Leaderboard

Given I have lived in mandatory and optional voting jurisdictions, chances are yes 😉 In the UK, I vote regularly.. But not always. I have voted predominantly for the side of the divide that aligns with my values, but have swung.. less chance these days because of the way the parties have moved. I don't need to divulge much more than that unless you really want to know (if you haven't worked it out). Remember, as a youngster I was a member of one of the major parties in Australia; Was the president of my branch, a national conference delegate, and on the public office selection committee for the electorate of my branch. I consider myself pretty well politically engaged. The assumption you are making is deciding not to vote is inaction, and not a purposeful action. I agree, a lot of people who don't vote are likely to be disengaged, but a lot also are engaged - have looked at the options and decided none are for them. It does not make it inaction. It is an action to say what on offer is not what they want. I can't see what is wrong with that. I don't accept that it is better to vote for the one that won't serve your interests, but somehow is deserving your endorsement to be elected. If you feel neither of them would be good public servants. Uf you saw a bunch of plumbers to do some long term work and none of them were competent, would you retain them? I agree.. Deciding not to vote, however, isn't necessarily accompanied by whinging. Nor does it mean that someone doesn't try other ways to achieve outcomes. Or maybe they are just apathetic and don't care and don't whinge. Excpt for the whinge that neither is good.. Then yes, let your parties know they are putting up to you who are unelectable. I don't know the answer to your question. But the question I feel wrong. If only 10% of people voted, has the public given them a mandate to carry out their manifesto/policies? I would argue no (or at least, with such a low turnout, not without a huge risk to their next election chances). If I were just elected with such a low turnout (assuming an average of around 65% turnout in the UK), I would be very careful what I did in government, lest my time would be vry short. Also, parliamentary governments means that their leadership would be very weak and susceptible to takeover, so they would have to tread very carefullly. I am not sure where this comes from. There seems to be an assumption that where someone fails to vote because no one is going to doeverything that the viter wants. I can't speak for other people, bujt that has not factored into my decision not to vote. And while you can assume a certain percentage may have that approach, I would suggest that most who don't vote and aren't apathetic would not expect perfection and if there was a candidate that was likely to change things for the better for them, they wouild vote. We have seen this in the UK before with Tony Blair in 1997 that had the largest voter turnout in years, and with the previous election where people felt neither were really appropriate, where the voter turnout was the lowest since the early 1900s in the low 50%. I think this is evidence it is a ppositive action. Fair enough. I consider that every vote counts, so I take my vote and my decision not to vote equally seriously. The times I have decided not to vote have been considered choices bases on the candidates and parties' offerings at the time. If there are people se disengaged that they don't want to vote, then I don't want them to as they donot consider what they are voting for (some will decide to take interest) and will jujst follow whatever it is or do the donkey vote - as useless as not voting in that situation. And in fact can send the wrong message to someone who gets elected that they have a mandate when they don't. I consier this much more dangerous to democracy than a population of people deciding not to vote no matter their motivations. To use your 10% turnout scenario, there is clearly no mandate with such a turnout in free and fair elections. But if voting is complusory, and 90% didn't want to vote, there are two options: 1 - they spol the vote. Clearly again, no mandate so why bother turning up. Second option is a donkeyed vote. Well, the message could be interpreted as there being a mandate, as they took the time to endorse the first person on the list. That is much more dangerous to democracy to me than not turning up to vote.

Also I was a casual polling clerk at a polling booth.. All votes are then sent to the electoral office where they are recounted. so with ballots with other markings than the actual voting, they may take a different view on their eligibility. I hasten to add, I wasn't a member of a political party at the time.

If you can clearrly discern the voter intention (i.e. the numbers are clear and legible) and it would othrwise be valid (minimum numbers next to names, etc), it is a valid vote. Nothing wriong with writing on the top, or bottom or back of the ballot anything.. At least that's how it was when I was a polling clerk. Sometimes a scrutineer would argue with us about whether it was spoiled or not, in which cae the returning officer would review and sometimes separate them out for the central vote counting team to deal with. That was in Vic but was the same for the federal elections as well.