So, you're one of the 42% of people in the UK
who don't intend to vote in this year's general election.
*blows raspberry*
Fair enough, maybe you're less than 18 years old,
in which case, your time will come.
Or maybe, you're in prison.
Or maybe, you're the Queen.
If you're the Queen, it's your parliament, and you're not allowed to vote.
That still leaves a whopping 13 million people
who are eligible to vote, but have said they're not going to.
The press call it "voter apathy", but that term implies that non-voters are lazy people
who would rather stay in bed than walk five minutes to the polling station.
The truth is even sadder.
A lot of people are informed, passionate, and clued up,
but have chosen, for their own reasons, not to join in.
What legitimate, decent, well thought out reasons could they possibly have?
(♫ ♫ ♫)
It's fun to fantasise and imagine that your one vote
could tip the balance and change the result of a general election.
Realistically, of course, that never happens, except one time in 1910
when Henry Duke, Baron Merrivale won the seat of Exeter by a margin of one.
Much more likely, you live in a constituency that's nowhere near as marginal as that,
and it's pretty obvious who's going to win.
We have a far from perfect "first past the post" process for picking future politicians,
and it can feel like it's f***ing pointless.
This is especially true if you like one of the smaller parties best.
And that brings us to reason number 1 why people don't vote:
Ok, fine, fine. Maybe you can't change who your MP is going to be.
But, you can change their behaviour.
How...?
The way parties behave in government is down to far more than just the election results.
It's down to the election details.
The morning after the General Election, all the stats of how many voters voted for who, and where,
are there to be seen on the internet, and the party leaders are watching very carefully.
Every vote for a small party is a vote taken away from one of the big ones,
and the big ones will do everything they can to try to win you back.
Don't believe me? Just look at the Green Party.
Before the recent surge of support for the Greens,
Labour had no intention of renationalising the rail network,
but afterwards, they did. Where do you suppose they got that idea?
It's the same for purple, patriotic, pound pushing, potty mouths UKIP.
The more votes anti-immigration party UKIP get,
the more Labour and the Tories move immigration up the agenda.
Well done UKIP voters(!)
Perhaps it's not the smallness of your party that's stopping you from voting - perhaps it's the opposite.
Could it be you're not voting because:
Well, it seems really obvious, but what if everyone thought the same as you?
Let's say everyone in your constituency thought your MP was really safe and there was no need to vote.
Think that can't happen?
It's exactly what happened in 1997, to government minister Michael Portillo
in 1997, when he famously lost his so-called "safe seat".
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Also, there's a big difference between winning by miles and winning by a hair's breadth.
If your MP gets a thumping majority, they'll be more confident about their convictions,
and, presumably, if you like them, that's what you want.
On the other hand, if they just scrape in,
they'll be forced to compromise and pander to voters who never liked them in the first place.
So you see? First Past the Post is far from perfect,
but there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
That's so important, I'll say it again:
There is no such thing as a wasted vote.
Maybe it's not the counting system that's putting you off.
Maybe, and I'm sorry to say this is the most popular reason of all,
your reason is:
For many people, after reading all the manifestos and watching all the party political broadcasts,
and browsing all the party websites, and enduring all the TV debates,
they've decided that not a single one of the parties speaks to them,
and they don't unhate the least worst one enough to give them a tactical vote.
If this is you, rather than remove your voice completely,
why not do something that's more productive and more fun?
You can vote "None of the above".
In some countries, that's actually a box you can tick,
but in Britain, you do this by spoiling your ballot.
The rules of the ballot box are strict.
You put an "X", and nothing else, to make sure that there's no chance of error or fraud.
If you put a tick, or colour the box in,
or rank the candidates out of ten, or correct the spelling of the candidates' names,
or put your own name and vote for yourself,
or put your own name and vote for someone else,
or write the lyrics to the Stonecutters song from The Simpsons,
that's called a "spoilt ballot", and it won't be valid. But it will be counted.
Politicians will see the "None of the Above" votes, and they're much more likely to try and win you over
and much more likely to fix the system if you've bothered to go out and vote.
Spoiling your ballot is an absolute worst case scenario, last, last, last, last resort,
but it's so much better than not voting at all.
It's totally understandable why people think there's no point in voting,
but if you do go out and vote, there's one thing that you're absolutely guaranteed.
When you and your friends are bitterly complaining the country's being piddled up the doo-wop
by a prime minister you hate and a party you can't stand,
you can at least take solace in the ability to smugly shrug and say, "Well, it wasn't our fault."