• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Votes for 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Filibustering or, in UK vernacular, "talking out" has been an established part of the private members' bill procedures for some time. It's not very dignified, and doesn't look very good to observers, but there isn't anything unusual about this particular bill in this respect.

No, but to me it shows the filibusterer (?) as being unfit to be in the House as it is a total affront to democracy.

If you oppose a Bill the thing to do is to convince others by rational argument that it is a bad idea, then to vote against it.

A mandatory week in prison for it would soon concentrate minds.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
No, but to me it shows the filibusterer (?) as being unfit to be in the House as it is a total affront to democracy.

If you oppose a Bill the thing to do is to convince others by rational argument that it is a bad idea, then to vote against it.

A mandatory week in prison for it would soon concentrate minds.
Can't argue with that. Thing is it is sensible so will never happen.
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,464
No, but to me it shows the filibusterer (?) as being unfit to be in the House as it is a total affront to democracy.

If you oppose a Bill the thing to do is to convince others by rational argument that it is a bad idea, then to vote against it.

A mandatory week in prison for it would soon concentrate minds.

Crikey. You could just change the rules to allow the speaker to bring a speech to an end, but yeah, why not go all out and imprison them? ;)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Crikey. You could just change the rules to allow the speaker to bring a speech to an end, but yeah, why not go all out and imprison them? ;)

I don't think prison is likely, it was more to emphasize how disrespectful of democracy it is.

I think a mandatory vote (and the Speaker stopping the debate in time to allow for it) is the way to go.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
I think a mandatory vote (and the Speaker stopping the debate in time to allow for it) is the way to go.

Kind of going away from the topic a little bit, but what's your take on mandatory voting for the electorate? The voting age doesn't matter, so you don't need to worry about that in this scenario. It could be 16 or 18, whatever age you're personally in favour of.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Kind of going away from the topic a little bit, but what's your take on mandatory voting for the electorate? The voting age doesn't matter, so you don't need to worry about that in this scenario. It could be 16 or 18, whatever age you're personally in favour of.

I'm against. The problem with filibustering is that it prevents others from voting, which is unacceptable. If someone wishes to abstain I have no problem with that, but by doing so they in my eyes lose any right to complain about the effect of the result on them. Abstention by not voting can only be validly considered as indifference to the result.

While I'm sure it has practical issues, though, I could be very tempted by a RON option. (The US Presidential election certainly needed it!)
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Kind of going away from the topic a little bit, but what's your take on mandatory voting for the electorate? The voting age doesn't matter, so you don't need to worry about that in this scenario. It could be 16 or 18, whatever age you're personally in favour of.

I'm not the guy you quoted but I think it would only work if there were an explicit way to express one's dissatisfaction with the options presented or the voting system was changed to something more representative.

IMO people don't vote "because it won't make a difference" and/or "they're all the same". Both of these are valid reasons and forcing them to vote will just paper over the cracks and let Westminster believe that everything is OK.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
I'm against. The problem with filibustering is that it prevents others from voting, which is unacceptable. If someone wishes to abstain I have no problem with that, but by doing so they in my eyes lose any right to complain about the effect of the result on them. Abstention by not voting can only be validly considered as indifference to the result.

While I'm sure it has practical issues, though, I could be very tempted by a RON option. (The US Presidential election certainly needed it!)

Yes, that's a good point. Abstaining is quite different than being forbidden.

I'm not the guy you quoted but I think it would only work if there were an explicit way to express one's dissatisfaction with the options presented or the voting system was changed to something more representative.

IMO people don't vote "because it won't make a difference" and/or "they're all the same". Both of these are valid reasons and forcing them to vote will just paper over the cracks and let Westminster believe that everything is OK.

Doesn't matter if I didn't quote you, you're perfectly welcome to give your own opinion here :)
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
How would you enforce that?

I think Australia enforces it by use of checking whether the electoral register was filled in and that everybody attended. Of course I don't know how you would tell whether someone was sick or in a coma or had an accident etc, but I think someone might be able to expand on that, or even correct me if I am wrong.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Does compulsory voting deliver better outcomes for Australia than it does Britain? I suspect not.

I don't know personally, but if I had to guess I'd say no. It just makes the government think everyone is happy with them even though some just vote because they have to and have no real opinions.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
If you had to vote perhaps more people would think about who to vote for. As pointed out though Australia's leaders are far from universally popular. It could have the outcome of the Brexit vote interesting.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
If you had to vote perhaps more people would think about who to vote for. As pointed out though Australia's leaders are far from universally popular. It could have the outcome of the Brexit vote interesting.

The main thing that you'd have to have in the event of compulsory voting is a "none of the above" or a "re-open nominations" option, although it'd certainly make elections drag on a bit longer, unless of course you move to some sort of preferential voting system as well, to avoid situations where RON is the run-away winner, requiring another election.

I'm not convinced that forcing people to vote would make them think any more about who they would vote for, if anything it'd make elections more susceptible to tribal voting (My family has always voted Labour, etc)
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
The main thing that you'd have to have in the event of compulsory voting is a "none of the above" or a "re-open nominations" option, although it'd certainly make elections drag on a bit longer, unless of course you move to some sort of preferential voting system as well, to avoid situations where RON is the run-away winner, requiring another election.

