In a parliament in which little has been done to tackle the issue of low voter turnout, particularly among young people, Ed Miliband’s announcement that Labour will introduce votes for 16- and 17-year-olds was refreshing if only because it showed a desire to reform in order to engage more people with the political system.
The Conservatives have shown an appetite for electoral and constitutional reform but only when it has been politically expedient. The introduction of individual electoral registration has been the clearest example of this with measures introduced set to disproportionately affect groups such as the young and those from socially deprived areas.
At best the government has failed to consider the need to make participation easier and more accessible and at worst has designed policy to ensure that those who do not traditionally vote remain excluded from the process. It is for this reason that Labour should build on this announcement and make the case for compulsory participation in elections.
Ipsos MORI found that at the last general election 61 per cent of voters between 18-24 supported a centre-left party but just 44 per cent turned out to vote. If the coalition had to consider the impact of the young voters, outside of the 10 seats where the student vote will have a determining factor, would they have been so quick to cut the education maintenance allowance or so slow to deal with the problem of long-term youth unemployment?
If the Tories can pursue such clear political objectives when it comes to constitutional reform there is no reason why Labour should not do the same. While the electoral benefits are clear it is not simply a case of pursuing reform for reward at the ballot box; finding ways to tackle the underrepresentation of those at society’s fringe cuts to the core of what it means to be Labour. Should we not be doing everything in our power to make sure those with the least power are heard as loudly as possible?
Perhaps more importantly a move to compulsory participation would bring about a change in the nature of political engagement in the United Kingdom. The first conversation on the doorstep is so often focused on encouraging people to cast their vote but if the question of participation was eliminated it would allow for a political debate would become one of ideas.
With a system that has enabled parties to pursue a core vote strategy and often rewards those best able to suppress the vote of the opponent it is easy to see why politics is viewed with indifference if not mistrust. Compulsory participation would provide a voice to those who have been otherwise excluded from the political process. While it would not act as a panacea to all that causes disaffection with our political system it would go along way to ensuring parties broadened their appeal and had to produce policies that cut across age, class and culture in order to win a mandate to govern.
———————————-
Sian Penny is membership and stakeholders officer at Progress. She tweets @SianPenny
———————————-
“it showed a desire to reform in order to engage more people with the political system”
You seem to have missed out the words “who he believes will be more inclined to support labour” between the words people and with. It is the same political expediency which in the next paragraph you accuse the tories of.
The whole point she’s making is that if the Tories can do it for political expediency then Labour shouldn’t be afraid of doing it too. Think you should work on your reading comprehension mate.
Nope. Just re-read it and I think the key phrase in this is ” Compulsory participation would provide a voice to those who have been otherwise excluded from the political process” which is pure nonsense. Those who have been excluded so far are those who excluded themselves by not registering and not voting, through their own personal choice. Making voting compulsory will be as successful as making registration compulsory (i.e. not at all). We fall back on giving the votes to those from 16 to 17, and that is all about political expediency as they are assumed to be more socialist inclined (never assume) and not about reforming the system. And boy does the FPTP system need reforming!
A quick straw poll around my extended family’s youngsters in that age range shows a total apathy about having the vote, none of them are interested, none of them have taken the time even to put much research into what the individual parties are all about. “They are all the same” is the mantra. They don’t care.
I’d completely agree. I think what a lot of people forget is that even though Everton finished 5th in 2007/08, they accrued more points than when they finished 4th in 2004/05.
As long as there is the FPTP system in place which elects one official [PM] and his carefully chosen stable mates [The Cabinet] to run the country over a set distance [5years] and as long as Bookies@Tote continue giving odds on who or who is not a firm favourite to ‘win’ there shall always be the element of Gambling involved [seriously, in this day and age you may think we would have moved on a bit from pollsters and bookies giving odds on who is to win or lose [govern or dissemble] this UK ‘s future for 60+millions people and citizens [?] No better plan in the offing? The Power Stakes GE DERBY next May 7 are very high indeed as people’s whole livlihoods, their kids’ futures for the next 100 years depends on the outcome outcome of electing a few 600+ hundred politicians to Parliament. Next May’s GE will attracta bit more attention than the Grand National or Ascot Racing event 35-40 millions casting a vote? Who can be sure? Advocating a Right to Vote is different by far than Dictating you shall vote or face consequences. Tricky dilemma which should be put to the referendum vote as no one wo/man should have the unilateral power to make rules up on the hoof and as they see fit to suit their own political agendas of the day – as wee Eck salmond tried [almost very successfully] in Scotland recently when he almost destroyed 300 years of a Union which had democracy not demagoguery or dictatorship as its ideal. The Racing analogy between horses and politicians presumes one is gambling on a particular jockey winning that horse race and is given odds by bookies: not dissimilar to next May 7 GE race. Horses for courses.
But what happens if the ‘200/1 Nag vote’ romps home and wins the GE race due to all the Fav’s tripping eachother up at the 1st Fence? Horses for courses – choose your nag and trainers/jockeys carefully. Scotland would no longer be in the UNITED KINGDOM today if it weren’t for 3 horses pulling in-tandem against the Donkey which almost slipped past the Post in 1st Position. Scary stuff really for the future wellbring of our children who [generally] are not interested in horse racing or politics anyway – the kids are not on their own in this regard.