Sophie Freeman considers whether a legal obligation would be more democratic
by Sophie Freeman, Liverpool Daily Post
IT'S a sad fact that more people voted in the Big Brother elections than in the last General Election, and an even sadder fact that Liverpool holds the record for the lowest-ever turn-out for a council byelection.
In the last British General Election, turn-out in one constituency (Liverpool Riverside) was 34.1%. In Winchester, it was 72.3%.
The average across the country was 59.6% of the electorate, compared to 71.4% in 1997, which was itself a post-war low. The local elections take place on May 3. Seats in one third of Liverpool City Council are being contested, a total of 30.
In 2006, just 11.96% of those in Central ward that were eligible to vote in the local election did so. Woolton ward had the highest turn-out in the city, with 33.01% of the poll voting. There are those who believe voting in elections should be compulsory and that those who fail to take part should be fined.
In Australia, like many other countries, it is illegal not to vote in government elections. It has been compulsory since 1924 and non voters are fined $20Aus.
But there are those who argue that it is wrong to impose a legal obligation on somebody to vote for a person that they may not have any confidence in. They say it would just lead to a crazy situation of people deliberately spoiling their papers to avoid voting.
Today the Daily Post asks: Should voting in elections by compulsory?
Article
