy.

Counted or not, they ultimately have no more impact than a no vote. They have zero impact on the outcome of the election, the same as a no vote does.

As a mechanism for affecting the formation of government, you're right. But being one of only two legal options a person has to influence the actions of a nation (the other being protest), it's an important differentiator of "Yes, I accept it one way or the other", and "No, I don't accept this".

 

[Famine]

Because one increases the chances of an outcome the other does nothing.

No - by your determination, neither does anything:

Counted or not, they ultimately have no more impact than a no vote. They have zero impact on the outcome of the election, the same as a no vote does.

Which is the same as any vote in an entirely safe seat for anyone other than the incumbent party and, ultimately, any vote in any election cast for a candidate other than the winner. There is zero impact on the outcome if someone wins by a coin-toss from a tied vote or by a 100:0 landslide - all votes for anyone but them have no consequence or meaning.

Your argument here is that unless you vote for the winner, you shouldn't bother.

Which is exactly my point and what I posted.

It's... the opposite of your point.

You're asserting that casting a vote for nobody is the same thing as not voting, because it doesn't affect the outcome. Neither does voting for anybody except the winner, but you wouldn't assert that a vote for someone who didn't win is the same as not voting... would you?

But it's arbitrary.

Why is it "arbitrary"? "Arbitrary" would be voting by throwing a dart blindfolded.

Perhaps it should be more of one, perhaps if the non-voters spoiled their ballots it might be more of one, but thats conjecture and it still wouldn't change the vote.

Which means it's not worth doing?

Again, a no-vote is wholly ambiguous. Actually showing up to vote and voting for none of the candidates removes a whole bunch of the ambiguity. They are not the same thing - one is counted and reported, the other is not - and are not equivalents.

 

[MatskiMonk]

the low turnout has been a talking point

Look at the post Brexit dialogue, the 13 million people that didn't vote - do you think they wanted to leave or remain?

 

[Blitz24]

Look at the post Brexit dialogue, the 13 million people that didn't vote - do you think they wanted to leave or remain?

Based on general voter opinion, they didn't care or they didn't care enough to exercise the right they had.

 

[Dave A]

No - by your determination, neither does anything:

No, my definition is anything that influences the odds counts. A spoiled ballot counts the same as no vote in influencing the odds. Voting for someone who doesn't get in still influences the odds.

Which is the same as any vote in an entirely safe seat for anyone other than the incumbent party and, ultimately, any vote in any election cast for a candidate other than the winner. There is zero impact on the outcome if someone wins by a coin-toss from a tied vote or by a 100:0 landslide - all votes for anyone but them have no consequence or meaning.

Your argument here is that unless you vote for the winner, you shouldn't bother.

is the same thing as not voting, because it doesn't affect the outcome. Neither does voting for anybody except the winner, but you wouldn't assert that a vote for someone who didn't win is the same as not voting... would you?

No, my argument is that spoiling a ballot has the same impact as a no vote. Voting for anyone increases that candidates odds whether they get in or not. Spoiling a ballot does nothing more than a no vote besides getting counted.

Why is it "arbitrary"? "Arbitrary" would be voting by throwing a dart blindfolded.

Which means it's not worth doing?

No, counting spoiled votes is arbitrary because they can't come first. They literally have no more impact than a no vote, counted or otherwise.

Again, a no-vote is wholly ambiguous. Actually showing up to vote and voting for none of the candidates removes a whole bunch of the ambiguity. They are not the same thing - one is counted and reported, the other is not - and are not equivalents

I agree with this, a spoiled ballot is less ambiguous than a no vote, but that doesn't really do anything. If the only discernible difference is one is counted and the other is not, though in a manner it is as they know how many people didn't vote, then the differnece is arbitrary.

I will concede your point and @TheCracker's about it being less ambiguous, but the overall impact is the same.

 

[Famine]

No, my argument is that spoiling a ballot has the same impact as a no vote.

Which you know is wrong, and you concede in the very same paragraph:

Spoiling a ballot does nothing more than a no vote besides getting counted.

No, counting spoiled votes is arbitrary because they can't come first.

That's not what "arbitrary" means, and that's a shocking statement to make. They're counted because they are votes.

What other votes would you exclude from counting because they can't come first? Joke candidates like OMRLP or Count Binface? Marginal parties like SDP, or some of the more colourful racists? Shall we just completely ignore any vote cast in any constituency where the outcome is a foregone conclusion thanks to centuries of the plurality of voting one way?

No. We count all votes, no matter who or what they are for - because voting isn't just about who wins.

If the only discernible difference is one is counted and the other is not, though in a manner it is as they know how many people didn't vote, then the differnece is arbitrary.

