Prince Charles ???!!

[The Lone Gunman]

Sorry son but I only discuss politics with adults.

Arsey for a jumped up support monkey aren't you!

[NickIT]

Arsey for a jumped up support monkey aren't you!

LOL is that the best you can do?

Pathetic.

I bet you had to google that insult.

[ASB]

Yes yes...and how will they know that the ballot was spoiled due to dissatisfaction of all the candidates?

Its actually quite a cosy little system...afterall they don't really want to find out that the majority of people think they are sleezy parasites.

It's not spoiled. It's not returned. This causes "them" a lot more grief than a spoiled ballot paper. [These are simply argued about by the candidates who have to accept them as spoiled]

[NickIT]

It's not spoiled. It's not returned. This causes "them" a lot more grief than a spoiled ballot paper. [These are simply argued about by the candidates who have to accept them as spoiled]

Yes...but there is nothing to explicitly state that this was damaged because I do not want any of the candidates to represent me.

Its not about screwing the electoral process via grief but rather to give a truer representation of what the populace thinks of the quality of its candidates.

Surely that would be a good thing? I suspect it would also help our democracy by stopping the main parties from parrotting each other policies as well.

[Ruprect]

Introduce compulsory voting. £20 fine for anyone who doesn't vote. Then the ballot paper either has 'none of the above' or you have to intentionally spoil it. It works like a charm in Australia, and you don't get people whining about politics whilst sitting on their hands. You can whine having at least bothered to make a choice. I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for. If you are really that apathetic then pay your £20 and whinge about having to do that instead.

[Andyw]

Lets gets one thing straight here, most other countries, in fact all I can think of, have either a ruling government or a ruling royal family, NOT BOTH ! not that they both rule but why dont we have one or the other. Why do we have to pay for the idiots in parliament when we could have the queen to rule britannia. That way we can get rid of these clueless morons that prefess to be experts in everything.

[NickIT]

Introduce compulsory voting. £20 fine for anyone who doesn't vote. Then the ballot paper either has 'none of the above' or you have to intentionally spoil it. It works like a charm in Australia, and you don't get people whining about politics whilst sitting on their hands. You can whine having at least bothered to make a choice. I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for. If you are really that apathetic then pay your £20 and whinge about having to do that instead.

That would work for me....if you have either the spoiling of ballots or none of the above....as long as it is known that it is a vote against all the respective candidates.

I would like to point out that I do not 'sit on my hands' although I do not vote. I am involved in political activities and like it or not I am still (but not for long the way Smiler is going) allowed my voice. People may not like it but there it is.

[ASB]

I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for.

Broadly I think compulsory voting is a good thing - but you might just have highlighted the problem with it. There is an inclination for people to actually vote for someone when compelled to.

There is a big difference between "I don't care" and "I can't support any of this lot". The vast majority of non voters are the former, if forced to the polls they'll just vote for somebody - often the first on the list.

It's probably better to make it much eaisier to vote (although it ain't exacly difficult now).

[Gibbon]

WoW, even Circero would be humbled by this passionate debate

[wendigo100]

Lets gets one thing straight here, most other countries, in fact all I can think of, have either a ruling government or a ruling royal family, NOT BOTH ! not that they both rule but why dont we have one or the other. Why do we have to pay for the idiots in parliament when we could have the queen to rule britannia. That way we can get rid of these clueless morons that prefess to be experts in everything.

We don't have both. In the UK the head of state is the monarch. She rules, not the government (by which I assume you mean the Commons.)

I know it is easy to forget, but the elected lot in the Commons are merely administrators, who propose changes to law on behalf of their constituents. The monarch still has to approve them.