Gerrymandering

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:05 pm

This government’s changes to the electoral registration system will lead to a sick democracy, with fewer registered voters and lower turn¬outs. The Tories and their Liberal Democrat poodles are rigging the rules to make it easier for themselves to win parliamentary majorities after 2015. Voter registration will be conducted on an individual rather than household basis, and it will no longer be compulsory to register. The philosophy seems to be that if certain groups aren’t likely to vote for them, they won’t encourage them to vote!

Mehdi Hasan writes:-

“All of the empirical evidence suggests that those who tend not to register to vote are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of the young, the urban poor and ethnic minorities. These eligible voters, by complete coincidence, tend to support Labour. The partisan impact of this is compounded by the government's plan to reduce the number of constituencies, and make them equal in size based on the number of registered voters.

The Tories have form here. According to a paper published in 1992 by the political scientists Iain McLean and Jeremy Smith, the introduction of the poll tax in April 1990 accounted for slightly more than one-third of the estimated one million people shortfall between the electoral register and the [official] estimate of the qualified population. The authors later concluded that this ‘shortfall’ - of poorer, urban, Labour-leaning voters - cost Neil Kinnock the 1992 general election.”

For more details and reader comments:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/10/electoral-registration-voters

by keenobserver1 Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:31 pm

Based on the quote from Mehdi Hasan, it would be in the interest of all parties to ensure that therir supporters are registered and actually go to vote, would it not?

As an alternate to actually help the population rather than any political party, we could remove the right to vote from the unemployed, and put the onus on all parties getting people in to work.

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:04 pm

What a terrible idea! I believe the right-wing Republican Michelle Bachmann has come up with that suggestion as well. In a democracy, shouldn't every adult have the right to vote, regardless of their circumstances? Even the unemployed pay sales taxes such as our VAT, and Bachmann needs reminding of the 18th century slogan "no taxation without representation".

Even if political parties persuaded their diehard supporters to register to vote, what about those who have no permanent allegiance to one party, in other words, those who actually decide the outcome of elections?

by keenobserver1 Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:40 pm

Have you heard any better suggestions from either side of the house?

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:55 pm

Two.

Individual registration is okay, but it should be compulsory to at least register as part of our civic duty.

The new constituency boundaries should be based on the number of eligible voters, not just the number who have registered.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:02 pm

Ivan wrote:Two.

Individual registration is okay, but it should be compulsory to at least register as part of our civic duty.

The new constituency boundaries should be based on the number of eligible voters, not just the number who have registered.

The changes announced are only recommendations by the Boundary Commission. Parliament will vote on the proposals. An article in today's Sunday Times however, suggests that a more important change to the demographic may be that Women are the losers in current reductions affecting child allowance, childcare support and public-sector employment. Added to Cameron's distinctly blokeish attitude to female MPs, that isn't going to win the votes needed for re-election.

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:13 pm

Compulsory registration contravenes the basic concept that voting is an inalienable right endowed unto and owned by each individual (not each household) by a power higher than any man, council of men, or government instituted among men, including your House of Commons.

If I own the right to vote, then I own the choice to vote or not vote, and I own the choice to register or not register to vote. A political party that chooses to use this truth to their advantage does not change the truthfulness of this truth by so doing.

In my country, Black Americans have taken to not registering to vote and not voting in numbers that tick me off big time. To hear a Black American tell me to my face that he can't be bothered with the inconvenience of registering and voting makes me want to commit assault with intent to cause bodily pain by kicking somebody square off in their backside. It would be just my luck that the person who drops the straw that breaks this camel's back would be an ex Navy SEAL who would wipe the floor with my carcass, so I'd best not act on my impulse, but the emotional reaction is real.

My father is so serious about voting that he took me with him to the polling place at every election, starting when I was six years old, and took me into the voting booth, talked to me about for whom and what "we" were voting, and let me mark the ballot as he instructed. In our shared lifetimes, he has never missed voting, no matter how "minor" the election.

Back to the topic at hand, the attitude taught to me by my father, through his talk and especially through his walk, needs to be taught unto your young potential Labour voters by their fathers and/or father figures. It's grassroots at its grassiest and rootiest, and it’s the only way to ensure that your fellow Labourites retain co-ownership of the de facto republic purchased for them over the centuries at blood cost by their ancestors.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:53 pm

Compulsory registration merely inflates the "clout" of one party or another by padding the numbers of registered voters affiliated with the party....it does NOTHING to ensure participation by individuals in the voting process.

