what do you think?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Should voting be compulsery?

yes
1
20%
no
4
80%
 
Total votes : 5

Postby Neerowolf » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:07 pm

Exalted Ugu wrote:"I think that it's sort of fair, because they want everyone's opinion, but it's unfair because as humans we should have the right to keep our opinions to ourselves. "
Sort of, but it's not as simple as that. Certainly, you have the right not to be forced to delcare your opinion publicly, but this is why we have secret ballots. I think it is a simple duty of every eligible citizen to participate in the democratic process, I think that if more people voted, perhaps they would be more satisified with the people who get elected.

-ugu
First off, I was being vague by saying they wanted everyone's opinion, I was talking about votes, and secret ballots are included. It's not necessary for a public opinion if you don't want to. Also, it's not completely fair to be forced to vote for something. Alot of people are undecided and it's a hassle for them to vote. If someone doesn't want to vote, they are saying they accept the consequences of their actions, or inactions, you could say.

And second, people signing their posts with their handle kind of annoys me, to be honest. This has nothing to do with it, and I'm not holding it against you, it's just a small pet peeve. :oops: :lol
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Exalted Ugu » Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:19 am

"So I go back to my question, what could the goverment to do to encaurage people to want to vote?
1st missed poll: 30$ fine
2nd-5th missed poll: 50$ fine
6th missed poll: Automatic loss of citizenship, person can re-apply but must follow all tests/education processes required of immigrants. It's an idea.

"First off, I was being vague by saying they wanted everyone's opinion, I was talking about votes, and secret ballots are included. It's not necessary for a public opinion if you don't want to."

Unfortunately, voting is important, and has ramifications beyond the individual. If public apathy is so high that no-one votes in, for example, school board elections, highly committed special interest groups can (and have) stock the school board with their committed idealogues. This is less noticable in national elections, but still exists. I think that people should be obligated to vote in ALL elections they're legally able to. This would have a few positive benefits, not only would the will of the general public be better represented, but we would have less elected offices, i think, and thus we would see what areas of our government honestly NEED to be elected office.

"Also, it's not completely fair to be forced to vote for something. Alot of people are undecided and it's a hassle for them to vote."
If people cannot be bothered to make these decisions, perhaps they could simply surrender their citizenship, as they have already decided not to particpate in the single most important activity the citizen has.

"If someone doesn't want to vote, they are saying they accept the consequences of their actions, or inactions, you could say. "
But they do not. I know a few people who do not vote, and i don't know a single one who is entirely satisfied or unconcerned with the actions of the government. These are the people who complain and whine constantly on the radio and in the papers, and can't be bothered to stir themselves to actually try to make a difference. These are those who would be the main target of such laws.

"And second, people signing their posts with their handle kind of annoys me, to be honest. This has nothing to do with it, and I'm not holding it against you, it's just a small pet peeve."
Thats lovely, and i wish you well with it.
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby tsian » Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:41 am

Also worth noting is that municipal elections, which have arguably the highest noticeable impact on a citizen, garner the least turnout.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:42 am

But they do not. I know a few people who do not vote, and i don't know a single one who is entirely satisfied or unconcerned with the actions of the government. These are the people who complain and whine constantly on the radio and in the papers, and can't be bothered to stir themselves to actually try to make a difference. These are those who would be the main target of such laws.

these laws won't solve voter apathy, though. sure, you'll have higher voter turn out rates, but instead of having people make well informed votes, they'll be voting for the most recognizable name, the person whom their friends like, or whatever. ultimately, requiring that the silent majority make their voices be heard may be akin chosing public officials by russian roulette.

also, the silent majority may well not like anyone. the republican minority (atleast in comparison to the silent majority) are liable not to like the candidate who wins, nor is the democratic minority. it could well be a lose-lose situation for tose who care.

but that said, other ideas for election reform is that ballots be sent to people's homes an people mail ballots back, or that they be done online, or somethng. a receipt of some sort can be sent back to the person after they've voted, so they can correct their vote if a problem arises. further, there should be a "no candidate" option. that way, if someone truely doesn't like any of the candidates, they can sorta protest in a way that can't be confused with voter apathy.

If people cannot be bothered to make these decisions, perhaps they could simply surrender their citizenship, as they have already decided not to particpate in the single most important activity the citizen has.

if you're not a citizen of any country (as many of these people might well be, after the fact), what are you? an illegal alien? you can't deport them, so do you imprison them? or do you just let them reap all the benifits of citizenship - such as public transportation, police protection, etc - without paying any of the costs? revoking citizenship is an interesting idea - unfortunately, i think it presents more problems than it does answers.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Exalted Ugu » Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:14 am

"if you're not a citizen of any country (as many of these people might well be, after the fact), what are you? an illegal alien? you can't deport them, so do you imprison them? or do you just let them reap all the benifits of citizenship - such as public transportation, police protection, etc - without paying any of the costs? revoking citizenship is an interesting idea - unfortunately, i think it presents more problems than it does answers."

Permanent residents, both of our countries have them now, having more is not likely to hurt.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Previous

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron