by making it compulsory you refuse to acknowledge that people who don't vote are making the political statement that they don't care and are entirely apathetic
i think there's a really elitist attitude that seems to portray anyone who doesn't vote as being clueless, lazy and likely to vote for jade goody. which i don't think is the case, they are just people who see absolutely no return from the government or any difference between the major parties.
by making voting compulsary you again place the fault for that apathy with teh people, when it should be place with the government and wider political system.
I think the differences between parties are big enough to make a decision on which would most benefit you - and if compulsory voting were to be introduced, parties would have to concentrate a lot more on designing policy for those 'apathetic' people - therefore they would have reason to vote.
Whenever I've spoken to people who haven't voted because of politcal reasons, when I've asked why they didn't go to spoil their ballot it's transpired that they couldn't be bothered. And I genuinely think you'll find that the majority of people are clueless and lazy.
should vote against it. and people who see no difference between the major parties simply are not looking hard enough. even if it's only negative voting to keep the tories / bnp out, it's still vital.
having said which, there are upsides to having only people who can be arsed voting.
to actually vote for a party. You can still spoil your ballot [or vote 'none of the above' in some places] which IMO, is a far better way of showing dissatisfaction than just not turning up.
that the governemt care more about apathy than spoilt ballots.
like i said, if you take the people not voting seriously and assume that they are utterly disillusioned then there is little difference to voting and spoiling the ballot paper.
except far more people don't vote and it's a far bigger issue.
Compulsory voting would also bring more incentive to vote - the people who don't know would be targetted more. Parties can currently afford to mostly overlook them at the moment. And the majority of people that don't vote aren't 'disillusioned' as such [well, obviously to some extent] - if you got them down to the polling station they'd probably be able to choose a candidate without too much difficulty, but I see voting as a civil duty not right anyway.
a totally ineffective one, and then you end up with a system like today where politicians can coast to power based on their party's hardcore base and not much else, while everyone sits around moaning about how "useless" politicians are.
the more people they have to convince round to their point of view, the more hard work they're going to put in.
To be honest, I don't think it's the best way to achieve participation.
However, making people vote, will mean that spoiled ballots, that are far more indicative of someone who is politically engaged but choosing noone, will be taken notice of.
Also, I'd hope it would raise awareness and education, and as Guntrip says, force the parties into making more of an effort.
It's not top of my priority list, a new electoral system is far far more important in increasing the validity of democracy in this country, and I think this in itself is a better solution to low turnouts and apathy.
The sad fact is, a lot of people who don't vote, do not choose to for a rational reason, such as the one that you are arguing, but instead just can't be bothered; and when we get to the point where a government is being elected by less than 30% of the population... I can't help but feel the majority are not being represented, and we're just settling for inadequate manifestos through apathy.
as well as national. has anyone noticed the success the bnp are predicting for themselves in this year's local elections? if you genuinely think there's nothing to choose between them and any other party then fair enough, that's your view, but personally my thinking is 'anyone but them' so i really think it's of paramount importance to vote this year.
with a "none of the above" option on the ballot, as I believe forcing people to choose between a limited range of candidates would be wrong.
On the other hand, with France as a recent example, how about politicians work to inspire the populace to CARE, and vote, so that the turnout is high, rather than resorting to making people HAVE to vote.
where every registered voter who does not vote, registers as a "keep things as they are" vote?
That way, if people aren't happy, they're further inspired to vote, but if they're happy and hence apathetic about the elections, they can just sit at home.
Everyone who doesn't vote, is a vote for the status quo. I'll go with that. The government should have passed that in 1997 when it had a large majority
entrenches the incumbent even more than the first past the post system already does, and sends a message to voters that the only reason to vote is if you're not happy. not, for instance, if you're fine but think things could be better.
Of making people care, as politicians have to work harder to target people outside of their traditional support, and more so, people outside of any party support. The more policies directed towards low income people - the more they care. It'd necessarily make politics more universal.