I'm not sure about the UK policies regarding absentee voting but I profoundly believe that we in America should abolish the practice. With accomodations for active duty military person on bases or in combat around the globe, I believe every person should be present and accounted for when voting....absentee ballots are perpetually used for fraud.

by ROB Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:59 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
With accomodations for active duty military person on bases or in combat around the globe...

Submariners disappear from existence for up to ninety days at a pop. Would you have USS Virginia stick its head above water so that the one hundred plus officers and sailors can reveal their location to the world and compromise the security of USS Harry S Truman so that they can vote in the manner that you decree rather than in absentia? Or would you rather effectively disenfranchise a particular population of Americans upon whose sacrifices we depend for our national security?

By the way, Los Angeles-class SSNs broke the Soviet Union's back.

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Britain has a system of Postal voting, which is available to serving military, and in particular circumstances can be effected by encyrpted electronic communication.

Anyone who chooses not to vote has no reason to complain about the government.

by atv Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:07 pm

[Anyone who chooses not to vote has no reason to complain about the government.]

I couldn't agree more.

by jackthelad Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:15 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Britain has a system of Postal voting, which is available to serving military, and in particular circumstances can be effected by encyrpted electronic communication.

Anyone who chooses not to vote has no reason to complain about the government.

Voting should be compulsary, a fine if you don't vote. You can have postal voting now, so there is no need for you to go the voting station in the rain. If you don't like what is on offer, then spoil your ballot paper, you are registering your opinion, in a way. One way or another, your vote is recorded, for, against, or abstension.

by ROB Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:07 pm

jackthelad wrote:
Voting should be compulsary, a fine if you don't vote.

Then it's no longer a right, and thus can legally be disparaged by the usurper us power that dictates its exercise at threat of a fine.

I understand that compulsory voting was the law in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If that' the pattern you wish to duplicate, carry on.

by **astradt1** Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:55 pm

Of course that hot bed of Communist Repression Australia enforeces compulsory voting.

I would that it would a sin not to enact the GOD given right of voting........

by atv Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:12 pm

jackthelad wrote:
Voting should be compulsary, a fine if you don't vote. You can have postal voting now, so there is no need for you to go the voting station in the rain. If you don't like what is on offer, then spoil your ballot paper, you are registering your opinion, in a way. One way or another, your vote is recorded, for, against, or abstension.

To make voting compulsary, you must give the option of "not voting for any of the above". That way as you say you are registering your opinion, and your vote is recorded.
But as oftenwrong quite rightly said, "Anyone who chooses not to vote has no reason to complain about the government".

by ROB Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:24 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Of course that hot bed of Communist Repression Australia enforeces compulsory voting.

Unfortunate, but it doesn’t make it right. My mother enforced compulsory eating of okra during my childhood. Unfortunate, but it didn’t make it tasty.

astradt1 wrote:
I would that it would a sin not to enact the GOD given right of voting........

I would that it would be an illegal act for a British citizen not to enact the GOD given power to read and understand John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government prior to posting comments about voting rights.

by ROB Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:25 pm

atv wrote:
jackthelad wrote:
Voting should be compulsary, a fine if you don't vote. You can have postal voting now, so there is no need for you to go the voting station in the rain. If you don't like what is on offer, then spoil your ballot paper, you are registering your opinion, in a way. One way or another, your vote is recorded, for, against, or abstension.
... But as oftenwrong quite rightly said, "Anyone who chooses not to vote has no reason to complain about the government".

True that.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:10 am

The latest development. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published a report into the government's reforms to voter registration, suggesting that key parts of the legislation need to be rethought. In particular, it says that non-compliance with registration should still be penalised.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/report-published-electoral

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:54 pm

non-compliance with registration should still be penalised.

Are they worried about the Credit Reporting agencies no longer having access to a reliable crib-sheet, I wonder?

by Redflag Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:22 pm

Ivan wrote:What a terrible idea! I believe the right-wing Republican Michelle Bachmann has come up with that suggestion as well. In a democracy, shouldn't every adult have the right to vote, regardless of their circumstances? Even the unemployed pay sales taxes such as our VAT, and Bachmann needs reminding of the 18th century slogan "no taxation without representation".

