- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,825
- Reaction score
- 12,194
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Eh, they've got it easier, what with the natural moat and all...Do you let illegals vote ? Sorry could not help it !!!!
Eh, they've got it easier, what with the natural moat and all...Do you let illegals vote ? Sorry could not help it !!!!
Eh, they've got it easier, what with the natural moat and all...
Having said that, boy am I ever against this. Just the thought about how they can even enforce this would be Orwellian to a frightening level.
I am personally in favour of it for two reasons: firstly, participation in the political process fosters a greater sense of community and secondly, voting outcomes are made more legitimate by every member of a community participating in the decision.
As long as "none of the above" is mandated for every ballot I'm on board.
You don't have to actually mark you ballot when you vote.
I still want none of the above on my ballot.
Jerry done wrote "if "non of the above" got the majority vote, then the election starts all over will all new candidates."
That sounds like a real productive plan. !! vote followed by revote !!
I remember in Brazil voting was (is) mandatory. When you vote, you get a receipt of sorts that verifies you voted. This receipt is like a piece of gold. You can't open a bank account, register a business, apply to post-secondary, and many other things without that receipt.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. Voter apathy is growing in modern democracies, rendering them less effective. For instance, in Canada's last Federal election, 40% of the country didn't vote. That means that the politicians in Parliament are only representing 60% of the total country.
On the other hand... forcing people to vote means they might not make an informed choice. They'll vote just because they have to, instead of feeling that it's their civic duty.
I think I could be in favor of it. By forcing people to vote, it could make more people become politically aware.
That may be the case Down Under, but it would be quite different here. We are already highly divided as a nation, and having everyone required to vote would make it worse. My reasoning behind this is that most who don't vote here aren't very informed and they just lumber along like the good little sheep they are. Otoh, if the uninformed who just coast through life start voting, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting back to some form of fiscal sanity.
Hey, does Brazil still have the alluminum coins for money ?
What amazes me is that not only did this actually get a thread, it actually got a mention in the news.
This is a town board. Taking a non-binding vote. To express an opinion.
That said, while the bulk of the U.S. continues to use electronic voting systems that can be remotely (and easily) hacked, all a measure like this would do is serve to further legitimize our illegitimate election process.
How many times have we heard, in countries where the election system was corrupt as all get out, that virtually everybody eligible to vote turned out to do so?
Republicans would never go for this. Republicans only win elections by hoping for small turnouts. The more people registering and the more people voting is disaster for the GOP.
I'd vote more if "non of the above" were an option.
For example, if "non of the above" got the majority vote, then the election starts all over will all new candidates.
Sounds good to me. Too often we are stuck voting between a crappy Democrat and a crappy Republican. If the solution is keep voting until someone decent gets elected, so be it.
Some states have runoff elections now, requiring that the winner get at least 50% of the vote, and if nobody does, the top two face each other again. That's almost the same thing.
Almost. But in the end what do you end up with? The same two crappy people you had when you first voted.
It's like having Bush, Kerry and several candidates from small parties on the ballot. You vote and no one gets 50%, so they drop the small parties and we are left with what? Bush and Kerry. Which is clearly what any person with a brain simply does not want.
Put None of the Above and if that wins we get new candidates.
I know this is not practical, so there is no need to bother pointing it out! But a cyborg can dream, right?
Not necesssarily. It allows more than two to have a shot.
Let's not get judgmental.
Ah, so instead of a Democrat and a Republican, you get...another Democrat and another Republican.
What's that solve?
Actually, it only ensures two get a shot! Everyone else is gone after the first vote.
No... you can always not mark your ballot.We are going to force you to pick one of two bad parties so we can reaffirm the idea that the two party system is working!
1: Nothnig in the law stops this nowI'm fine with this only as long as hey change the voting system to allow multiple parties to get voted into office, such as IRV. Otherwise, mandatory voting does nothing but mandate either Democrats or Republicans get elected.
No... you can always not mark your ballot.
In other news, proposals for voter death panels are moving through the legislature.