PDA

View Full Version : Why young people aren't voting


tartare
12th Feb 2015, 23:37
Noted this recently:
Make the vote meaningful for young people ? not compulsory (http://theconversation.com/make-the-vote-meaningful-for-young-people-not-compulsory-25939)
My sense is that they recognise politicians inability to influence any change of significance.
Politicians in OECD countries seem to be held hostage to large investment banks and major corporations... and I speak from the right as an employee of a large corporation.
They're too frightened and lack the power to implement policy that might even slightly p1ss off the corporate or financial sector - the recent watering down of the Dodd-Frank act in the US being a prime example.
Left and right are broadly the same, and there's an ongoing obssession with management by media conference (certainly here in Australia).
In short - when it comes to enacting politicians are powerless.
No wonder people are disenchanted.

Caboclo
13th Feb 2015, 05:56
Nearly all politicians from all political parties in both the US and UK are hopelessly corrupt. The rule of law means nothing, only money and power matter, and even the video game generation can see it.

alisoncc
13th Feb 2015, 06:03
Suspect the older people wouldn't be voting here if it wasn't compulsory. A pox on all their houses, so I vote "informal", ie. for no one.

Caboclo
13th Feb 2015, 07:01
8IfmiKnZi3E

Blacksheep
13th Feb 2015, 07:09
I watched a documentary on iPlayer last night where young people in particular said they wouldn't be voting because there waas no-one who represented their opinion. They definitely recognised that the elected politicians have no power to represent them but are tied to party policy that is in turn, controlled by the Big Noises that fund the parties.

It seems to me that the democratic process might better be served by controlling the funding for political parties - i.e. a limit placed on how much influence any individual donor can buy.

joy ride
13th Feb 2015, 07:33
In UK the public can watch Prime Minister's Question Time on TV.

The opposition ask important questions, to which the PM replies by insulting the opposition in the strongest possible terms, rather than providing an answer.

It is a deeply depressing spectacle of adults behaving like spoilt brats, and does not instil faith that we have responsible government.

Then we learn a little about Lobbying and Donations to the parties and how this decides the policies, and gets donors promoted to high office however unsavoury they may be.

Little wonder there is widespread apathy.

When M.P.s were debating their pay rises a lot of people were angry about the big increase. Not me, I want to see each and every one of them paid, say. 1,000,000 per annum, in exchange for an end to lobbying, donations, and "revolving door" career opportunities.

Ken Borough
13th Feb 2015, 07:57
It is a deeply depressing spectacle of adults behaving like spoilt brats, and does not instil faith that we have responsible government.


To be so lucky! I've often watched PMQ from The Commons here in Oz. It is a most benign event when compared with what passes as Question Time in the Australian Parliament. Half the questions are known as 'Dorothy Dixers' from the Govt back-bench. These questions are pre-arranged and allow the Govt to spruik its policies without let or hindrance as the Speaker is the most partisan in the short history of our Parliament. The only genuine questions without notice are those from HM's loyal Opposition but many are ruled out of order by the Speaker.

We have compulsory voting in Oz which does result in a high voter turnout (the fine for not voting would be less than the cost of the fuel to get to the polliing place) but a disineterested electorate. I can't blame the young for not voting as they are repulsed by what they see and hear from the political classes.

Avtrician
13th Feb 2015, 08:05
Have occasionaly had to listen to Parliament on the wireless receiver, and have heard more meaningful conversations fro 2 year olds in kindy during nap time.

The pointless prevarication is enough to make a real person vomitus...