Even if political parties persuaded their diehard supporters to register to vote, what about those who have no permanent allegiance to one party, in other words, those who actually decide the outcome of elections?

I think thats why the Tories are bringing this in and I agree that even if all political parties make sure that their supporters register, you have brought up a good point Ivan what could be done about the people that do not vote the same way every time what could be done to make sure they do register anybody got any ideas? There could be one ally the House of Lords it has to go through them and at the moment there not too happy with the House of Commons because of the changes they want to bring in changes in the Lords. Embarassed

by astra Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:53 pm

Jimmy Niall has said on interview, that he does not vote, has no intention of voting. He is tired of people and companies looking in the Elector's roll for juicy addresses and then being pestered. I am aware that there are 2 voters rolls but even the private one, which is viewed under supervision is no guarantee of security/privacy.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:39 pm

A printed Electoral Register is as anachronistic as the typewriter. Everyone has a unique code by which they are known to the Taxman. Add to that a password and you have a means of voting on any chosen topic.

by Stox 16 Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:37 am

Ivan wrote:What a terrible idea! I believe the right-wing Republican Michelle Bachmann has come up with that suggestion as well. In a democracy, shouldn't every adult have the right to vote, regardless of their circumstances? Even the unemployed pay sales taxes such as our VAT, and Bachmann needs reminding of the 18th century slogan "no taxation without representation".

Even if political parties persuaded their diehard supporters to register to vote, what about those who have no permanent allegiance to one party, in other words, those who actually decide the outcome of elections?

I could not agree more with you Ivan.

by sickchip Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:04 am

keenobserver

keenobserver1 wrote:we could remove the right to vote from the unemployed

Yeah we could daub an S on their front doors to signify a scrounger lives there. Maybe tattoo a yellow star on to their foreheads too. While we're on make their children wear a school uniform distinct from the other kids, segregate them at lunchtimes, and feed the unemployed kids very very basic food.

Isn't it difficult to believe a nation of people could fall for propaganda that scapegoats a minority group.

by Stox 16 Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:55 am

Isn't it difficult to believe a nation of people could fall for propaganda that scapegoats a minority group.....How very true sickchip. I have always believe the Right feeds on braking us up into small groups and minority group. its how they try to control us. its for this reason they have to scapegoat unions so much. as they bring groups together.

by keenobserver1 Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:53 pm

Stox 16 wrote:Isn't it difficult to believe a nation of people could fall for propaganda that scapegoats a minority group.....How very true sickchip. I have always believe the Right feeds on braking us up into small groups and minority group. its how they try to control us. its for this reason they have to scapegoat unions so much. as they bring groups together.

Sickchip, Stox if you are going to quote from one of my posts, kindly quote the whole instead of using a small piece out of context. In the correct context the post was actually putting the onus on MP's and their parties getting people in to work.

by sickchip Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:44 pm

keenobserver,

Even in the context of your post (putting the onus on mps), why suggest the unemployed should not be allowed to vote?

by keenobserver1 Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:48 pm

sickchip wrote:keenobserver,

Even in the context of your post (putting the onus on mps), why suggest the unemployed should not be allowed to vote?

This was intended as a way of getting MP's to actually do something for the people for a change, ie it would be in the best interest of the MP's to get people into work so that they would be able to vote for them. There was no sinister intention with the original post.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:37 pm

it would be in the best interest of the MP's to get people into work so that they would be able to vote for them

Pensioners always vote, so what does that tell you about the interests of MPs?

by Redflag Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:52 pm

Ivan wrote:This government’s changes to the electoral registration system will lead to a sick democracy, with fewer registered voters and lower turn¬outs. The Tories and their Liberal Democrat poodles are rigging the rules to make it easier for themselves to win parliamentary majorities after 2015. Voter registration will be conducted on an individual rather than household basis, and it will no longer be compulsory to register. The philosophy seems to be that if certain groups aren’t likely to vote for them, they won’t encourage them to vote!

Just been watching the debate on the BBC Parliament channel, so this is hot off the press ha ha your quite right Ivan it is nothing but pure jerrymandering in the first class have you any ideas on how Labour party can cut through this because you and I both know it will go through thanks to those FCUKing Backstuds the Lib/Dems which help the Tories get it through the House Commons I work in my Local Labour party doing what I can and doing what ever it takes so if you have any ideas I would be grateful.

by **Ivan** Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:57 pm

have you any ideas on how Labour party can cut through this?

