in an election if this is the result:

Did note vote: 54%
Party 1: 26%
Party 2: 14%
Party 3: 5%
Party 4: 1%


can any party claim to have a mandate to represent that constituency?

surely, if more dont vote, than vote for the winning party, democracy dictates, we nullify the result?

Did not vote != vote of no confidence. I wish however that there was that option.

thats kinda my point here, surely, this election would be the voters, giving a vote of no confidence in the political system? there saying, we would rather not be represented at all, than be represented by any of you?

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?

i agree with scifi boy, but voter apathy is a difficult thing to deal with. i hate that a party can become government with less than even 40% of the vote, because technically 60% DON'T want that party.. so thats almost anti-democracy, lol.

but like i said its tricky. if you dont vote, then... *shrugs* you take what you're given, i suppose. and you cant bitch about it later.

thats fine when turnout is above 50%, but when it goes below half the electorate, you gotta wonder why, surely?

imo, a good way to tackle apathy is through teaching politics in schools from primary school onwards, i say we replace Religous education with Politics.

at least then, people know all there options, with any luck, that will then get more people 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.

oh, ok then, well thats what i want to do, tackle the apathy

So because they didn't vote, you assume that they automatically didn't want the winner to win?

If you don't vote because you don't care who governs you, or you feel confident that your party of choice will win the election without your vote, then I see no problem in the Government operating with a less than 50% share of the vote (and how often would more than 50% of the entire electorate vote for the same thing, anyway?).

If, however, you don't vote because you feel that your vote is wasted, or because you don't like any of the parties, then that's the issue... but again, apathy is not the answer. The only way to solve these issues is to become less-apathetic than a voter, get out there, and try and work towards making the system better.