Everyone who votes gets included in a giant UK raffle
All you have to do to enter the £5m raffle is VOTE
It's £5m first prize
Everybody would vote then.
No spoilt voting slips either.
There would be queues.
And do it over the course of a whole week...not crammed into one day.
If you didn't vote....would you if there was a chance of winning £5m
(19 posts) (10 voices)
Nah, easier way. Make the ballot slips scratchcards,
And you could charge £2 each for them too, with the chance of unveiling a 'you've won a tenner' if you scratch off (for example) milliband's smug face.
Clever idea, Gerry, but I suspect even with that enticement people would still not vote.
We should adopt the Australian way, and make it a legal requirement.
Charge people £1 not to vote?
Don't vote and you get put into a lottery where one unlucky non-voter will be presented with a bill for £5m?
Will it make people inform themselves before they vote, though?
Would forcing more people to vote give governments a clearer mandate? Or would it just add more noise to the message politicians think the electorate is sending them?
What if you got a quick multiple choice test on politics, economics, law, manifesto contents of the parties etc, and your vote was multiplied by your score.
Know your stuff? Your vote has more weight.
Don't be silly Golgo, political parties don't want knowledgeable, educated voters.
They might show independent thought and reasoned argument, and we can't have that.
How about buy a vote, get one free?
That's the system in Tower Hamlets.
You should only be allowed to vote if you sign a statement to say climate change is real and man made.
Agree. You should be allowed to vote for any party you like, but that vote would not be counted unless is was for one of the "correct" parties.
This is essential if we are to protect a free and democratic society.
OK, so refining my multiple choice citizenship idea, people would by default have one vote, but anyone would have the option to sit a test that would give them a multiplier between 0.0 and 2.0.
Your vote could be worth up to 2 votes, or as little as zero.
But you wouldn't be able to see your multiplier until after the election.
OR you could chose to gamble and go for the car.
Car. Every time.
I think Tower Hamlets syndrome is the problem with Gerontius' idea. If there was a £5m prize, then the election turnout would be 138%. But at least more voters makes it harder to rig an election. I worry that as turnout goes down, fixing the result becomes easier.
Wasn't there some 19th century philosopher that came up with a system whereby everyone got one vote, and you were awarded additional votes for different citizenship qualifiers, e.g. you got an additional vote for having a job, and another for a degree, and another for having children, and another for owning property, and another for having a title etc. I think it was designed to maintain status quo for the landowning classes.
I like Golgo's idea that your vote might be worth nothing at all, if for instance you don't know where East Anglia is.
That was Neville Shute in In the Wet (1953).
Oh yeah, Nevil Shute. I was mixing him up with, er, the *other* Nevil Shute, that famous, um ...19th century philosopher. Thanks Titus
My system would probably reduce UKIP impact according to UKIP...
UKIP admit difficulty appealing to well-educated people
100% turnout would make things interesting. We wouldn't be governed by the party that got the most votes from 30% of the electorate. When the turnout is very low those people who have strong opinions will be more highly represented - when I say strong opinions I mean extreme views.
With 100% turnout we may find "None of the above" gets the majority. In reality it is more likely that we would only ever have a hung parliament.
How about a system where you get an indelable ink stamp on your forehead when you vote. Without the stamp you are not allowed to have an opinion in any political debate.
NB - actually you weren't really wrong: "Part of the Reform Act 1885, as originally proposed, would have granted some Britons a second vote. That part of the Act was never enacted" according to my smartarse know-it-all friend Wikipedia.
However I didn't know that; I just remembered reading Mr Shute's book in the 1950s.
You must log in to post.