Hello Redflag. As you say, there is nothing that can be done in Parliament to stop this. If the Lib Dems will support the withdrawal of benefits from cancer patients and disabled children, they'll go along with anything dastardly that the Tories propose.

On the surface, the proposal to make all constituencies the same size - with 76,000 voters - sounds fair enough. However, the Tory plan is for that total to include only registered voters, not the total population of a constituency (shouldn't the interests of under 18s be represented by an MP as well?). Now instead of voter registration being compulsory and done on a household basis, the Tory plan is to make individuals register, knowing that a lot of people - especially poorer disaffected people who feel that the system has let them down - won't bother. The Tories have of course worked out that such people wouldn't be likely to vote for them anyway, so they don't care if they're not enfranchised. The Tories haven't won a general election outright, or secured more than 36% of the votes, since 1992, so they think their best way of staying in power is to shrink the electorate.

The only thing that local Labour groups can do is make a big effort to persuade people to register, but it will be an uphill task. People like to be anonymous and not on electoral rolls for a variety of reasons - such as fear of identity theft, unpaid debts or taxes, or trying to hide from someone - and it was an important factor in why the hated poll tax was so hard to collect.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:38 pm

Somebody seems to have learnt from the ancient customs of America's former slave states. When rearguard action to prevent negroes having a vote at all failed, every possible obstacle was put in their way to discourage registration.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/civilrights03a.htm

by Redflag Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:04 pm

Ivan wrote:The only thing that local Labour groups can do is make a big effort to persuade people to register, but it will be an uphill task. People like to be anonymous and not on electoral rolls for a variety of reasons - such as fear of identity theft, unpaid debts or taxes, or trying to hide from someone - and it was an important factor in why the hated poll tax was so hard to collect.

Sorry Ivan thats the biggest pile of ETIHS its Gerymandering at its worst you and I both know it but the general public will not see it I suppose is we know what the Tories are all about I managed to live through Mrs T reign of terror and Cameron is just carrying on where she left off, I agree with you Cameron is hoping that they will be HOMELESS because of the cuts in H.B and you can not register to vote if you do not have an address also people will be too hungry and too busy at the FOOD BANKS collecting food so that there families can have something to eat and that is people that will be working there lies another problem if they don't have a home they will not be able to work so the vulnerable and the low paid will be off the voting register and that what he is hoping for.

I had too pay that Poll Tax and Scotland had to pay it a full year before England and that was us getting punished for not voting Tory as you will know Ivan, I seen good people going to prison because of SCABBY MAGGIE and her Poll Tax as will know up here we have never voted tory and Alec Salmond will use the Tories to convince people to vote yes in the upcoming referendum and too be honest at least we would know that we would never be governed by a Tory ever again and that is very tempting Im sorry to say as I am a paid up member of the Labour party.

by **Ivan** Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:19 pm

The Conservatives are rewriting the constitution to create a one-party state

From an article by Chris Bryant:-

"Step by step Cameron and Co are advancing an extraordinary constitutional revolution with a single aim in mind, never-ending Tory rule. Each individual change might not seem so significant, but put together they amount to the most dramatic shift of power towards the government in many a generation, every bit as pernicious as the Gagging Acts of 1795 and 1817 in their stifling of legitimate opposition.

First came the redrawing of constituency boundaries. Since the Tories have simultaneously introduced individual electoral registration – which every survey shows will lead to a dramatic fall in registration – this will leave many non-Tory areas badly under-represented. The most mobile voters and those least likely to register will lose their voice. And in the smaller 600-seat Commons the Tories stand to benefit to the tune of about 20 seats.

Cameron has rewritten the in-house rules too. So as to carve Scottish and Welsh MPs out of English-only legislation (but not English MPs out of Wales-only legislation), he used his majority in the Commons to amend its standing orders. It’s the same in the Lords, which he has packed with Tory cronies faster than any PM in history. And he’s now moving to neuter the Lords.

He’s also decided to slash the support provided to all the opposition parties by 19%. Outside Parliament too Cameron has moved to stifle dissent. He’s already passed a law gagging charities, trades unions and think-tanks from taking part in political debate. Under this PM we have a situation where when there is dissent, they crush it. Where a body opposes them, they neuter it."

