One of Lee’s most recent posts (Have you decided) suggested that there was a substantial body of online conversations that indicated that nearly 46% of eligible voters would not vote. I ‘re-tweeted’ this post and added a question as to why so many people may not take up their democratic right, when in other countries people are literally dying to obtain this freedom; Lee got me good and proper and asked me what I thought? Lee’s blog suggest four possible reasons:-
- ‘What’s the point’
- ‘My vote won’t make a difference’
- ‘I don’t understand how to tell which party is right for me’
- ‘They’re all as bad as one another’
Armed with a tool called mindstorming (to create possibilities), I sat down an posed myself the questions
- Why do people not vote?
- How could people be encouraged to vote?
Why do people not vote?
- The list I generated (as written) is
- Apathy
- Laziness
- No incentive
- Dis-interested
- Extreme/militant views
- Lack understanding
- Do not feel that they have influence
- No motivation
- Nothing in it for them
- Lack education (on importance of process)
- Disenfranchised
- Do not value their vote
- Lack gratitude for the priviledge they have
- Do not agree with the policies
- Do not believe anything will change
- Dis-trust politicians
- Generalisations
- Choice
How could people be encouraged to vote?
- Again, the list as I generated it is
- Educate them
- Remove benefits/credits
- Fine them
- Introduce a different (electoral) system
- Engage people more, get away from push messaging
- Demonstrate benefits
- Listen to them
- Build trust (politicians to build with their constituents)
- Visibility
These lists were raw ideas, no filtering or analysis. As I sit and look at them now I think that, whilst there are some subtle differences, there are a few underlying causes; lack of interest or motivation, no value placed on the democratic process and dis-trust. Now, some of the ways to encourage people to vote that I came up with are somewhat draconian and fly in the face of the freedom that we attach to living in a democratic society. However, some of them I believe have some merit; education, engagement and building trust. As a teenager I never received any education on the electoral process, I don’t know if that is the same now, but understanding how our system works, has evolved and the sacrifices people have made to secure the vote might help. As perhaps, would an awareness of the struggles that are going on in other countries globally to secure that freedon. Engaging the electorate in meaning full two way communication, to really understand the issues, rather than pushing the party line and the party perception of the problems would be a significant step forward and that in itself would start to build credibility and trust. Both of these, to some level, can be achieved by an intelligent application of social media technologies; something that seems to have passed our political leaders by at this time.
If democracy is “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” as Abraham Lincoln said, can we truly say we live in a democratic society if nearly 50% of the eligible voters do not vote? If democracy is ultimately about personal freedom and egalitarianism, ultimately people then have the choice whether to engage or not. What do you think?
The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice; their choice! ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
About Rob Cameron
Rob is an accredited Coach and Mentor with a particular interest in the application of coaching, goal setting and action planning to facilitate personal success and accomplishment. He is committed to and passionate about helping people grow, develop and achieve.
Rob is a member of the International Coaching Federation (ICF), Institute of Engineering & Technology (IET), Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and a Chartered Engineer.
Rob writes a blog, which can be found at http://robcameron.co.uk, that focuses on topics associated with goals, personal development and career management.
Having developed an interest in the use of Social Media and Social Networking, he can also be found on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook
Related posts:
- Blog content and structure: A quick check list
Last week was probably one of the busiest weeks I’ve ever had; total miles travelled 1434! I met a some great people for the first time, ran a couple of... - General Election: How many people feel like her?
So here I am on the train into Paddington for tonights #140conf. I sat in the first available seat and the lady in front of me is talking to a... - Return on Involvement: what people want
I talk about the new ROI (return on involvement) a lot – maybe too much? Not enough? I don’t know, you tell me…. But if I wanted to sum up... - General Election: What the people are saying 13th April
The conservative party launched their manifesto, but it didn’t have the effect on th eonline conversation as I thought it would. It did, however, appear to have a positive effect... - General Election: What the people are feeling 15th April
The BIG Debate So here we are, the evening of a first for British Politics: a live debate between Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. So to mark the occasion...