JWP1938
13th Feb 2015, 08:07
Well voting is NOT compulsory here and, for the first time, I will not be voting. I understand that, financially speaking let along other factors, running a country is a very difficult job but I am totaly disillusioned with all the main parties and the alternatives (UKIP etc.) are not even worth considering. If only there wasn't so much/many lying promises. I was 77 last week and told my wife that I was going to leave the young to it (God help them) and vote for whichever party helped us older folk. Guess what - there isn't one! With lying ****s like Cameron, incomprehensible ****s like Miliband and toothless ****s like Clegg and clownlike (but dangerouse) ****s like Farage we are totally stuffed. When the brown stuff hits the fan there will be no police to keep order and no health facilities to help those who fall victim to the inevitable chaos that will ensue. I am (still) an unpaid volunteer for the British Red Cross and teach and assess First Aid volunteers and still go out to events in big muddy boots treating patients. Now, those of us that are Enhanced (e.g. inserting airways, administering oxygen and Entonox), are being asked to work (unpaid again) in A&E to assist the overworked health professionals like nurses etc. I am going to do it because I love the work, but it is morally wrong. Health should be managed by paid professionals funded by government money out of our taxes and not propped up by unpaid but well-meaning volunteers. I have a great First Aid team in my town and I KNOW we will do a great job (and enjoy it) but where will it all end?

ExXB
13th Feb 2015, 08:13
All ballots should include the choice "none of the above". Rather than vote for the lessor of the evils you can express an honest opinion. In any riding where NOTA votes 'win'; the election to be declared null-and-void and a by-election held.

Ban lobbying, and make it a crime to give or to receive money or 'benefits in kind'. Strictly enforce this law.

All committee members to be anonymous. All votes in legislature to be by name, and published. Prior to any vote the representatives would be required to send messages to constituents advising how they intend to vote, and why.

Have realistic terms - Two years is much too short and six is much too long.

All representatives to be voted to represent the community, not a political party. Political parties to be given no standing in the legislature/government.

Require all elected representatives to report annually to their electorate, focusing on election campaign promises and explaining why they have not kept them.

Ban all electioneering except within 6 months of the election day.

Election day to be a Sunday. Employers to be required to ensure every employee working on election day has 4 hours clear to visit polling stations. Voting hours to be 0001 to 2359.

or have all voting by mail, or electronically - When it can be made secure.

All citizens, and all tax-payers, to be given the vote.

Frankly - all of the above are just band-aids (plasters). Let's return the decision making to the people. Get rid of those bums!

cattletruck
13th Feb 2015, 08:51
No wonder people are disenchanted.
Disenfranchised more like it.

The problem with politics is that it's the domain of the old and the wisened/learned. Young folk don't stand a chance. How does that saying go: Age and treachery beat youth and enthusiasm all the time.

We have an interesting development here in Victoria with a major project (known as the East-West Link) contractually locked in by the previous government at the expense of the tax payer. It's too expensive to build and too expensive to cancel.

My recommendation is to not pay a cent and delay it until the next election where it can be used against the people that drafted this contract. By then the penalties would be worth billions to the tax payer.

No wonder the young have no confidence in these people.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
13th Feb 2015, 09:35
In UK the public can watch Prime Minister's Question Time on TV.

The opposition ask important questions, to which the PM replies by insulting the opposition in the strongest possible terms, rather than providing an answer.

It's different on the radio. There, the opposition shriek ludicrous accusations of incompetence at the PM without themselves offering a viable alternative to us getting out of the mess they left, and the PM bats it back with a suitably withering comment (fish in a barrel stuff usually). The whole thing is very silly, though.

As for protesting by not voting, that seems a daft thing to do. You may not align with any of the major parties but if you absent yourself from the democratic process you forfeit the right to complain about what the subsequent government does - you had a chance to influence it and you didn't bother.

I don't suppose any of us has political beliefs which align with any of the main parties - I think Conservatives have got it right on economic recovery but are worryingly anti-Europe, for instance. Labour would just piss off big business and wreck the economy (again!). You might not like big business, but the only thing that generates wealth is business! With no wealth, nowt can be done!

That alone is a reason to use your vote sensibly!

Choxolate
13th Feb 2015, 10:34
I understand your frustration with the current system but your solutions have many consequences that maybe you haven't considered:-

1. All ballots should include the choice "none of the above". Rather than vote for the lessor of the evils you can express an honest opinion. In any riding where NOTA votes 'win'; the election to be declared null-and-void and a by-election held.

... why would you expect a different result if, in effect, the election is just re-run. Who represents the electorate if no one is returned after three of four attempts?