Again, you're just sweeping all valid votes not cast for a winner away because you've decided that's all that matters.

I will concede your point and @TheCracker's about it being less ambiguous, but the overall impact is the same.

Why?

Here's a fun one for you: what happens when non-votes are included in the total and outstrip the vote for any one candidate? We know, because they are - that's what "turnout" is - and do, and the answer is nothing, forever.

Now what would happen if spoiled votes are included in the total (as they do, but are frequently ignored by media) and outstrip the vote for any one candidate? We don't know, because it's never happened... but do you think it would be nothing, forever?

If you have any hesistation in answering "yes", then no-votes and spoiled votes are not equivalent at all.

 

[Dave A]

Which you know is wrong, and you concede in the very same paragraph:

No, because I'm saying they do not impact the odds of any one candidate. Yes, I am using arbitrary incorrectly, the word I was looking for was inconsequential. Though I concede there is some consequence as minor as that may be. My entire point, which hasn't been adressed is that a vote for any candidate changes the odds, a no vote and a spoiled ballot have an equal impact on the odds. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to adress without misrepresenting the point I am making. I am in no way saying people shouldn't vote, just that I respect a persons right not to vote, and no vote and a spoiled ballot have the same, equal, impact the odds.

What other votes would you exclude from counting because they can't come first? Joke candidates like OMRLP or Count Binface? Marginal parties like SDP, or some of the more colourful racists? Shall we just completely ignore any vote cast in any constituency where the outcome is a foregone conclusion thanks to centuries of the plurality of voting one way?

None of the above, because just a single vote changes a candidates odds. The difference is if Count Binface gets the most votes, he's in, spoiled ballot does not get in.

No. We count all votes, no matter who or what they are for - because voting isn't just about who wins.

Again, you're just sweeping all valid votes not cast for a winner away because you've decided that's all that matters.

Yet I have at no point suggested this. I have simply stated that the impact of a spoiled ballot, is for all intents and purposes, equal to a no vote. Granted, it's less ambiguous, and it gets counted, but it does not impact the odds of any candidates any more than a no vote does. That is my point. A sinlge vote for any candidate impacts the odds, therefore, as I have stated several times, they are not comparable.

Why?

Because it does not impact any candidates odds.

Here's a fun one for you: what happens when non-votes are included in the total and outstrip the vote for any one candidate? We know, because they are - that's what "turnout" is - and do, and the answer is nothing, forever.

You are assuming it's nothing forever, but the answer, as things are, is nothing. We already report on the percentage of the population that voted and didn't, so we know the numbers that didn't vote.

Now what would happen if spoiled votes are included in the total (as they do, but are frequently ignored by media) and outstrip the vote for any one candidate? We don't know, because it's never happened... but do you think it would be nothing, forever?

As things are, nothing would happen. The candidate with the most votes still gets in. Their odds remain unaffected by being out voted by spoiled ballots.

Sure, things could theoretically change in the future, but things could change if at the next election 80% of the population didn't vote. It's ifs, buts and maybes.

There is a slight advatange to a spoiled ballot in that it is less ambiguous, a valid point as I've conceded already. But that still doesn't impact the odds any differently, which, as I've stated is my point.

The other side of not voting, is anyone who wishes to remain politically neutral, whether as a political stance or a religous one. Though, I do imagine they make up only a small percentage of the overall non voters.

If people want to spoil a ballot, fair play to them. But equally, if someone doesn't want to vote, whatever the reason, so be it. Both are having the same impact on the odds.

 

[Barra333]

Sure, things could theoretically change in the future, but things could change if at the next election 80% of the population didn't vote. It's ifs, buts and maybes.

The voter turnout at the last Ontario provincial election was 43.5%. The Conservatives won a huge majority by receiving 40.8% of the votes cast (about 1.9m out of 10.7m eligible voters). There were stories about voter apathy for a news cycle, but that is about it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Based on general voter opinion, they didn't care or they didn't care enough to exercise the right they had.

Which immediately demonstrates part of the problem. In the absence of proof you've drawn a conclusion which is not verifiable in the same way a Yes or No vote would be. You can't draw a direct conclusion from a spoilt ballot either, but what is verifiable is that the voter did not want the other options - which is absolutely not the same as not caring.

 

[Famine]

No, because I'm saying they do not impact the odds of any one candidate. Yes, I am using arbitrary incorrectly, the word I was looking for was inconsequential. Though I concede there is some consequence as minor as that may be. My entire point, which hasn't been adressed is that a vote for any candidate changes the odds, a no vote and a spoiled ballot have an equal impact on the odds.