I'm not convinced that forcing people to vote would make them think any more about who they would vote for, if anything it'd make elections more susceptible to tribal voting (My family has always voted Labour, etc)
Yeah, that is true. You would of course have to be allowed to abstain or spoil your ballot paper as you say.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Like most who've commented so far, I'm against compulsory voting too. I believe that those who died for democracy wished for people to have the right to vote, not the compulsory civic duty to vote. I think you should be allowed not to vote, and as such also to accept the consequences of not voting. I personally think it's better to spoil a ballot than abstain though , because you can at least express your disdain with the system in a certain way. Abstaining on the other hand could mean apathy and the fact you're indifferent to the result. Ever since I became eligible I have voted in all my general elections, local elections, the combined-authority mayoral election (relatively new thing that came about only this year I believe) and the EU referendum, all that even despite my dislike for the voting system and the politicians.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
Like most who've commented so far, I'm against compulsory voting too. I believe that those who died for democracy wished for people to have the right to vote, not the compulsory civic duty to vote. I think you should be allowed not to vote, and as such also to accept the consequences of not voting. I personally think it's better to spoil a ballot than abstain though , because you can at least express your disdain with the system in a certain way. Abstaining on the other hand could mean apathy and the fact you're indifferent to the result. Ever since I became eligible I have voted in all my general elections, local elections, the combined-authority mayoral election (relatively new thing that came about only this year I believe) and the EU referendum, all that even despite my dislike for the voting system and the politicians.
Fair play mate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I mean, spoiling your ballot paper is abstaining though and I agree to compulsory voting so that all of these abstentions can be noted.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Fair play mate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I mean, spoiling your ballot paper is abstaining though and I agree to compulsory voting so that all of these abstentions can be noted.

Agreed... to disagree. Wow, it seemed very ironic when I said that :p
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,169
Location
No longer here
Fair play mate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I mean, spoiling your ballot paper is abstaining though and I agree to compulsory voting so that all of these abstentions can be noted.

It isn’t quite abstaining. Abstaining is remaining at home and doing nothing in my opinion. A spoiled ballot is usually done with a purpose in mind.

I’d very much welcome a RON option.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
10,024
Location
here to eternity
I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

Thin end of the wedge then - who next gets their right to vote taken away?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,369
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
No, but to me it shows the filibusterer (?) as being unfit to be in the House as it is a total affront to democracy. If you oppose a Bill the thing to do is to convince others by rational argument that it is a bad idea, then to vote against it.

Looking over the ocean to "The Land of the Free", the use of the filibuster is not unknown in the United States Senate. One notable case being when Senator Strom Thurmond, in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes. That was the longest filibuster ever made by a single Senator.
 

Steveman

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2016
Messages
405
Slightly off topic but Belgium and France are both debating to bring down the age of consent to 13.
France has just refused to convict 2 men of raping 11 yr old girls as the prosecution failed to prove any of the four criteria required for rape under French law ie - threat, violence, constraint or surprise.
France surprisingly doesn't have any law which defines sex with someone below a fixed age as rape.
 
Last edited:

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,464
As I've said above, to my mind the age of consent isn't particularly relevant. It has been 16 for a long time. Teenagers have been having sex at that age and below that age for a long time. The more relevant issue to do with sex and pregnancy is actually that people are having babies much later. The UK's teenage pregnancy rate has plummeted, and it is now more common to have a baby at >40 than it is at <20.

The point is that 16-year-olds aren't living more adult lives than they have previously. They are living substantially more child-like lives than they have previously. In that context it seems strange to lower the voting age.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
The point is that 16-year-olds aren't living more adult lives than they have previously. They are living substantially more child-like lives than they have previously. In that context it seems strange to lower the voting age.

Bit of a bumpy road in that regard. Being able to pay tax and join the armed forces isn't really a child-like life if you ask me, but then some of the other things could be considered as such. Your earlier point is reasonable, and it's quite surprising how some people seem to think teen pregnancy as a huge problem. I mean I have known many young people to have children very early, but there's also some who have them later than usual. To me it seems the most common age range to have children is from 20 to 35 years old. I fall within this range, and I have no plans nor intention to ever have children in my life, and there are many who feel the same way.
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,464
Bit of a bumpy road in that regard. Being able to pay tax and join the armed forces isn't really a child-like life if you ask me, but then some of the other things could be considered as such.

Yes, but the point is that 16-year-olds have always been able to pay tax. Indeed, for most taxes there is no minimum age at all. Whereas it was previously fairly common for 16-year-olds actually to go out and earn money and pay tax, these days it is uncommon for a 16-year-old to be a significant income tax payer due to the requirement to stay in learning until 18 and the raised personal allowance. My point is that it is strange for us to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds just at a time when 16 is becoming 'younger' in society, not older.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Yes, but the point is that 16-year-olds have always been able to pay tax. Indeed, for most taxes there is no minimum age at all. Whereas it was previously fairly common for 16-year-olds actually to go out and earn money and pay tax, these days it is uncommon for a 16-year-old to be a significant income tax payer due to the requirement to stay in learning until 18 and the raised personal allowance. My point is that it is strange for us to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds just at a time when 16 is becoming 'younger' in society, not older.

You make a good point. Apologies for forgetting about the tax thing, I'm sure it was mentioned earlier on.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,549
Location
UK
I've had enough of filibustering. Time to make it an offence with a severe penalty. (Or simply to guarantee time for a vote on the end of all debates where one would be due). It is the very definition of antidemocratic.
Whilst I agree, I struggle to think of a way to define filibustering without risking the shutting down of legitimate debate.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Whilst I agree, I struggle to think of a way to define filibustering without risking the shutting down of legitimate debate.

The way I would do it is to allocate a period of time at the end of any time-limited debate to allow a vote to be guaranteed to take place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top