What price do we put on the vote?

What price do we put on the vote?

Unfortunately, Google does not appear to be able to answer this question therefore it seems reasonable to put it up for debate.

I put the question to Simon Israel of Channel 4 News, and he responded that he thought it was like asking: 'What price do we put on life'?

I disagree with Simon, because it appears that life is cheap. For example, take the case of the ex-Labour Party Peer, Lord Ahmed. He was texting on his mobile phone when he crashed into another car killing the other driver, Mr Gombar. Remarkably, he was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving, but instead with the lesser offence of driving dangerously. Just as remarkably: "The judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said that the text messages had not contributed to the fatal collision". Am I missing something here? Driving, texting, not paying attention to the road ahead, crashes into a already crashed car, kills the other driver, establishing a causal link, and yet not blameworthy? Who do we blame, the Romans for building the road? Lord Ahmed is given a 12 weeks prison sentence, he will only serve 6 weeks in an open prison. "Lord Ahmed was also banned from driving for one year and ordered to pay £500 in costs. Outside court, Mr Gombar's family expressed dismay with the sentence. "We are not happy," said his cousin, David Cicak. "He could be out in six weeks. That's nothing." Speaking about Mr Gombar, he added: "He's left behind two small kids with only their mother". To add insult to injury: "Lord Ahmed's solicitor, Steve Smith, said his client had been used as a scapegoat and he would appeal against the sentence". Link

I am reminded of "He died that we might live". It's a sacrifical price. By the same token, I served 25 years for taking another life, so that the likes of Lord Ahmed can get off almost scott free, with only 6 weeks loss of liberty, banned from driving for 12 months, and £500 to a rich man like him, he won't even miss it!

Therefore, depending upon who you are and what influence you can wield politically, life can be dismissed relatively cheaply. It does not bode well, then, when trying to place a value on the human rtight to the franchise. I suspect that it will also depend upon one's status within society, when the question is asked: 'What price do we put on the vote?'.

There is a reason behind the question.

On 4 June 2009, the European Election of Members of the European Parliament take place in the UK. As it stands, 60,000+ citizens of the European Union will be denied their right to exercise the franchise.

Who cares?

"The turnout is an increasingly big issue for some, with some noting that in the UK, 11 million voted in the 1999 European elections while 23 million voted on the Big Brother TV show in 2002".
Link

It's a sad reflection that more people care about a single, stupid, ex-Big Brother "celebrity" about to kick the bucket, than they do about 60,000+ prisoners being denied their human right to vote.

Apologies to Google, I rephrased my question and specifically asked: "damages awarded for denial of the vote in an election by a court?", and was rewarded with the following answer: "The District Court then made its findings, awarding between $500 and $2,000 to each of seven plaintiffs".
Link

If we base the exchange rate at $2 = £1, at the bottom end it is £250 per prisoner = £15,000,000 and at the top end that's £1,000 per prisoner = £60,000,000.

And that is just for the loss of the right to vote in the European Election. To that should be added damages for the loss in the General Election, the total needs to be doubled.

I wonder if people who pay their taxes might just get a tad upset and start to care about the cost of burying their heads in the sand?