2. Ban lobbying, and make it a crime to give or to receive money or 'benefits in kind'. Strictly enforce this law.

... You do realise that you visitng the House of Commons and asking your MP to support a particular matter of local interest is Lobbying, that is how it started. Do you really want to stop this?

3. All committee members to be anonymous. All votes in legislature to be by name, and published. Prior to any vote the representatives would be required to send messages to constituents advising how they intend to vote, and why.

...really? How are these messages to be sent to potentially tens of thousands of people, possibly several times a day.

4. Have realistic terms - Two years is much too short and six is much too long.

... agreeed, but I thought that we already have that.

5. All representatives to be voted to represent the community, not a political party. Political parties to be given no standing in the legislature/government.

... Members of Parliament are already elected to represent their electorate, are you suggesting that candidates CANNOT belong to a Political party, otherwise how do you enforce this?

6. Require all elected representatives to report annually to their electorate, focusing on election campaign promises and explaining why they have not kept them.

... in principle a good idea, but a single MP does not have the power to ensure that all their election promises andhopes are met and if they are not a memeber of a party (your point above) then they will have ZERO chance of making their promises and hopes happen.

7. Ban all electioneering except within 6 months of the election day.
... I would make it 3 months.

8. Election day to be a Sunday. Employers to be required to ensure every employee working on election day has 4 hours clear to visit polling stations. Voting hours to be 0001 to 2359.
... good idea.

9. or have all voting by mail, or electronically - When it can be made secure.
... too easy to have voting fraud IMO.

10. All citizens, and all tax-payers, to be given the vote.
... I don't think my three year old grandson should have the vote or prisoners or those in the House of Lords (even if they pay tax) , I don't see anything inherently wrong with the current system that it needs such a massive change.

JWP1938
13th Feb 2015, 10:39
"That alone is a reason to use your vote sensibly!"

That's the problem. What is sensibly? Having seen (almost) all the major parties in power and voted as I thought fit at the time and STILL realised after that I MAY have made the wrong choice who do I vote for? If I thought one of the "loonies" may get in then of course I would vote for one of the majors but things are not that bad yet. I won't be losing my right to complain because I can complain about those who voted the current (whichever it is) in. Not voting does NOT take away your right to complain. It demonstrates your lack of confidence in the current parties and your lack of knowledge as to who to vote for to change things.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
13th Feb 2015, 10:43
It's more than a bit disingenuous to absent yourself from voting and then to complain about what the lot that get voted in, do. To argue that they'd have got voted in anyway even if you had voted is probably true especially if like me you live in a 'safe' seat, but is no defence! Just think what would happen if we all did it.

JWP1938
13th Feb 2015, 10:58
OK - so, if you were me, and had NO confidence in ANY party, which one would you vote for and why?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Feb 2015, 11:03
The Western world still has democracy, so any one can stand, but why don't independents do so?

There are still far too many voters who will vote for a main party out of habit, or because it suits their short-term personal situation.

There are still far too many who complain about mainstream politics, but won't actually get out of bed on election day and vote for an independent.

Even if the Independent gets to be an MP, their ability to change or even influence anything is practically zero in a system which, with current bloc party voting and committee membership systems, is effectively an elected dictatorship.

It is argued that current parliamentary procedures lead to stability, and they do, but if the ship is headed for the metaphorical iceberg, an inability to change direction means it will all be perfect until the sudden disaster.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
13th Feb 2015, 11:03
If no party inspires you to support them 'on balance' (highly unlikely any party will completely align with your views), then I'd recommend you vote for whichever is, by your lights, the least worst choice!

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Feb 2015, 11:35
Nearly all politicians from all political parties in both the US and UK are hopelessly corrupt.
Got evidence for that? - I know many politicians of several parties and none, not all of whom are nice people but very few of whom are "hopelessly corrupt".

