rob green is wrong to say that "massve majorities" are formed by parties which only get 30% - 40% of the turnout.

there may be individual close fights where the winner gets 40% of the turnout, but in most cases the winner gets a majority of the turnout. The Turnout may be appalling - but the winner gets the majority.

Frank Keegan, Alderley Edge,

With a "first past the post" system it is rare indeed if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.

This leads to the absurd situation in Parliament of massive majorities for parties which only gain the support of 30 - 40 % of the turnout.

So the vast majority of citizens are ruled for the next 4/5 years by an unassailable minority who ride roughshod over the views of everyone else.

So why bother to vote when , in our "democracy" , it matters not what the majority think?

Rob Green, Braintree, Essex

In countries such as Australia in which voting is compulsory protest agains this compulsion is registered by the 'donkey vote' in which the voter simple votes for candidates in alphabetical order. Mitch, of Wolverhampton, I'll bet you wouldn't like to be held to every promise you have ever made.

Dectora, London, UK

Mr Finkelsein, you have trodden in a cowpat.

1. Does the electoral registration system cross check with the Council Tax register.
2. Alter the Council Tax Register so that everyone in registered at the property over the voting age 18, becomes liable for Council Tax. (Hang on, thats a Poll Tax). Been there, done that,
3. Promise to pay my Council Tax if I vote.

Now we're talking.

michael murphy, brightlingsea, england

Indeed...but by not taking part in the political process, you have no justifiable reason for commenting on the outcome.

paulo, london,

Abstention is emasculated because the power elite in and around parliament won't recognise it as the 'sign of angry disillusion with the political choices on offer' that it is. So we need to vote. Let us do this as we wish and we surely will!

Let us vote AGAINST.

Add another column to the ballot paper, maybe on the other side and in red. Put your same single cross in this, opposite the candidate you most detest, and you decrease his or her total directly. This would tell politicians, unequivocally and undeniably, what we think of them, what the net support is for their megalomania.

I realise you think I'm too harsh, that pols are decent, likeable people who wish us well. The pre-WW2 biographies of Adolf Hitler agree that he was a pleasant person to know socially, a selfless chap - there has never been an accusation of sleaze or corruption - who truly wanted the best for Germany and Austria.

If I'm wrong, none of the scumbags ever tell me how. Because they can't?

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

I would have voted if the OMRLP had ever put up a candidate in my constituency.

But seriously, I think you can make turnout work to improve things. Arrange for parties to be allocated a number of seats according to their proportion of the potential total vote, not of the number actually cast. Thus, for example, at the moment we would have somewhat under 400 MPs. The trick is that you still require an absolute majority of all 600+ seats in the chamber to pass legislation.

This just seems to make it harder to enact laws. But in such a chamber, minimising the number of seats held by your opponents no longer helps you - you actually have to maximise the number of seats you hold. Parties which engage in negative campaigning will be naturally punished; parties which engage with the public and actually dare to explain what they intend to do (unlike the current Opposition) will be naturally rewarded.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

As someone with an unhealthy interest in politics, and therefore an in depth knowledge, I am already upset that my vote is worth no more than the that of the most ignorant person in the land. At present, that person probably doesn't vote. However, a free doughnut could make all the difference.

Serf, London,

Absolutely right. Measures like this are like using plasters to fight a cancer, they do nothing to address the underlying reasons why turnout is low and seek to hide the huge disillusionment with the current political system with cheap tricks.

Alex, London,

the best way to increase turnout would be to make voting compulsory. and, of course, there would have to be a "none of the above" option.

it is everyone's duty to make the point as clearly as possible that the options we have at the moment are all pathetically inadequate. if no party were able to draw enough support, they would all have to rejig their manifestos and their methods until they could get popular support (and by that I don't mean 25%).

as things stand, it's just a gravy train for useless jerks who care more about their political careers that about actual politics, with most of them safe in the knowledge that they are more or less untouchable as it is not possible to register a complaint properly for most people as the only choice is to vote for some other untrustworthy idiot.

no vote, no benefits would probably do the trick. at the moment, I could claim no tax without representation. because I certainly don't have any representation.

jem, london, uk

Elections are like the X-factor - someone chooses a song for a singer of their choosing and then the hoi-poloi are invited to reflect upon the choice of others. The only difference being that all votes are equal on the X-factor - winners don't depend upon callers from 'marginals'.
The wise person chooses their own music to dance to.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

It's the stale political choices on offer, but it's as well the fact that the stale elected politicians aren't engaging with communities. I've been canvassing the last two local elections, as well as the 2005 national election, for one of the "minor" parties, and people regularly say, "you're the first person to have canvassed my street in 20 years."

Scott Redding, Coventry,

Presumably the lottery prize would be funded out of taxation. Talk about bribing the electorate with their own money.