That's a stupid argument - there's moronic governments in a hell of a lot of countries. Look at countless other nations with compulsory voting, and they have perfectly good governments.
But regardless, you don't actually have to submit a vote for a party. Therefore, people can only have the issue with being made to go down to a polling station, which IS just laziness.
I have a problem with making people do things. It's a bit too close to a dictatorship. I think it's a civil duty not to throw litter, but I wouldn't advocate punishment for it
sadly they would be working harder for the sun and the mirror's agendas.
if everyone must vote sadly democracy would win and we would end up with idiots and racists dictating political balance. those wouold be the idiots and racists who don't vote now because they can't be bothered.
i agree that we need more people voting but if you are asking people to make a choice then you shouldn't force them into it.
that people will be able to work out which party would be better.
ONLY if parties keep to promises.
So we should demand in return
1) compulsary truth telling by politicians
2) compulsary full and frank explanations of why they do not follow a particular policy (if they do not follow their election manifestoes) (no weedling 'we never said that' nonsense
3) minimum attendance requirement of parliament to be set
4) their pay should be linked to performance (indicators will need to be decided....i have quite a few ideas)
i dont think i'll vote at the next general election because i honestly dont care which of the big two gets in power. neither of them appeal to me, and i think the lib dems are also pretty gash and dont stand a chance at all anyway, so why waste the time?
even if you want to write off the lib dems, there are massive differences between labour and tory. if you don't think so, you've basically been fooled by cameron.
Clearly the two things are linked. Its bad enough at the moment that politicians sell themselves on the back of knee jerk populist policies. If voting was compulsory that would be even worse, and we'd be back in the middle ages, with paedophiles hanging at the entrance to every town etc etc
yes...the point being that the general public shouldn't be encouraged to vote, because politicians tailor their policies to what the voters want, and I don't think that's a good thing, because most people are stupid bigots who really shouldn't have a say in how the country is run. I don't want more of them to vote.
We need a benevolent dictator who will band cars, make Britain self sufficient and so on...
I can't speak for the sun reading non voters you know, but I'm often surprised by people I've known for years when pushed for an opinion on certain subjects.
4) if there is compulsary voting then there should be proportional representation. If say labour 28% tory 23% libs 5% others 4% none of the aboves 40% .........then unless a coalition between labour and tories is formed then 'parliamentary reform' will considered to be the publics choice and a period of establishing what the publics exact will is, I would gladly head the 'temporary' parliamentary reform government. For a period of time we would introduce measures (public approval via compulsary vote, will be sought
(50% minimum needed) a working temporary co-alition by all parties will govern in the interim.
The performance (willingness or obstinancy) by mps of the various party during this difficult time will be recorded by the parliamentary reform group, who will make available to the public, how mps cooperated or otherwise with this dificult period of transition which is what the people actually want, this will mean that mps will be encouraged not to scupper change.
and I'm not even on the register. It is my democratic right to choose not to vote. If I am forced to do so we are no longer living in a democracy, unless there is a public referendum on it and the majority decide that I have to vote. But hey, we're talking about government here, wtf has the opinion of the majority of the populace got to do with anything after the votes are cast ? Pretty much nothing, the only time public opinion counts is when they decide who to vote for. After that their opinion is ignored and they're bullied until the next election comes around
i think i've voted 2 of the 3 times I've been able to (counting scottish and general elections only).
But if we were forced to vote, i'd definitely make a point of not doing so. either that or voting against the party that introduced such a stupid idea.
if there is compulsary voting
('non of the above' is a vote for reform)
Then I would also introduce compulsary truth telling sessions for Mps. Liars in parliament will be guiltier of a far greater crime than the equivalent 'contempt of court' they would be found guilty of 'contempt of their electorate' and punished.
