Off Topic UK / EU Future

The UK and French turnout figures were comparable, both were for parliamentary elections. It clearly showed the apathy in France towards Macron's new party.

 

Interesting read from the Independent. It shows the recent French parliamentary elections were the worst turnout in modern history.
In the international turnout chart it shows the UK favourably, dispelling any viable claim to perceived UK political apathy

French election turnout worst in modern history as Emmanuel Macron ...

 

Or people do not like politics. Or people are not interested in voting. Or one of a hundred reasons. As you say life is a lot of things and voting has no special claim to be participated in by everybody (changed to make it more clear what I was trying to say).
UK politics may not work in your opinion - but it does for many others. I am not sure in what sense it does not work in your book. Do you have statistics to show what percentage of people vote in each country? Without those it is hard to justify a statement that politics do not work because people do not vote.
Ask Australians how "compulsory" voting goes down. Millions do not vote and simply pay the fine. Voting tends to go with interest in politics and just as we do not all like football not everybody is interested in politics. It is called choice - which is free in our democracy.

 

on your analysis then does that mean that nearly 60% of French - under PR - are alienated? It is nonsense to ascribe "alienation" to a voting pattern without evidence of why people vote or not. It means we have such a good system that 30% of people clearly feel comfortable in letting others cast their votes and trust the result will be to their liking - else they could have voted.

 

You are floggind a dead horse here SH. You cannot compare countries on this because different countries have different systems. Some countries vote more often than the British, on more different levels. I take part in 4 different types of election - local (ie. for the town council), at the State level (ie. for the NRW. state government in Düsseldorf), for the Bundestag in Berlin and in the Euro elections. The Swiss vote on practically everything. It stands to reason that the more a person is required to vote then turnout will fall - voter fatigue sets in. Ask people to vote twice in one year and turnout will drop for the second of those - this is inevitable. Apparently Belgium has the highest turnout why........because it's compulsory. You can interpret statistics any way you want - and you normally do.

 

I think the drunks and lamposts bit fits the first claim that 30% not voting itself tells you the reason. Why do you not also criticise other's use of statistics if you are bothered by them?

 

Again - who flogged the dead horse first? The claim was brought that voting percentages in some way reflect the quality of democracy. Stuff and nonsense. NO more relevant than your party membership statistics. SH did not start this one.

 

In a democracy there is choice to vote or not. Voting trends come and go for a variety of rerasons. Voting is highest when people feel the issues are most concerning - hence high turnouts in the Scottish and EU referenda.
There is a good argument that in a well run democracy people are content to let things run. OFH has in the past told us about how he tried to interest people in participating in council works. When people are happy they do things they want to do - if voting is not one of them it is not justifiable to assume there is any fault in the democracy.

 

It is quite easy and proper to compare the recent French parliamentary election turnout to previous similar elections. Simply it was the worst in modern history. Apathy in France.

The article also showed the UK's election turnouts were above average by international standards.. Simple stats.

 

Tell that to Emily Pankhurst ! 'Voting has no special privilige'. Rather than asking the Australians wouldn't it be better to ask the Belgians (they are closer) - of course you might have to do it in Flemish or French. In Belgium they are required to register at the local polling booth on election day (unless they are abroad at the time), they normally, once there, subsequently vote. If they don't do this then they are liable to a fine. If they don't do this 3 times in succession then they lose their voting rights for 5 years. This last point may not sound too serious for someone who didn't register anyway, but it can have negative consequences for anyone seeking employment in the public sector.

 

The worst example of UK voter apathy in recent history, apart from EU MEP elections, was the Lib Dem inspired attempt to change the UK's voting system. Very little interest amongst the electorate whatsoever.

 

Belgium - is this where it takes nearly two years to form a government?

 

Stop being silly. Tell a footballer that football is not important or tell a scientist etc etc.
You know that is not the sense I wrote "no special privilege" so do not quote out of context.What I was saying in case you honestly misunderstood is that voting is one of a number of things in life - not everybody holds them equal. I am sure we all want the right to vote but we also want the right to choose whether in any election we wish to cast a vote.
What the heck does it matter if Belgium is closer? My son is in Australia so I can talk of things he and I have discussed. I do not know any Belgians.
The whole subject is erroneous. Each country is entitled to have the system it chooses. What they choose is down to them. International comparisons are at best of intellectual interest only. I might add that I find the idea that you could deny people the right to vote because they chose not to in the past a disgusting fact. I made a choice which suits me and as a result you dictate what I can do in the future? Now that sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy - as does "compulsory" voting. We now see what kind of democracy you champion do we?

 

How long the Belgians need to form a government is their concern SH. It may just be that the Belgians can live without one for longer than anyone else - they do, after all, make the best beer in the World. Some countries don't need governments.

 

Exactly - each country has its own nature - so why suggest the UK is poor by comparing it to the French, Swiss or anywhere else.
What we choose to do is a living breathing function of our form of democracy. Your one size fits all may be a Green viewpoint, I do not know, but it does not suit me.

 

It does reflect badly on a weakness of the PR system.

That's good because the German government looks shaky at the moment.

 

I am not necessarily championing the Belgian system Leo. so don't put words into my mouth. I never said that I would deny people the right to vote because they had failed to do it in the past - I was simply stating what happens in Belgium.....without further commentary on my part. If you do not use turnout at elections to measure political apathy then how do you measure it ? You say that other countries are free to choose the systems which they like - really ? Did this apply to Libya or Iraq ?

 

I've just squashed my thumb in a door, do you have special powers Cologne?

 

I can say that the British system can develop into anything it wants to be Leo.....but there should be a development, because democracy is a process and not an end product. If you want something to be 'living' and 'breathing' then you should be thinking constantly about how to enlarge and improve it - otherwise it will stagnate. The same applies to any other country but we are mostly concerned with Britain here - I could give a list of reasons why Germany is not a 'living' 'breathing' democracy as well, but it would bore people to tears.

 

Where did I say you did - again it is you putting words in mouths.
You just told us what happens in Belgium and I said I find it disgusting - but you did pick me up on using Australia as a comparison preferring to use Belgium so you presumably had some reason - perhaps it is that you speak Flemish, French or Walloon. Most people assume when you use an example you are trying to make a point - were you not - so why use it?
If you think voting percentages in abstract tell you what you need to know about voting apathy then it tells me something about you. You ask people why they did or did not vote. It may be a low turnout reflects high satisfaction and a high turnout reflect the opposite. How can you tell on numbers alone?
Were Libya or Iraq democracies? Do you honestly believe I am going to defend every country in the world you randomly select to make (or perhaps not make) a point?