Very interesting. Thank you! I still feel that electoral reform is the other key issue. The current electoral system in the UK is failing to reflect the wishes even of those who DO vote - maybe the 20 % of Reform supporters who were previously non-voters reflects the number of those interested in politics/government but don’t vote because, as the old t-shirt said, it doesn’t change anything. A system that more fairly reflected actual votes in a situation where there are more than 2 significant parties would change this in the UK (let alone in the US😵💫)
The issue I’ve had in recent elections is that I find myself voting against people rather than voting for something I want or believe in. With FPTP in recent elections I have had to go with the least worst option - whoever is best placed to stop Corbyn, stop the Tories, etc. It will be the same next time to attempt to stop Reform. I think that turnout would be greater if we had a voting system that allowed us to vote for someone/something we felt positively about rather than hold our noses and vote tactically.
Have been a fan of the idea of compulsory voting for decades, as long as it is accompanied by a choice on the ballot of "None of the above". Its super-important that all parties have a sense of (i) actually how little of the country voted for them when they claim a 'mandate' for sweeping changes, and also (ii) the % of the country that is dissatisfied with all of the political representation being offered to them (it shows the gaps in the political market so to speak).
This, accompanied by a system of PR, and you might actually have people engaging again.
My dream is to replace FPTP with proportional representation but to ALSO allocate seats in Parliament proportionately... including to non voters. So if turnout was 60% I'd rope off 40% of the seats and leave them empty as a constant reminder to non-voters that their representation is an empty chair and as a constant reminder to governments (and oppositions) that despite having a majority they only received the positive support of perhaps 35% of the electorate. A mandate to govern, certainly, but not exactly a ringing endorsement.
This is an elegant theory but I just don't think it stack up empirically. Polling has shown over and over again that young people just do not care about/believe in intergenerational inequality. They support the triple lock more than anyone and they killed the 2017 social care reform plans (the "dementia tax"). Older people are actually more likely to support growth based policies because they have seen what economic growth can look like and how beneficial it is, whereas most young people have a much more fixed pie view of the economy.
If we introduced compulsory voting I reckon we would end up with the most short-termist, cakeist, anti-growth, pro-boomer government we have ever seen.
Bring on compulsory voting. It is really hard to defend not doing so. As a differentially advantaged older home owner, I’d welcome younger & other relatively disadvantaged people voting to help secure improvements in their own futures.
I have voted in every general election since 1970, and not once has my vote (in 4 different constituencies) been cast for the successful candidate. I have voted out of duty as a conscientious citizen but have often felt that I could have used the time more effectively. Would a voting system in which every vote mattered encourage greater participation? I’m not sure, but wonder whether the question has been researched. Do electorates with some form of PR tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers?
Being always uncomfortable with coercion, I would instinctively to look for behavioural ‘nudges’ before opting for compulsion - if such nudges could be shown to work.
Interesting piece and I while I agree with the analysis and sentiment I have an issue with the solution. I vote, partly because in our household the moral argument made by my partner wins. But I have argued against this pressure. For me, to vote should be a positive act, a personal commitment to a person/party to represent me in parliament. And right now, I don't believe there is anyone that deserves my vote. So if I were to be forced by the state to vote I should be given a 'none of the above' option.
I think part of the answer lies in better devolvement of power away from the centre (as Sam has written about) and some form of proportional representation. There are too many locations in this country where political parties are locked in so it is a lie to say that everyone's vote counts.
Excellent piece and a good argument for compulsory voting. I’m an older voter, financially secure and asset owning. But I have children who are young adults, and can see how difficult it is for them to make their way in the world. Despite them voting, I’m not surprised they feel that politics offer them nothing, because it doesn’t.
Quite a bit of an eye-opener. So next to the ultra-necessity of electoral reform in the UK to make each vote count properly, a harder pressure on young voters to get off their backsides and cast their vote is required, to finally start representing people as the outcome of elections should. As well as kicking away the lame -but true- argument that voting as at present makes no difference anyway. This was a good read, for which my thanks!
This was very compelling with respect to warping decisions on the trade-offs between old and young.
It's less clear that this is warping government behaviour with regards to trade-offs between rich and poor. Public spending as a share of GDP rose c. 10% during the New Labour years, fell c. 6% between 2010 - 2019 and then rose post-pandemic (and is forecast to rise over the coming years). This looks much more like the democratic system working as it should, with left-wing governments increasing spending on services and restribution, and right-wing ones reducing it (with the 2020-24 period admittedly an exception - but in the opposite direction to what we'd expect if the rich were in the driving seat).
I see your point but what you term "public spending" is broad and I suspect if you broke it down (working age welfare transfers, pension age welfare transfers, healthcare, education, childcare) you would see the trends in these reflect the arguments made in this article.
Great but depressing article - made me remember that scene in Derry Girls, post-referndum vote, where a child asks her grandda why he voted "yes" - I didn't do it for me I did it for you
Very interesting. Thank you! I still feel that electoral reform is the other key issue. The current electoral system in the UK is failing to reflect the wishes even of those who DO vote - maybe the 20 % of Reform supporters who were previously non-voters reflects the number of those interested in politics/government but don’t vote because, as the old t-shirt said, it doesn’t change anything. A system that more fairly reflected actual votes in a situation where there are more than 2 significant parties would change this in the UK (let alone in the US😵💫)
One ought to reference this year’s German federal election —no compulsory voting but an excellent proportional system and turnout of 82%!
