Should There Be A Winner?

[SamuelRSmith]

SciFiBoy said:

SamuelRSmith said:
If people choose not to vote, then they choose to opt out of the system, and they should get who they're lumbered with.

A democracy is only a democracy for those who vote, for everyone else, it's an unstable dictatorship.

so, if the turnout was 11%, you would say, thats fine, and let the person who gets asay %6 of the vote be the representative?

surely, when turnout goes below say 50%, you need to review the system and find out why people arent voting?

Of course you need to review the system, but there is still a winner in that election. As, for all the people that bothered voting - ie - the ones who went out and used their right to elect their representations - there is still a winner.

Apathy shouldn't be a reason to remove a victory, else what do you suggest? No representation, well that won't work. Keeping the current representive? If they lose an election with the results that you used there, then that would mean that only 5% would have voted for him.

No, the best thing to do is to let the winner of the election win. It's simple, really. Tackling voter apathy is something completely different.