I accept policy may change but as I said it is then necessary for full and frank explanation by the politicians as to why, with intelligent members of the public able to interrogate them (not just a single question like that 'Im here to protect all my panalists from the great unwashed' nonce dimbleby who only allows the public one question each......he really is a waste of space, question time gives the impression (to some) that we live in an open discussive society, when it is anything but.
We live in an opinion led society, mostly led by newspaper columnists.............................................here comes that name again..................the worst of whom (i think) is
Melanie Philips, opinion in columns, no responsibility, her only remit is to opine (intellectually, yet deludedly) one sidedly to provoke strong childish reactions.
Something must be done to prevent the power of childish newspapers, the problem being is most adults will not see how childish the newspapers are because they read them and agree with them (sometimes) most adults in this country are not equipped with being able to reassess themselves as being childish where before they thought of themselves as adult and serious.
This is a major problem when it comes to considering how parliament/voting should look.
The people themselves, have now all been flattered that they are 'witty' 'urbane', 'right' 'real' and politically sophisticated,
that they think they are politically sophisticated and informed,
They think cos they've heard a few soundbites and can remember some buzzwords they think that they can have a strong opinion (that should equal someone who has given it a lot more thought and is a lot more knowledgable) on something they barely know anything about, something they have never thought about, of course they are entitled to an opinion, but they scream that they are right even though all they have done is nodded in agreement to a melanie philips column (for instance) they will scream that they are right to someone who has thought long and hard about a difficult subject, someone who may have tried exploring differing viewpoints thouroughly and sincerely to genuinely consider what is the best.
They are prepared to shout down informed discussion, to say that it is their opinion and that it is just as worthy as another persons.........well yes it is.....if it is a truely considered opinion......if it is just flyaway and glib and just comforting then it is not as worthy.
Sometimes your opinions should come under strict scrutiney from your own conscience, sometimes considering ideas that you may find unpleasent abbout yourself.
In todays society we are allowed not to have consider this sort of 'deepness'
glibness and shallowness are not encouraged.
I often used to find that I could talk for hours on a subject that would at first be very hotly contended against by someone, when I attampt to discuss further with them they would often try to curtail it with 'for gods sake you do go on' or 'get a life' or words to that effect (looking at others as if to say ...whoi is this freak)
Well my point is that expressions like 'get a life' are increasingly common, sound bites are more prevelant.
Content of politicians pronouncements to the public seem to be led more by 'presentation' rather than content.
Even discussions seem to be only worthwhile if they can be 'won' by yourself......i would have thought that (like akido) it is good to be 'thrown and land well' as well as 'throw' .....surrely the idea of discussion is for everyone to advance, to progress everyones ideas, NOT to have winners and losers............still where is the moronic entertainment value if there is not competition?
I know I go on always and that it is boring for some people and sometimes inappropriate, but the fact that I want to do that shows I actually care about some things (im not suggesting others dont, in a discussion short succinct answers that do not dry up and do not merely repeat are just as indicative of caring)
(Sometinmes i write long glib posts just to keep up my trademark long windedness)
I think part of the political process is being able to organise your supporters to go out and support you and in general to engage the populace by discussing issues and presenting policies that matter
I don't think compulsory voting would make politicians work harder at all
can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but Mrs Judge and I agreed yesterday that compulsory voting would be a good idea as long as there was an option on the ballot to register the fact that you were not voting for anyone on the ballot.
I bet no-one at all has said that as yet. My idea am the greetest
i think so
i'm of the opinion that it would make politicians work a lot harder..
yes,
as long as people don't just do it to fulfil the requirement/sabotage the vote so we end up with Jade Goody as PM or something.
PS
morning Lucy!
If Jade Goody is the sign of a healthy democracy...
Well, yeah.
I found a tree by the river which is THE most perfect place for sitting and reading ever. I think I'm going to put a sign there or something.
you've got to admit,
that'd be pretty funny.
for about 5 minutes.
i guess i just like
fatalistc humour. i'd rather laugh in the face of a coming apocalypse than crap my pants..
yeah, I can relate.
