Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by yazzer, May 3, 2007.
If people don't care enough to vote, then it's unlikely that they know enough to vote.
They do, you know; they do.
voting 'not equals' democracy
I think it should be the opposite, you should have to pass a test to vote. Not a simple task of ticking a box and slipping in the paper, but make it an exam, make sure people who are voting actually know the policies of not just their preferred candidate, but the opposition as well.
I think anyone who is standing for election should be made to take a lie detector test.
Then you'd just have to look out for the power hungry politician who has their name changed to "None of the Above." Although the concept does have some merit, and if "none of the above" were to get the highest vote count, all the parties could select a replacement candidate and try again. The voters might fare better as the parties would have to pay more attention to the desires of the general population than that of their contributors to get their candidate elected. Simple majority rule most often leaves the country divided, so just requiring a win by a super majority might even be desirable if the intent was to bring the country together.
I believe the opposite. There should be more stringent rules on who's allowed to vote.
there is the right to vote, and the right not to participate in democracy. so, no.
I'd vote(when I'm 18, of course) if there were more than 2 parties to choose from. (yes, I'm aware of the green party and all of the other mini-parties, but republicans and democrats are the only two mainstream parties). So, no. We shouldn't be forced to vote for only 2 choices.
If you mean a test, that would put 90% of the Tea Party out of the game.
I think it should be obvious why many people refrain from voting, when a candidate appears on the ballot that they can relate to, their numbers usually increase.
No way. If there is no valid option, which there usualy is not, than a person should in no way be forced to pick between the invalids.
I voted no because there was no other option. If voting actually counted and there was always the option to vote for noone instead of the lesser of two evils it wouldn't be that bad
Better yet, require everyone who has attained voting age to register so that a more accurate count of possible voters could be obtained, and then require that a candidate must win with greater than 50% of that count. The idea is to produce at least one candidate that could appeal to voters enough for them to get out and vote.
Not filling out a ballot should be considered a vote for neither candidate and simplify the counting by elimination of blank ballots. Or would mandatory voting require one to make a selection from one of the undesirable choices as well? Another solution could be to provide a payment to cover the time and expense of traveling to and from the voting location. That would likely produce a much greater turnout than any other means.
But you have argued for a system where people with wealth should have extra voting power so that it can counter the votes of the majority.
A system where the popular will (for example a caudate the mass of voters could relate to) could always be blocked by a few with the greater voting power.
If anything that to me is likely to make voter more despondent and less likely to vote.
Perhaps in another thread?
Try keeping responses relative to the context of comments I've made in this thread.
Not to mention 98% of the Liberals.
What has another thread got to do with it – you still argued for such a system, so isn’t that what you think?
It is relative to the comments you’ve made here and elsewhere, you said here that you thought people would vote when they had a candidate they could relate to, I’m just pointing out that in the system you have proposed a popular candidate that had the support of a majority of people could be blocked by a few that you’d give greater voting rights to.
The question is "Should voting be mandatory?" not what kind of voting system should be implemented.
The same could be accomplished by various means of voter fraud, but that's not what the question asked.
But that is the point - you said
As if to argue that mandatory voting wouldn’t be necessary if people had candidates they could relate to that people didn’t vote out of despondency.
But I was just pointing out that having a system like the one you would want where a popular candidate who had the support of a majority of people could be blocked by a few that you’d give greater voting rights to would seem to me to only increase voter despondency.
Well one of the arguments put forward for mandatory voting is that it strengthens democracy, but can that argument be put forward when an undemocratic system like the one you would implement was in place?
Separate names with a comma.