Many Western countries have relatively poor voter turnout even in general elections. Britain’s is usually around 50%. If the scheme encourages people to vote even if not for themselves then it is a good thing as they are participating and are more involved in democracy.

Give your vote says “We think we can do better than a world where politicians from the most powerful countries decide for everyone else. The UK makes decisions about climate change, migration, poverty and war that directly affect millions around the world. There is no democratic means for those outside the UK to have a say in how these decisions are made. Giving your vote is an act of solidarity with those who do not have a say in the decisions that affect them.” It is obvious that it is the biggest and most powerful countries, that are often also among the richest that have most say on almost every issue. As a member of the UN security council the UK has a much bigger say than its small population would suggest it should have.

This seems to imply that the electors of Britain and other countries are powerful because the governments they elect are powerful. However this is not the case. Due to a first past the post system in the UK almost all votes are pretty much wasted votes and the few swapped votes are unlikely to make any difference. In the unlikely event that give your vote manages to stack votes in marginal seats then it becomes extremely unfair towards the British people as the election is decided by only about 8000 swing voters in marginal seats if give your vote had those 8000 then essentially the British government would have been decided by people from outside Britain and not by the British people which would be a complete warping of democracy.

Another point to consider would be if such a changed government due to these swapped votes would even achieve the intended effects of having such countries voice their views. To what extent would the new government from these votes act in favour of these countries in global affairs? The first priority of a government is to its own citizens and as such, one should question how effective such a measure would be or if it would only serve as a one-time skewering of polls which might turn out adversely for the UK citizens.

In some constituencies in some countries. The population is made of a high number of immigrants who daily contribute their quota to the development of the community and are equally affected by the situation of the community as such it is necessary to allow them a say and stake in decisions that would ultimately affect their wellbeing.

Obviously, if it is "constituency", the population is most likely already citizens. In regarding to governance, those who are of dire importance to the government's support and the nation's economy and sovereignty are most likely to be already citizens. On a gradient of the least involvement to the most involvement, a government of a nation would grant citizenship to those who are involved and whom they are concerned in their policies. Those who work in the country, but aren't granted citizenship are exactly because either their contributions, needs or harms could be recognized, granted or mitigated by other forms without citizenship. So they will not have a right to vote.

As long as you work in another country, it is right for you to have a say. But why should this be inclusive of the right to vote, when their rights and responsibilites in the status quo already face differential treatment from the citizen of that nation?

This argument completely ignores, or denies, the existence of a global power imbalance. However, certain governments, Great Britain among them, have far more of impact on the global stage than others. This the underlying principle behind the scheme.A swap would not suffice, because the power of a single British vote over the day to day realities of Bangledesh, Ghana, Afghanistan and the world is higher

The specific examples you provide are a bit confusing and not based in reality. The presence of Bangledesh immigrants in the UK, does not contradict the fact that individuals in Bangledesh are effected by the actions of the British government. Yes, Britain played(s) a large role in the war in Afghanistan and has/will have a large impact on the future of the country. I'm pretty sure the Afghanistan government doesn't get to make decisions about the future structure of the British government.

The Briton who casts a vote for a Bangladeshi, Ghanan or Afghan is not getting anything back. Instead the people who are being given a vote in the UK election should then have to give their vote in their own election to the Briton. While the Briton may well not be affected too much by events in these third world countries he or she can be affected. There is a large Bangladeshi community in Britain so they may also be affected by events back home or have relatives who are affected. The effect of Afghanistan on Britain is mostly tied up with the effect of lost lives in the military and to a much lesser extent NGOs. Equally Afghanistan is costing the taxpayers’ money and the whole reason we are there is because of the potential effect of terrorism. Ghana in West Africa has very little obvious effect on Britain however Ghana and the rest of West Africa is rapidly becoming a hub of the drugs trade that comes into Britain. If the vote was a swap then most people would agree that it is voting in their own election that matters, not voting in some far away country that in reality has little impact on them. Without advocating equality of voting on both sides this campaign is simply advocating that countries like Britain play less of a role in the world, yes Britain does some bad things but it does also do some good in areas such as aid.

No matter whether they were intending to vote in the election or not voting for someone else disenfranchises the people casting the vote in the UK. Even though they have agreed that this should be done the vote does not necessarily reflect their preference so they are not getting to use their vote how they would have done given the choice. While they may not have voted themselves that would have been their choice (although in some countries it is compulsory.) voting for someone else is against the spirit of democracy where each elector should have a vote for who they want in power rather than for who someone else wants. Although the effect is different allowing others to essentially cast your vote seems to be similar to bussing people in to a constituency from outside so that they can vote there.

There are 6.7 billion people in the world and only 61 million in Britain so there is never going to be a chance for everyone to vote. Even if you are only counting Ghana, Bangladesh and Afghanistan their combined population comes to 211 million. Either way there are not enough British voters to give up their votes making the system unfair on those who cannot get a vote. At the same time there is no way of ensuring that these proxy votes are spread around Britain so that they affect everywhere the same way.

Moreover, if we were to consider only those who are well informed and educated enough to make an informed choice from these specific countries, your numbers would then be far too low to make any difference on the effect of the polls.

Because UK elections, along with almost all others in the democratic world are by secret ballot, there is no way of knowing that the person contacted to vote a certain way actually did so. And this is the whole point of having the ballot secret as it means that there is much less chance for corruption or forcing someone to vote a certain way. If there is no way of knowing how someone voted how is success to be measured?

There is no way of knowing that people in Britain are using their votes in "an informed and educated manner" so it does not really matter if people from Ghana, Afghanistan of Bangladesh are being as ignorant as the british electorate!

If there wasn't enough meddling already. Now foreigners will/do vote for locals? This horrible in terms of a country's sovereignty, vested interests etc.

Imposing British values on countries with equally valid values of their own by snatching their right to choose their leaders; is undemocratic,imposing and unacceptable.

Moreover, how sure can you be that the votes being used by these citizens from Ghana, Afghanistan etc are used in an informed and educated manner? The chances of these votes being squandered are far too high given how majority of the citizens in these countries would not be able to know the system and the problems of the different parties well enough to make an informed decision that would be favorable to them.

This is however a way of encouraging people to vote. Most of the people who give up their vote will probably be young voters however it is possible that voting and being involved will encourage them to vote again in future.

It would be better to find ways of encoraging the British population who throw away their vote every time by not registering and not voting to take part, I believe the face of British politics would be very different if everyone voted, that would give us an accurate picture of how we feel about our government. In order to achieve that I think a 'None of the above' option would have to be included on all ballot papers allowing an effective 'vote of no confidence' in the parties available. How the government would react to an election result where no party was given a majority, as for example 50% or greater of the population voted for 'no one' leaving them unable to form a democratic and elected government I am not sure!

I am not totally opposing the idea of allowing permanent residents to vote in the foreign country whose citizenship they don't (yet) have. But other than that, foreginers know too little about the culture and needs of a nation to get the right to cast their votes. Voting mechanisms are not perfect, why make them even less representative. Rather get the politicians measure what foreigners think -easier now thanks to ICT development- and then take decisions that affect foreigners when they are informed about their consequences. Moreover, people who have not been living in their country of origin for decades should have limitations on their voting rights, since they are too remote from the country's reality and thus have less legitimacy to decide. Also, it is highly unlikely that the decisions taken by the nonresidents will be beneficial for the residents who are directly affected. Even the best suggestions can backfire if the basic structure of the society they are being implemented in and the people's response towards it aren't considered.Also, in the modern world, people would rather make their own mistakes than take orders from others and let decisions affecting them be taken by others.