I would be tempted to say do both—compulsory voting and an adoption of the German electoral system.
The issue I’ve had in recent elections is that I find myself voting against people rather than voting for something I want or believe in. With FPTP in recent elections I have had to go with the least worst option - whoever is best placed to stop Corbyn, stop the Tories, etc. It will be the same next time to attempt to stop Reform. I think that turnout would be greater if we had a voting system that allowed us to vote for someone/something we felt positively about rather than hold our noses and vote tactically.
Have been a fan of the idea of compulsory voting for decades, as long as it is accompanied by a choice on the ballot of "None of the above". Its super-important that all parties have a sense of (i) actually how little of the country voted for them when they claim a 'mandate' for sweeping changes, and also (ii) the % of the country that is dissatisfied with all of the political representation being offered to them (it shows the gaps in the political market so to speak).
This, accompanied by a system of PR, and you might actually have people engaging again.
My dream is to replace FPTP with proportional representation but to ALSO allocate seats in Parliament proportionately... including to non voters. So if turnout was 60% I'd rope off 40% of the seats and leave them empty as a constant reminder to non-voters that their representation is an empty chair and as a constant reminder to governments (and oppositions) that despite having a majority they only received the positive support of perhaps 35% of the electorate. A mandate to govern, certainly, but not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Extremely interesting, and explains a great deal of voting and government behaviour. Thank you!
This is an elegant theory but I just don't think it stack up empirically. Polling has shown over and over again that young people just do not care about/believe in intergenerational inequality. They support the triple lock more than anyone and they killed the 2017 social care reform plans (the "dementia tax"). Older people are actually more likely to support growth based policies because they have seen what economic growth can look like and how beneficial it is, whereas most young people have a much more fixed pie view of the economy.
If we introduced compulsory voting I reckon we would end up with the most short-termist, cakeist, anti-growth, pro-boomer government we have ever seen.
You could be right
Interesting insights
We need PR
Bring on compulsory voting. It is really hard to defend not doing so. As a differentially advantaged older home owner, I’d welcome younger & other relatively disadvantaged people voting to help secure improvements in their own futures.
I have voted in every general election since 1970, and not once has my vote (in 4 different constituencies) been cast for the successful candidate. I have voted out of duty as a conscientious citizen but have often felt that I could have used the time more effectively. Would a voting system in which every vote mattered encourage greater participation? I’m not sure, but wonder whether the question has been researched. Do electorates with some form of PR tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers?
Being always uncomfortable with coercion, I would instinctively to look for behavioural ‘nudges’ before opting for compulsion - if such nudges could be shown to work.
Free coffee at the polling station?
Interesting piece and I while I agree with the analysis and sentiment I have an issue with the solution. I vote, partly because in our household the moral argument made by my partner wins. But I have argued against this pressure. For me, to vote should be a positive act, a personal commitment to a person/party to represent me in parliament. And right now, I don't believe there is anyone that deserves my vote. So if I were to be forced by the state to vote I should be given a 'none of the above' option.
I think part of the answer lies in better devolvement of power away from the centre (as Sam has written about) and some form of proportional representation. There are too many locations in this country where political parties are locked in so it is a lie to say that everyone's vote counts.
Good piece. Climate change is another huge problem downgraded in voting skewed to the old of course.
The particular irony is that a prosperous 55-60 year old likely has 30+ years of life, and really should be voting for the long term.
Excellent piece and a good argument for compulsory voting. I’m an older voter, financially secure and asset owning. But I have children who are young adults, and can see how difficult it is for them to make their way in the world. Despite them voting, I’m not surprised they feel that politics offer them nothing, because it doesn’t.
Quite a bit of an eye-opener. So next to the ultra-necessity of electoral reform in the UK to make each vote count properly, a harder pressure on young voters to get off their backsides and cast their vote is required, to finally start representing people as the outcome of elections should. As well as kicking away the lame -but true- argument that voting as at present makes no difference anyway. This was a good read, for which my thanks!
Compulsory voting and a preferential voting system would be the way forward. FPTP and "safe seats" disincentivise voters.
Surely the conclusion should be proportional representation so that young people's votes actually count? With or without compulsory voting.
But also, hello elephant in the room which supports the argument made in the article: Brexit!
This was very compelling with respect to warping decisions on the trade-offs between old and young.
It's less clear that this is warping government behaviour with regards to trade-offs between rich and poor. Public spending as a share of GDP rose c. 10% during the New Labour years, fell c. 6% between 2010 - 2019 and then rose post-pandemic (and is forecast to rise over the coming years). This looks much more like the democratic system working as it should, with left-wing governments increasing spending on services and restribution, and right-wing ones reducing it (with the 2020-24 period admittedly an exception - but in the opposite direction to what we'd expect if the rich were in the driving seat).
I see your point but what you term "public spending" is broad and I suspect if you broke it down (working age welfare transfers, pension age welfare transfers, healthcare, education, childcare) you would see the trends in these reflect the arguments made in this article.
Great but depressing article - made me remember that scene in Derry Girls, post-referndum vote, where a child asks her grandda why he voted "yes" - I didn't do it for me I did it for you