For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/conservatives-are-rewriting-constitution-create-one-party-state

by sickchip Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:37 am

we could remove the right to vote from the unemployed

I've been unemployed for about 4 weeks after being laid off. I do have a new job to start in January. Short term unemployment happens occasionally in my line of work. In fact a lot of people who sign on do so short term when they're between jobs.

Are you suggesting if there had been an election in the past month I wouldn't have been allowed to vote?

It's clear the Tory and right wing media propaganda about unemployment has become the 'truth' in your eyes. It's astonishing that people like you are so gullible, and disturbing that you relish an opportunity to look down your nose at others - hope it makes you feel like a better person because it certainly doesn't make you one.

by boatlady Thu Dec 24, 2015 11:34 am

Sorry sickchip - can't see which poster made that offensive suggestion - if you can point me in the direction of the offending post I will take appropriate action

by **Ivan** Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:41 pm

It was offered as a suggestion by keenobserver1 in the second post on this thread, but I should point out that it was written over four years ago! The idea was first put forward by the Tea Party nut Michele Bachmann, as the Republican Party in the USA has searched for ways to restrict the electorate in order to give itself a better chance of winning.

Stopping the unemployed from voting - and thereby expressing their opinion of the government that is in power when they lose their jobs - is of course an outrageous and impractical idea. It punishes people for being out of work, which is hardly their fault if their firm closes down. It makes an up-to-date electoral roll impossible to maintain, and who would be defined as 'unemployed'? Retired people? Women (or men) who stay at home to look after children? Those too ill to work?

As the Republican Party has moved further to the right over the years (and now we see Donald Trump promoting fascist ideas), so our Tories have followed suit. The basic Tory demographic is slowly disappearing – the membership is in decline and the core voters are ageing – so the party needs to come up with new ideas (as Chris Bryant has listed in that article) to keep themselves in power. They'll probably pick up Bachmann's idea in due course; I'm sure Iain Duncan Smith would approve. Twisted Evil

by Penderyn Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:45 pm

Why should people vote when they have no-one they want to vote for? If the voting system offers only different sorts of tories, people won't vote, if they've got any sense, surely?

by boatlady Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:31 pm

Universal suffrage is perhaps the best hope we have of a representative government, so I'd be against depriving any citizen of the vote

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:28 pm

Most of us on the left see red on the rare occasions that Nick Clegg sticks his head above the parapet these days. The man who handed Cameron the key to Downing Street, then within months reneged on his party’s pledge on tuition fees, backed the passing of the Health and Social Care Act, squandered the opportunity to get a proportional voting system, and happily reinforced the lie that the global crash of 2008 was “all Labour’s fault”. However, it is worth reading what he has to say now because of what it reveals about Cameron and Osborne and the dangerous direction in which our so-called ‘democracy’ is heading.

Nick Clegg accuses Conservatives of 'rigging the rules' in attempt to create 'one-party state'

From an article by Andrew Grice:-

Clegg said that the Tories had departed dramatically from the tradition that the 'rules of the game' in British politics were agreed on a cross-party basis. He cited their “petty, spiteful” moves to cripple Labour’s funding by changing the way trade unionists pay the political levy and cutting state funding for opposition parties.

Clegg said: “If you look at the way the Conservatives seek to hobble and neuter Westminster, the bullying swagger with which they treat the BBC, the general air of hubris, there is a feeling that politics is being reduced to the whims and mood swings of one political party. That is not healthy.” Clegg likened Osborne to José Mourinho saying they were both “very clever, very skilled” but took “a little too much pleasure at the misfortunes of others” and “twisting the knife”.

Clegg said: “In one-party politics, people can fool themselves that if they have said something, it must be true”. He claimed that Cameron professed to care about social mobility while scrapping maintenance grants that enabled disadvantaged children to go to university; targeting help with childcare to better off families rather than those who need it most; ditching child poverty targets; and cutting the schools’ budget and ‘Pupil Premium’, for children from poor families, in real terms.

When the Lib Dems pushed for money to build social housing, Cameron and Osborne rebuffed them with the stark message: “All it does is produce more Labour voters”. Moreover, the Tories took credit for Lib Dem ideas, notably their flagship policy of raising the personal tax allowance.

For the whole of this article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-accuses-conservatives-of-rigging-the-rules-in-attempt-to-create-one-party-state-a6896086.html

by Sponsored content