Redcliffe, London,

Of course it's rational not to vote. Abstaining is a valid statement. If one is asked to choose between being kicked up the backside or punched in the mouth, a general declinature seems rational to me. And of course one can complain of the consequences of the result. However, whether one has the right to complain or not, complaining won't do any good.

David , Bromley,

The cliche "non voters have no right to complain later" is an exact reversal of facts. The right to vote is derived from the right to freedom of expression, not the other way round.

Patrick Rioux, Frankfurt, Germany

We should ban parties from local elections. Local party managers are forever scavenging the membership lists for any old rubbish willing to fill the posts the parties have on offer to be councillors, school governors etc. The result is that these jobs are done by third raters whose wisdom derives from no more than propping up the tory or labour club bar for 20 years. Getting rid of the tribes of morons who will fetch up to vote for any old chimp wearing the right coloured rosette would improve democracy and local services immensely.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Why stop with the " none of the above option "? Why not include another one listed as " other " - - - - - - -?
That way you could vote for your preferred candidate without them having to nominate. So your local member could turn out to be Jeremy Clarkson or somebody. With non-preferential, non-compulsory voting and many people voting " none of the above " you wouldn't need many to get the nod.

James , Canberra, Australia.

Australia has compulsory voting for both Federal and State elections, which I think is anti-democratic. Those who don't vote are liable to be fined unless they have reasons which are considered to be good and sufficient - and that doesn't include in-principle opposition to compulsion. On many occasions, I've known that my vote wouldn't affect the outcome and/or have had no respect for any of the candidates (having been an economic adviser to many governments), and have written "no compulsory voting" rather than choose a candidate. A vote which doesn't select a candidate in accordance with the rules is called "informal". Typically about 6 per cent of votes are "informal". Victory margins in the recent election were as low as six votes, several were in the low hundreds, the informals were far greater than the margin.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

You omit one other reason people do not vote: the purpose of voting is to give legitimacy to a democratic (in some sense) legislature and government. That legitimacy depends upon votes, and if turnout is low, then the legitimacy is less.

Of course it makes no difference to the actual policy outcomes compared to a spoiled ballot, but any government elected with the support of only a very small proportion of the population is a government already aware that it is in difficulty.

Thus, if one does not approve of any of the parties and their policies (very easy at the moment, as the Tories have still not moved to genuine small government ideas), abstaining is a method of weakening a government in the hope of another election.

John Scott, London,

Politicians will tell the electorate anything to get voted in for another term - to them, it means a few more years on the 'gravy train'. Of course, once they're voted in they couldn't give two hoots about the manifesto or the electorate; they'll worry about that when then next election is comes around!

Until all manifestos are legal and binding (with timescales in months not years) there is no point in voting and that's why I along with millions of others don't bother.

These mp's are voted in on promises that they never keep:
Here's one example (amongst many)- The promises of a referendum on europe (reneged by mr brown).

jez, stafford,

I totally agree with Helen of Cambridge.
Both in the local council election and the last general I went and cast my vote.
Only I put NON OF THESE straight across my voting slip. Just like apparentley many did in Scotland. Perhaps when the NON OF THESE start to add up to significant numbers as they have to be recorded as spoilt papers. We might just start to get MP's we can trust to take on issues that might not always be politically correct.
Once in power they quickly turn their backs on their constituants on national issues, only to tow the party line.
I too would like to see some kind of performance table to see if MP's are value for money that they cost the taxed, taxed, taxed and did I mention taxpayer. Perhaps Apes are a better bet as Neil comments. That way we still would not be heard, but it would only cost us Bananas.
Watching parliament on TV these days does nothing to inspire me to vote for any chimps party.

Mike, Adlington,

If you cross more than one option on your ballot papers you spoil your vote and you succeed in doing a "none of the above" option. Thus you show that you are not apathetic but that simply none of the candidates impress you.

Iain, UK,

I'll be turning up to vote and spoiling it by drawing a giant penis on my paper. This may get counted as a vote for Brown, but I will take the chance!

Compulsory voting would not work, or at least be even less fair, as people would just turn up, strike the first box and go. Some people actually don't give a crap. Its hard for Times readers to comprehend, but if you were forced to vote on X Factor, would you put rational thought into your decision? No - And thats the feeling a lot of non-voters who don't care would feel.

Jamie, Halifax, West Yorkshire

Voter apathy is a concern because it refelcts a sense that the voter makes no credible contribution to anything in politics. POlitics has changed from being the business of concerned amateurs to a highly polished bid for control and power, with power concentrated in the hands of the media and professional politicians and lobbyists. New Labour has always said it is better to have power and no principles, or to put power - getting ti and keeping it - before principles. Voters are simply being manipulated time and again, and in time people see through it, or become exhauted trying to fight against it, and think well what is the point.