I have no real idea what "odds" means in this context, because it's not a measure of probability. It's not the Monty Hall Problem, it's an election.

Votes are simply votes and all votes cast - whether for a candidate or not - change the outcome. As do all votes not cast, for that matter. That's because each is part of the pool of possible votes, and how they are cast (or not) contributes both for and against all the possible candidates aside from those they may be cast for. Saying "no vote and a spoiled ballot have an equal impact" completely misses the point that all votes not cast for the winner have the same impact too: none at all.

In many constituencies (around 25% of them), this impact can be measured beforehand as the population will never vote for anyone other than the one they've always voted for. Again, you're saying spoiled ballots have no impact, are inconsequential, and therefore shouldn't be counted but are by convention; votes in these places have no impact and are inconsequential too and, by that rationale, should not be counted.

This isn't misrepresentation of your argument, it's the logical extension of the position that voting [x] is meaningless as it doesn't contribute to the result so shouldn't counted. I assume you don't think the latter, so you shouldn't think the former.


Again, counting votes is not just about who wins... All votes should be counted.

I have simply stated that the impact of a spoiled ballot, is for all intents and purposes, equal to a no vote. Granted, it's less ambiguous, and it gets counted, but it does not impact the odds of any candidates any more than a no vote does.

Nor any other vote for anyone but the winner.

You've noted that spoiled ballots and no-votes are not the same thing by virtue of the fact they are counted. I'm not sure what else you need to acknowledge that they are not equivalent acts with equivalent outcomes.

You are assuming it's nothing forever, but the answer, as things are, is nothing. We already report on the percentage of the population that voted and didn't, so we know the numbers that didn't vote.

Yet we have 317 years of evidence. The consequence of no-votes is, and always has been, nothing. No-votes outstripping winning candidates is entirely normal; the returning officer doesn't even state the number (unlike spoiled ballots, which are stated).

The AV lobby tried to use that as the basis for a referendum on alternative voting methods in 2011 (after just 304 years) which only came about because of the hung parliament and Coalition. You may recall it was a 68:32 supermajority for retaining FPTP, but - oh, sweet irony - 58% of people didn't vote in that referendum.

What happens when non-votes are included in the total and outstrip the vote for any one candidate? We know, because they are - that's what "turnout" is - and routinely do (just looking into it, about half of the results in 2024 were no-vote wins, and most of the other half saw no-votes second), and the answer is still, so far, nothing, forever.

As things are

That would be a hesitation on answering "yes". You've qualified your answer, which suggests that you know that the answer is "no" and if it were to happen there could well be some consequences to it that three centuries of the thing you say is equivalent hasn't yet managed to conjure up.

It doesn't need to be qualified. We know it won't be short-term, because the RO has to declare the candidate with the most votes as the winner (and "rejected" is not a candidate) by law.

But no candidate who gets elected in a seat where more people showed up to very positively say "no" - to not just them, but to anyone - is going to have an easy ride in the press, and in the middle-term it will at least spark the conversation that 320 years of no-votes has never sparked.


Surely, knowing that spoiled ballots are actual decisions made by voters, are treated differently from no-votes, and in qualifying your answer about whether a plurality/majority spoiled ballot win would result in the same outcome as the routine plurality/majority no-vote win we have now or not, you must recognise that they are not equivalent to one another?

Sure, things could theoretically change in the future, but things could change if at the next election 80% of the population didn't vote. It's ifs, buts and maybes.

As we've seen constituencies in which 70% didn't vote in the past, I doubt it would hold any meaning. Although the modern record (with universal suffrage) is 66%.

In our constituency, 80% (including no-votes) didn't vote for the winner. 70% of the votes cast were for candidates other than the winner. This is all totally normal and results in nothing.


Yes, "not voting" is as legitimate as any other vote, whether a vote for another candidate or a spoiled ballot. No, "not voting" is not equivalent to any other vote, including a spoiled ballot.

 

[DK]

I hear there's a nice spot in Aberdeenshire that could do with some more windmills.
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1810303290191614021

 

[Fezzik]

Meanwhile one of the favourites for the Tory leadership is ranting & raving about rainbow flags.

 

[TheCracker]

Meanwhile one of the favourites for the Tory leadership is ranting & raving about rainbow flags.

Of course the Tories think the key to an increase in popularity is to shift further right, not revert back to more central traditional tory values.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[HenrySwanson]

 

[TheCracker]

FFS 🤦‍♂️

 

[Keef]

Desperate hour? Trump played a round of golf yesterday lmfao. Hell he slept in his own bed the night of the shooting.