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Feb 2015, 11:45
Gertrude, you know very well that suppression of evidence is the very first thing corrupt politicians take care of. The 'disappearing emails' trick is a current favourite.
For example: Lois Lerner in the States
Six computers apparently all crashed and were destroyed.
IRS claims six more computers conveniently crashed, wiping out scandal-related emails | Human Events (http://humanevents.com/2014/06/17/irs-claims-six-more-computers-conveniently-crashed-wiping-out-scandal-related-emails/)
..and of course, the IRS wasn't actually looking for said emails anyway.
IRS: Um, Yeah, We Never Actually Looked for Lois Lerner's Emails or Anything - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2014/11/06/irs-um-yeah-we-never-actually-looked-for-lois-lerner-s-emails-or-anything/)

The list is extremely long.
Dominic McGuinty's emails all disappeared, and he resigned as Ontario Premier allegedly to avoid having to discuss same. At issue was a half-billion loss over power plant closures.
The husband of his former assistant Chief of Staff was the computer guy responsible for wiping the emails. She now has a plum job, conveniently on the other side of the country.

..and of course there's no evidence if you don't look for it.
From my own Province, today
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pnp-probe-of-premier-s-ex-staffer-voted-down-1.2955862

Can anything be proved legally? No of course not.
But...how stupid do you or they think we are?

rgbrock1
13th Feb 2015, 12:05
Although I understand the sentiments being expressed within this thread, and how corrupt our politicians can be, I still prefer our forms of government over any of the alternatives. I'll take what we have and hope for the better. :ok:

JWP1938
13th Feb 2015, 12:18
Voting for the "least worst" party is almost as bad as not voting at all so I exercise my right to abstain and also exercise my right to complain about whichever party gets in. I can also say "Well I didn't vote them in" when I do so. :E Seriously, I take your point but I think it is unlikely that "we all will do that" and, if I thought that would happen, my actions would change.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Feb 2015, 13:40
RGB :ok: Exactly right.

..but I am concerned that our Governments seem to be taking the same attitude as the phone companies.

First they tried to be good,
then they tried to be adequate,
then they just tried to be slightly less [email protected] than the other phone companies, whilst shutting new companies out of the market.
Then they tried to hide the data so they could just claim to be slightly less [email protected]
Now they are just trying to make it too difficult to be worth the aggro of changing companies, whilst ripping you off with extra fees wherever possible.

I'm a bit concerned about what comes next.

ExXB
13th Feb 2015, 17:00
I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship. It's just finding the benevolent dictator that's the challenge.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Feb 2015, 17:01
I'm pretty benevolent. I've been asked to be Santa on more than one occasion ;)

rgbrock1
13th Feb 2015, 17:04
Fox3 wrote:

I'm pretty benevolent

Perhaps but not always. For example*, it is currently -17C here at 13:00. This is caused by an Arctic air mass which descended from you-know-where. This, by proxy, makes it YOUR FAULT Fox3. (And all the rest of you O' Canadians.) Therefore, and also by proxy, this makes you much less benevolent. :}:E:}:E

*you must have known that I would, at some point, start whining about the weather, now didn't cha?!!!!

racedo
13th Feb 2015, 17:59
Always vote for everything....................even a spoilt vote is a vote.

Remember a cop friend on duty at election count had a new senior plod come along and demand returning officer hand over ballots which had abusive messages on them...........think was about candidates parents or lack thereof.
Pushing his weight and claiming he is the law got nowhere as returning office reminded him that soon as he crossed the line then he was interfering in electoral process and he would declare it null and void due to police interference.
Old time Sargeant reminded his senior officer that he would have to arrest him if he touched the ballot papers........... afters from this involved Sarge getting put on disciplinary which quickly collapsed as senior officer got :mad: by Chief Constable for what he did.

Effluent Man
13th Feb 2015, 18:53
I have voted in every election since 1970,a month after I turned eighteen. I probably won't this time. The party that holds the seat isn't the one of my choice and I won't ever vote for the runner up again,even tactically.

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Feb 2015, 19:48
I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship. It's just finding the benevolent dictator that's the challenge.
My 20yo lad would agree with you on the first point but disagree on the second.

He sees no challenge at all in finding the benevolent dictator. He knows with absolute certainty that he's the man for the job.

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Feb 2015, 19:52
Pushing his weight and claiming he is the law got nowhere as returning office reminded him that soon as he crossed the line then he was interfering in electoral process and he would declare it null and void due to police interference.
Too right. At the count - and for the whole of election day really - the returning officer is the law. Apart from anything else it's the one day in the year they get to boss the councillors around ... so be careful who you choose to appoint as returning officer!