I do still occasionally find Geroge Bush amusing, I suppose.
god no
Explain?
Just, since I stopped going to college my debates have been limited to "Well, why shouldn't I stack the teabags next to the coffee". It's kinda dull.
because
by making it compulsory you refuse to acknowledge that people who don't vote are making the political statement that they don't care and are entirely apathetic
i think there's a really elitist attitude that seems to portray anyone who doesn't vote as being clueless, lazy and likely to vote for jade goody. which i don't think is the case, they are just people who see absolutely no return from the government or any difference between the major parties.
by making voting compulsary you again place the fault for that apathy with teh people, when it should be place with the government and wider political system.
Re first point, see below
I think the differences between parties are big enough to make a decision on which would most benefit you - and if compulsory voting were to be introduced, parties would have to concentrate a lot more on designing policy for those 'apathetic' people - therefore they would have reason to vote.
But she's right about spoiling your ballot.
Whenever I've spoken to people who haven't voted because of politcal reasons, when I've asked why they didn't go to spoil their ballot it's transpired that they couldn't be bothered. And I genuinely think you'll find that the majority of people are clueless and lazy.
people who see absolutely no return from the government
should vote against it. and people who see no difference between the major parties simply are not looking hard enough. even if it's only negative voting to keep the tories / bnp out, it's still vital.
having said which, there are upsides to having only people who can be arsed voting.
Yep.
I'm all for it. Although, I think lowering the voting age to 16 might be more beneficial from the genuine voter-participation side of things.
how do you enforce it then
without it becoming intimidation?
refusing to vote has to be seen as a perfectly valid criticism of the political system.
Ah, but compulsory voting doesn't require you
to actually vote for a party. You can still spoil your ballot [or vote 'none of the above' in some places] which IMO, is a far better way of showing dissatisfaction than just not turning up.
except
that the governemt care more about apathy than spoilt ballots.
like i said, if you take the people not voting seriously and assume that they are utterly disillusioned then there is little difference to voting and spoiling the ballot paper.
except far more people don't vote and it's a far bigger issue.
compulsory voting
would reverse that though. They'd be able to distinguish between a spoilt ballot as a political act and apathy.
But as I said
Compulsory voting would also bring more incentive to vote - the people who don't know would be targetted more. Parties can currently afford to mostly overlook them at the moment. And the majority of people that don't vote aren't 'disillusioned' as such [well, obviously to some extent] - if you got them down to the polling station they'd probably be able to choose a candidate without too much difficulty, but I see voting as a civil duty not right anyway.
albeit
a totally ineffective one, and then you end up with a system like today where politicians can coast to power based on their party's hardcore base and not much else, while everyone sits around moaning about how "useless" politicians are.
the more people they have to convince round to their point of view, the more hard work they're going to put in.
Australia manage it.
To be honest, I don't think it's the best way to achieve participation.
However, making people vote, will mean that spoiled ballots, that are far more indicative of someone who is politically engaged but choosing noone, will be taken notice of.
Also, I'd hope it would raise awareness and education, and as Guntrip says, force the parties into making more of an effort.
It's not top of my priority list, a new electoral system is far far more important in increasing the validity of democracy in this country, and I think this in itself is a better solution to low turnouts and apathy.
The sad fact is, a lot of people who don't vote, do not choose to for a rational reason, such as the one that you are arguing, but instead just can't be bothered; and when we get to the point where a government is being elected by less than 30% of the population... I can't help but feel the majority are not being represented, and we're just settling for inadequate manifestos through apathy.
for local elections
as well as national. has anyone noticed the success the bnp are predicting for themselves in this year's local elections? if you genuinely think there's nothing to choose between them and any other party then fair enough, that's your view, but personally my thinking is 'anyone but them' so i really think it's of paramount importance to vote this year.
^^this
and not just this year, every year, to varying extents.
I think
it's the worst idea ever.