And as one of those in the media it is not suprising that our columnist isn´t so worried, as he has his own much more powerful way of influencing political life in our country.

ijak, Cheltenham, Glos

i care loads and am not content like many others but didn't vote because my seat is stitched up safe labour. Even if it were not I would have to vote for one of 3 similar parties as they would be the only challengers and otherwise it wouldn't affect the outcome as a smaller party eg the greens would never win. Proportional representation would save all of that as nobody wud have a useless vote and everybody could vote for the party they most liked and unless it was realy obscure it might get a single seat. As a conservative candidate with an eye to a seat at king davids' round table in the future of course you will toe-the-line. i think that the laws we are accountable to we should decide. As it happend we really cannot rule ourselves but just pick one of the three ruling elites who are remarkably similar on so many issues and can remain aloof of the public because they know that can keep the sytem that most favours them for as long as they want to as only they can change it.

Douglas, London,

I think we need to introduce a "kill" option whereby voters have the choice to vote to have one or all of the candidates executed. Obviously, we would only carry out this necessary ablution if more than 50% of voters selected that option but it would be salutary and would have provided us with a wonderful eugenic tool which could only improve our society. We would definitely be better off if our current crop of MPs was taken out into a field and disposed of.

Eric, London,

Indeed.
At 45 years of age I've voted just once, and that was tactical for that wacky Transcendental Meditation party who would never have got into power.

People moan and hand-wring that this demonstrates intellectual emptiness and apathy, but in my case its the complete opposite.

Multiple university degrees and a PGCE teacher does not make me either ignorant or apathetic. It makes me tired and disgusted with the nonsense discourse conducted like Coronation Street or East Enders, the same old themes repeated over and over again like religous dogma.

Actually, not even that - it makes me uninterested.

Joe, Manchester,

The reason people don't turn out to vote is because there is nobody they want to vote for. Democracy in our country has been a joke for years now, with New Labour and Conservative for all intents and purposes identical and the Lib Dems constantly trashed by the corporate media.

How to get people to vote? Put up some candidates with policies they agree with. Or, alternately, allow us to vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Voland, Caen, France

All MPs pay should be linked to the proportion of the electorate that votes. If they all vote, MPs collect 100%, and so on down to possibly zero. Wouldn't that be fun?

David Hardy, Zürich,

I think you are right. I don t think the voting position affects the way that we are governed, only who happens to be given the task. I feel sure the reason why large numbers of people don t vote is because they don t see their lives being differentiated by a change in government. And they must be right in that regard if they don t notice the difference. I vote because it is the thing to do, a feature of the environment, not because I think it will make any difference to my life which party is in government. Pat, Notts, has summed it.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Offering lottery tickets will skew the electorate to include more people who are interested in low-level gambling. People who disagree with gambling may end up not voting, which is not necessarily a good thing. If you offer an incentive you have to think what sort of people you will attract. The election results might turn out completely differently depending on whether the free incentive is chocolate, petrol, beer, book tokens, football tickets, theatre tickets or train tickets.

Tina, South Wales, UK

If you link a vote to a lottery you are likely to offend numbers of devout Muslims as well as others whose ethical principles are opposed to gambling. It's hardly likely to encourage those sectors of society to vote.

James, Hong Kong, China

Let the Non-voters keep up their non voting. Once we are under the opressive rule of the imperial beurocratic government: we can blame them for all our troubles.

Neil, Dover,

'Voting should be compulsory'. Hmmm, very democratic.

Ewan , sherborne, dorset

The goverment goes for these measures because it is their supporters are the least likely to vote. That is all there is to it. All the rest is mere spin.

R Mason, London, UK

Until we have electoral reform we will always have unrepresentative politicians representing us, and disillusionment with politics. We were promised reform when Labour was in opposition but we have seen little since they were returned to power.

Both main parties know they can be returned with large majorities enabling them to do what they like, unaccountable until the next election, and without a true mandate. It appears that is just the way they like it – after all Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

A Non Voter, Reading,

The concept of a trade-off of a duty for a privelege may be slightly more agreeable than making voting compulsory. I think it is Greece that requires an individual to vote to be eligible to renew their drivers licence - the turnout rate is in the high 90's.

Sue, San Antonio, USA Texas

Voting should be compulsory BUT ONLY if we have a "none of the above" box to tick.

James , London, UK

I agree with all you said apart from your seeming hostility to reducing the "cost" of voting (e-democracy etc). You gave no logical reason why this should be opposed. A disillusioned voter isn't going to cast his ballot regardless of how easy it is - because they just don't care.

As long as the vote is still secure - a very important caveat as you mentioned - it is quite clear that all of us would only benefit from a reduced cost of voting. If not, why not go to the opposite extreme and make it exceedingly hard to vote?