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Hello Rob. Thanks for posting this interesting article. I agree that there is a need to engage in a two way communication process to lift the level of voters for this and other elections, whilst I feel that we are all missing a chance to connect through social media, this cannot be a fix for all. I believe that aside from the recent erosions of trust between the people and politicians another important factor is that people do vote but stop there and feel that their work is done at the ballot box. Our work is to engaging with those who we return and hand a mandate to govern on our behalf. Voting is only the beginning of the process making an attempt to engage is the larger and far more time consuming part of returning an elected official to a council, UA or Parliament. I suspect that many, many people, including those that do vote, don't go further because they are unwilling to engage in this process.
Hi Daniel. @danielesparra cc @robjcameron : You're absolutely correct… Maybe we – the people – should ask, no demand, a performence review 'break clause' so that if a Government doesn't or isn't seen to be making good on their promises and deliverables then we don't have to wait until the next election to 'have our say' – which ultimately may change peoples opinions RE: what's the point, no point in voting in future…
Thoughts?
Hi Daniel ( @danielesparra ) & Lee ( @leesmallwood ); I think that you have raised very good points here. Daniel, you are quite correct that SoMe is not and should not be the only form of engagement and that engagement should not begin and end with the election. Lee, I do like the idea of a 'Performance Review' after all many employed people have that as a half-yearly process and companies to have a report/AGM on an annual basis to assess performance and make changes
I agree with you, Daniel (@danielesparra) when you say that social media is just one way to connect, there are many other ways and the government (as well as many other organisations) should investigate how different groups prefer to be interacted with. There is the danger, though, that all of the possible communication channels are set to “send” rather than “receive”, so your point on it being a two way thing is extremely valid.
As for your comment, Lee (@leesmallwood) on the idea of there being a performance review, I think this is a super concept, and one that I think should be in place, but it is a system that would only work if the public had full confidence that whoever replaced their “under-performing” government / MP wasn't just a poorly disguised clone. Rob (@robjcameron) noted that one of the main reasons people won't vote is because they feel politicians are all as bad as each other, so I feel that until basic reforms are made in Westminster, then politicians being replaceable will unfortunately be irrelevant, as we'd just be replacing them with same old show with a different coloured tie.
Joanne ( @joannerourke ) cc @leesmallwood ; thanks for your comment. I support your point. I think many people would welcome a change where people elected to parliament were truly perceived to be and clearly demonstrated that they were there to serve their constituents not just their own purposes. A generalisation perhaps, but I am afraid that the former is the exception rather than the rule in many peoples' eyes.
Hi Joanne (@joanerourke) I think you are right the channels are set to “Send” as a default and I struggle to find any empathy with anyone who uses this default let alone a politician seeking my vote. The attempts to demonstrate empathy by all who have taken part in televised debates has been of the “I met a man in (Pick location) who works in (industry) that is worried about (choose policy point being discussed),” Whilst this shows a willingness to enter into empathy with us, something is lost in the communication and I feel (and suspect others do as well) that I am being told something. When I decide to buy something in business or in my personal life I prefer it when the process is two way, anyone who is set to “Broadcast” loses me in a very short space of time and I head off to look for an alternative.
Hi Lee (@leesmallwood) How about starting with an elected second chamber whose members stand for re-election every 2.5 years. As a base line we make the second chamber up in the new parliament to reflect the percentage of votes cast for all parties. The check on the progress of the government would be felt in the make up of the re-elected second chamber every 2.5 years sending a clear message to all concerned. A government would need to deliver on its manifesto commitments or lost its control quickly over the entire parliament.
Daniel (@danielesparraguera) cc @leesmallwood – this sounds like a very interesting proposition – so this body would have a 'half life' in parliamentary terms and would be made up on the basis of proportional representation. I know this is an initial thought but I'd be interested to explore the idea. How would the 'reps' be identified – as per main pariliament (constituency basis) or as nominations from the parties (from some form of candidate next up list?) or other? What would you see as being their constitutional role? How would they support or compliment the 'top' house?
Thank you for your engagement.