Only in conjunction
with a "none of the above" option on the ballot, as I believe forcing people to choose between a limited range of candidates would be wrong.
On the other hand, with France as a recent example, how about politicians work to inspire the populace to CARE, and vote, so that the turnout is high, rather than resorting to making people HAVE to vote.
I'm pretty
sure it was the failure of politicans that inspired the turn-out in France.
The we are having it good feeling inspires apathy
how about a system, then
where every registered voter who does not vote, registers as a "keep things as they are" vote?
That way, if people aren't happy, they're further inspired to vote, but if they're happy and hence apathetic about the elections, they can just sit at home.
Not even register
Everyone who doesn't vote, is a vote for the status quo. I'll go with that. The government should have passed that in 1997 when it had a large majority
I like this idea
might write to my MP
that's a horrible idea
entrenches the incumbent even more than the first past the post system already does, and sends a message to voters that the only reason to vote is if you're not happy. not, for instance, if you're fine but think things could be better.
How about an incentive,
like some sort of tax reduction of something?
But compulsory voting generally has the effect
Of making people care, as politicians have to work harder to target people outside of their traditional support, and more so, people outside of any party support. The more policies directed towards low income people - the more they care. It'd necessarily make politics more universal.
You cited
Australia. What happens when you force morons to votes is that they elect moronic governments
I didn't cite Australia at all!
That's a stupid argument - there's moronic governments in a hell of a lot of countries. Look at countless other nations with compulsory voting, and they have perfectly good governments.
The idea
of democracy is to give choice. I would feel uncomfortable with making people choose something that they didn't want
I consider it a civil duty
But regardless, you don't actually have to submit a vote for a party. Therefore, people can only have the issue with being made to go down to a polling station, which IS just laziness.
As I said
I have a problem with making people do things. It's a bit too close to a dictatorship. I think it's a civil duty not to throw litter, but I wouldn't advocate punishment for it
there already is punishment for it!
move to russia!
i would
and do.
littering is BAD.
i do have an issue with being made to go down to a polling station to register the fact that i dont
its a waste of time and energy which could be used in far more satisfying ways.
its like when people are all 'oh, i go and spoil my ballot paper as a form of protest'... its like, what? do you want a prize for wasting your time?
guntrip makes a good point that politicians would work harder (first reply)
sadly they would be working harder for the sun and the mirror's agendas.
if everyone must vote sadly democracy would win and we would end up with idiots and racists dictating political balance. those wouold be the idiots and racists who don't vote now because they can't be bothered.
i agree that we need more people voting but if you are asking people to make a choice then you shouldn't force them into it.
correct
complete waste of time and money
for governments and individuals.
If people cant be bothered voting they shouldnt have to. I'm not sure if I'm going to vote this time.
pocket mouse says
that people will be able to work out which party would be better.
ONLY if parties keep to promises.
So we should demand in return
1) compulsary truth telling by politicians
2) compulsary full and frank explanations of why they do not follow a particular policy (if they do not follow their election manifestoes) (no weedling 'we never said that' nonsense
3) minimum attendance requirement of parliament to be set
4) their pay should be linked to performance (indicators will need to be decided....i have quite a few ideas)
utterly gash idea.
you cant expect to force people to care.
i dont think i'll vote at the next general election because i honestly dont care which of the big two gets in power. neither of them appeal to me, and i think the lib dems are also pretty gash and dont stand a chance at all anyway, so why waste the time?
Would you vote
if you had the option to say that none of those three options appeals to you?
no.
what purpose would doing so serve?
bollocks!
even if you want to write off the lib dems, there are massive differences between labour and tory. if you don't think so, you've basically been fooled by cameron.
i never said they were identical.
there were massive differences between hitler and stalin. that doesnt mean id want to live under either of them.
it's all about the hitler in this case
you're white enough. see? you can choose!
well, for the record,
i would rather live under hitler than stalin. clearly, i wouldnt actively choose either of them though.
bf
Only a good idea if one of the options is 'none of the above'
bf
ps- democracy blows...if we really did what most people want, paediatricians would be banned...and foreigners...itd be shit
I want
an enlightened despotism
* enlightened despot
I mean
I'm not advocating making policies
based just on popular opinion though. Not at all.