Kaveh, London,

No point in turning out in our constituency. If the Tories fielded an ape (some say they have already done this) it would be elected - and with well under 50 per cent of the votes cast. Is that democracy?

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

Your view must sound like music to donars. How much easier it will be to get their wishes through!

Why not turn the idea around about paying voters to instead pay political parties for each vote they get?
Result could be a lot more interest for politicians to listen to the public!

Peter Darlington, Southampton,

I would also like to see an option for 'none of the above'. This would clarify those abstaining for principle versus those who can't be bothered. Although it may be rational to weigh the cost of my vote influencing the outcome against the cost of getting to the polling station or registering for a postal vote, in the absence of perfect knowledge of how many others are so disillusioned that they will also vote for none of the above, it would surely always be worth having my view recorded. You never know, we may encourage more independent candidates to stand subsequently for the representation of a majority who feel currently unrepresented.

Helen, Cambridge,

We need a tick box 'none of the above'. More people are fed up with the increasingly poor quality of candidates and the party whip system where the person does not represent the constituency voters but represent the party line.

If we do not turn up to vote politicians conveniently absolve themselves of responsibility and ascribe this to apathy. We need to provide clearer feedback.

Dave Cartright, Birmingham, UK

Well said JMcKay - my view exactly

Roy, Hampshire, England

Excuses for laziness!

You people are responsible for the sorry state of affairs and have no right to complain as you have got the useless Government that you didn't vote for

The answer is to vote OUT every sitting politician by choosing you local INDEPENDENT candidate. Its not perfect but it will send a powerful message to the gravy train of command

billyb, Cardiff , Wales

How terribly Downsian of you!

Anyway, I enjoyed the article. Speaking on a personal basis, I really couldn't give two hoots if someone in my constituency decides not to vote, because as you rightly point out, it merely increases the proportional basis of my vote having an effect. Besides, the people who generally choose not to turn out are nearly always floating, centrist voters - and so their votes are likely to have less of an effect on the result in any case.

However, in terms of the vibrancy of the democratic system, I think voting should be made compulsory. Why? So that people can effectively protest against the feeble range of policy choices on offer. If half of the population does not want to vote for any of the main parties (by spoiling the ballot), then that ought to send a clear signal of the need for parties to change and become more responsive to the preferences of the electorate. That can only be a good thing.

Holly, Birmingham,

Tom Williams is right, we need "none of the above" on the ballots. It gives us the option of demonstrating that we are not apathetic, as we have bothered to turn out, but that we are not satisfied by any of the available candidates.
I'm sure this would increase turnout, although it might send an unwelcome message, particularly at the Local Council level...

Stu, London,

With all due respect I think you have missed the point.People only vote if there is a chance their vote will count and if they have a choice.This is something which is very difficult to see in todays British political culture.Take the last election.Nu labour won a sixty seat majority with only 22% of the electorate voting for them.So 78% of electorate have no say for the following five years.Also,in asystem which favours two parties, how is it going to be possible for a minor party to break through?In truth of course there are not really two parties since we all know that they stand for almost totally the same ideas and policies.Voting for one or the other may change faces but it will not change the course or direction.In fact we live in a one party state.Its just that this party has three wings.I call it the PC party.It not only controls the three main so called parties but also most of the medias output.See BBC and so on.Give us a choice and you would be amazed.That can never happen.

Pat, Notts,

The commenters have, of course, the right to their views. However and if they do not vote, one needs to ask, "Do they have the right to complain at the result and consequences of the next election?"

James, maybe you would like to let us know what you would replace the present system with?

It is not an ideal world and our politician's have a habit of stretching the truth, to the point of outright lying. However and until there is an alternative system, which is viable, I feel that we are obliged to vote. One should remember that not voting is, in itself, a vote. It is a vote for the strongest party in one's area.

Marc, St. Barthelemy,

Why vote for people who break their promises without even blinking?

mitch, Wolverhampton, England

For the first time in my adult life I will not be voting in the next General Election, because I don't think there are worthwhile choices. The only thing that could tempt me is an addtional box on the voting slip - "none of the above" - with the returning officers declaring the counts for this box.

Tom Williams, Oxford,

Oh James of Norwich how can you even think such things?? I don't suppose you have a contact number for any of Guy Fawkes' descendants do you?

Graham, Pattaya, Thailand

The level of deceit , dishonesty and self interest seen in
local and central government is not something that I
wish to encourage. I at least have the satisfaction of
knowing that I play no part in it.

JMckay, Wellington,

Turnout is most dangerous for the political class. If it is low, and getting lower (as seems probable), then their raison d'etre becomes even more questionable. The expenses, perks, self-esteem and right to dictate will become harder to justify. With luck, the increasing numbers of 'stay at homes' will result in the demise of the whole corrupt pantomime of politicians.

To vote is to give licence to those who would exploit us whilst despising us and our wishes.

James, Norwich, UK