I've had police approach me at a count with "hey Tim, where can we get a cup of tea round here?". So I thought great, I can get my own back for that police station canteen coffee, and fetched them some from the Guildhall machine. Backfired - they actually liked it!

Pinky the pilot
14th Feb 2015, 00:11
He sees no challenge at all in finding the benevolent dictator. He knows with absolute certainty that he's the man for the job.

Has he told you what his official title would have to be Gertrude?

Don't suppose it would start along the lines of
"Field Marshall, President-for-life, Dr," etc etc now would it?:D:E

sitigeltfel
14th Feb 2015, 05:29
I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship. It's just finding the benevolent dictator that's the challenge.
I can do Thursdays :ok:

ExXB
14th Feb 2015, 06:00
Sci-fi story I read a few decades ago had the premis of a benevolant dictator. Super-dooper computers analysed the traits of every adult on the planet to find the individual who wanted the job the least.That was the only criteria.

New dictator had ultimate authority over laws, the police and the courts - no appeals possible.

Once chosen that person was appointed dictator for a non renewable term of 10 years, but if they did a really good they could get out after 5 ...

I'd certainly support this.

alisoncc
14th Feb 2015, 06:08
I have always understood that the full criteria for govt by a benevolent dictator was that it was modified by assassination. Thus anyone who acquires a dislike for the dictator has a inalienable right to assassinate him or her as and when it pleases. If successful they then have to take on the role themselves.

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Feb 2015, 12:27
I have always understood that the full criteria for govt by a benevolent dictator was that it was modified by assassination. Thus anyone who acquires a dislike for the dictator has a inalienable right to assassinate him or her as and when it pleases. If successful they then have to take on the role themselves.
Vetinari's approach - he arranges that the world will be just that much more dangerous and chaotic without him, so it's no in sane faction's interest to have him assassinated, because any replacement will have a rather harder job and will get assassinated rather more quickly.

airship
14th Feb 2015, 15:13
alisoncc wrote: I have always understood that the full criteria for govt by a benevolent dictator was that it was modified by assassination. Thus anyone who acquires a dislike for the dictator has a inalienable right to assassinate him or her as and when it pleases. If successful they then have to take on the role themselves.

All worldwide rights in that domain were, are and always will remain the exclusive property of the CIA and their properly licensed agents. ;) :uhoh:

MG23
14th Feb 2015, 19:41
The three main UK parties demonstrate why the young have nothing to gain from voting for them as they sign an economic suicide pact, promising to all adopt the same policies:

Parties in pact on climate change | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2953269/Parties-pact-climate-change.html)

I can only presume they want to throw the election to the UKIP.

Capot
15th Feb 2015, 11:46
There are lots of very high-minded and meaningful post on this thread, and I admire those who make them.

But the essential answer to the OP's question is that they are too idle/lazy/stupid to vote. This usually improves with age, which is why it doesn't matter.

If there were a minimum age of 50 to vote in UK General Elections, the UK would have a much better Government, especially if that were the minimum age for MPs as well. The same is probably true for any developed democracy.

wings folded
15th Feb 2015, 12:24
f there were a minimum age of 50 to vote in UK General Elections, the UK would have a much better Government, especially if that were the minimum age for MPs as well.

Maximum age of 51 for MPs would be not so bad :p

Windy Militant
15th Feb 2015, 12:30
Charge em for voting! They seem to be be quite happy to send money to dubious TV shows that do that. :}

Lonewolf_50
17th Feb 2015, 14:17
I watched a documentary on iPlayer last night where young people in particular said they wouldn't be voting because there waas no-one who represented their opinion.
Might be that their opinions are uninformed, or rubbish.
Might also be a bit of the old vicious cycle:
Young one's don't vote due to not feeling represented, and learning that, nobody goes out of their way to appeal to young vote (and spend precious campaign money on same) since they won't get their vote.

PS: B Obama and his team tried very hard to crack that nut in the 2008 election.