Let the people
who know how to run countries run the countries. Leave us out of it
bf
Clearly the two things are linked. Its bad enough at the moment that politicians sell themselves on the back of knee jerk populist policies. If voting was compulsory that would be even worse, and we'd be back in the middle ages, with paedophiles hanging at the entrance to every town etc etc
Yes, that's exactly what compulsory voting would do....
Um...
bf
^This post is a classic 'I don't follow what someone is saying, so I'm gonna do a sarky and dismissive post'...
I'm surprised you have a problem understanding the point I made. Generally people on here aren't fucking dumbasses
Well you're charming
I think maybe I was taking your paedophile comment to literally?
bf
yes...the point being that the general public shouldn't be encouraged to vote, because politicians tailor their policies to what the voters want, and I don't think that's a good thing, because most people are stupid bigots who really shouldn't have a say in how the country is run. I don't want more of them to vote.
We need a benevolent dictator who will band cars, make Britain self sufficient and so on...
Most people I know who buy the sun / don't vote etc
Really aren't bigots.
bf
I can't speak for the sun reading non voters you know, but I'm often surprised by people I've known for years when pushed for an opinion on certain subjects.
bf
ie- surprised and horrified
most importantly
4) if there is compulsary voting then there should be proportional representation. If say labour 28% tory 23% libs 5% others 4% none of the aboves 40% .........then unless a coalition between labour and tories is formed then 'parliamentary reform' will considered to be the publics choice and a period of establishing what the publics exact will is, I would gladly head the 'temporary' parliamentary reform government. For a period of time we would introduce measures (public approval via compulsary vote, will be sought
(50% minimum needed) a working temporary co-alition by all parties will govern in the interim.
The performance (willingness or obstinancy) by mps of the various party during this difficult time will be recorded by the parliamentary reform group, who will make available to the public, how mps cooperated or otherwise with this dificult period of transition which is what the people actually want, this will mean that mps will be encouraged not to scupper change.
that's quite cool
need a party in who genuinely wanted parliament reformed, first off...
i could see PR leading to gridlock though..
having said that, it's definitely better than first past-the-post which makes any vote apart from for the main parties worthless.
We need some kind of proportional system. I'd like to see the single transferrable vote.
I've never voted
and I'm not even on the register. It is my democratic right to choose not to vote. If I am forced to do so we are no longer living in a democracy, unless there is a public referendum on it and the majority decide that I have to vote. But hey, we're talking about government here, wtf has the opinion of the majority of the populace got to do with anything after the votes are cast ? Pretty much nothing, the only time public opinion counts is when they decide who to vote for. After that their opinion is ignored and they're bullied until the next election comes around
absolutely
i think i've voted 2 of the 3 times I've been able to (counting scottish and general elections only).
But if we were forced to vote, i'd definitely make a point of not doing so. either that or voting against the party that introduced such a stupid idea.
dont worry cadd
my reforms have catered for you as well
if there is compulsary voting
('non of the above' is a vote for reform)
Then I would also introduce compulsary truth telling sessions for Mps. Liars in parliament will be guiltier of a far greater crime than the equivalent 'contempt of court' they would be found guilty of 'contempt of their electorate' and punished.
I accept policy may change but as I said it is then necessary for full and frank explanation by the politicians as to why, with intelligent members of the public able to interrogate them (not just a single question like that 'Im here to protect all my panalists from the great unwashed' nonce dimbleby who only allows the public one question each......he really is a waste of space, question time gives the impression (to some) that we live in an open discussive society, when it is anything but.
We live in an opinion led society, mostly led by newspaper columnists.............................................here comes that name again..................the worst of whom (i think) is
Melanie Philips, opinion in columns, no responsibility, her only remit is to opine (intellectually, yet deludedly) one sidedly to provoke strong childish reactions.
Something must be done to prevent the power of childish newspapers, the problem being is most adults will not see how childish the newspapers are because they read them and agree with them (sometimes) most adults in this country are not equipped with being able to reassess themselves as being childish where before they thought of themselves as adult and serious.
This is a major problem when it comes to considering how parliament/voting should look.
The people themselves, have now all been flattered that they are 'witty' 'urbane', 'right' 'real' and politically sophisticated,
It is this last aspect that is the biggest problem
that they think they are politically sophisticated and informed,
They think cos they've heard a few soundbites and can remember some buzzwords they think that they can have a strong opinion (that should equal someone who has given it a lot more thought and is a lot more knowledgable) on something they barely know anything about, something they have never thought about, of course they are entitled to an opinion, but they scream that they are right even though all they have done is nodded in agreement to a melanie philips column (for instance) they will scream that they are right to someone who has thought long and hard about a difficult subject, someone who may have tried exploring differing viewpoints thouroughly and sincerely to genuinely consider what is the best.
They are prepared to shout down informed discussion, to say that it is their opinion and that it is just as worthy as another persons.........well yes it is.....if it is a truely considered opinion......if it is just flyaway and glib and just comforting then it is not as worthy.
Sometimes your opinions should come under strict scrutiney from your own conscience, sometimes considering ideas that you may find unpleasent abbout yourself.
In todays society we are allowed not to have consider this sort of 'deepness'
glibness and shallowness are not encouraged.
I often used to find that I could talk for hours on a subject that would at first be very hotly contended against by someone, when I attampt to discuss further with them they would often try to curtail it with 'for gods sake you do go on' or 'get a life' or words to that effect (looking at others as if to say ...whoi is this freak)
Well my point is that expressions like 'get a life' are increasingly common, sound bites are more prevelant.
Content of politicians pronouncements to the public seem to be led more by 'presentation' rather than content.
Even discussions seem to be only worthwhile if they can be 'won' by yourself......i would have thought that (like akido) it is good to be 'thrown and land well' as well as 'throw' .....surrely the idea of discussion is for everyone to advance, to progress everyones ideas, NOT to have winners and losers............still where is the moronic entertainment value if there is not competition?
I know I go on always and that it is boring for some people and sometimes inappropriate, but the fact that I want to do that shows I actually care about some things (im not suggesting others dont, in a discussion short succinct answers that do not dry up and do not merely repeat are just as indicative of caring)
(Sometinmes i write long glib posts just to keep up my trademark long windedness)
bf
Good posts
don't make it compulsory
but, hold it on a sunday, and close everything except for essentials such as emergency services and a few food outlets(restaurants etc).
Then people can go vote together then have a day with the family because there will be fuck all else to do
probably wouldn't work, but it's a nice idea
that is a nice idea
this is essentially what happens in Sweden
that is a really good idea
i'd quite like it to be on a saturday though. because i usually get really drunk on saturday night, and i might be too hungover to vote on sunday.
I'm against compulsory voting
I think part of the political process is being able to organise your supporters to go out and support you and in general to engage the populace by discussing issues and presenting policies that matter
I don't think compulsory voting would make politicians work harder at all
No.
see: Australia
I
can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but Mrs Judge and I agreed yesterday that compulsory voting would be a good idea as long as there was an option on the ballot to register the fact that you were not voting for anyone on the ballot.
I bet no-one at all has said that as yet. My idea am the greetest
Ha!
Mrs Judge. Mrs Bastard_cat, I mean
I remember discussing this with you
to disastrous effect on my old forum.
Really, really, no
Bad
if there are few parties it gives fals support figures.
In a totally consensus situation, fine, but no such situation exists.