donkey Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Have to disagree there (not about the wars), but certainly it is the apathy of the majority regarding the environment that means nothing useful is being done to stop the distruction. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how voting to spoil ballots is going to bother the politicians. People are forced to turn out in Australia, and they've got troops in Iraq against the people's wishes as well. So where's the evidence it will make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Apologies for administering the kick of life to a seven-years-dead topic, but I did try to make a new topic and was sent here! We are having an election in Australia in 2 days. Present betting is on the Liberal-National Coalition (like Conservatives) wiping the floor with the Labor (that's right, Labor) Party. Prime Minister tipped to lose his seat, and lots of MPs clearing their offices. Now with compulsory voting, we'll all go down there. The Party faithful will vote as they always have, and the swing voters will probably drop Labor in the manure. But, without compulsion, how many of those who want to see Labor out would realise that it's going to happen anyway, let's go to the beach instead. Labor sympathisers see they have to nake an effort, so go and vote. Result, in percentage of electorate terms: Labor 30% LNP 20% ("we didn't need to bother") so Labor in office for another 3 years. Instead, we'll probably get Labor 35% LNP 60% and an LNP landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 It should be compulsory only if there's a 'none of the above' box to tick. More inportant I think is why this form of democracy isn't working, and what can be done about it. Ordinary people's wishes are no longer represented in parliament. ---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 14:11 ---------- 'None of the above' is a really good idea. I heard from someone over there that in the US should 'none of the above' ever win an election, then all the other candidates are barred for life from public office. I heard that 'none of the above' came second in Pittsburgh. Nuf said. Trouble is 'None of the above' is not really a vote, more a protest. We need to get more people in politics who deserve our vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 This is a democracy not a dictatorship so there should be no "compulsion" to vote. I would support a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper. Yes to both of those points. ...because that way the party running the country should then be representative of the whole voting population Will people be forced to study the issues at stake so that the politically ignorant can vote "responsibly"? How will this be done? What happens to those who don't vote? Fines? Imprisonment? Is voting a civic right rather than a civic duty? Jehovah's Witnesses and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. LINK Can of worms anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 It should be compulsory only if there's a 'none of the above' box to tick.. I've said that for a long time. Also if RON (for Re Open Nominations) wins, then all the other candidates should lose thier deposits for being terminally boring and worthless.... ---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 14:24 ---------- Present betting is on the Liberal-National Coalition (like Conservatives) wiping the floor with the Labor (that's right, Labor) Party. Prime Minister tipped to lose his seat, and lots of MPs clearing their offices.. Rudd's about to get his backside handed to him? How much of that is the fallout from Gillard leaving then do you think - I've not been floowing the news on this very much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 it just wouldnt work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 This is a democracy not a dictatorship so there should be no "compulsion" to vote. I would support a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper. Compulsory voting would make a mockery of the secret ballot, unless you took the horse to the trough and forced it to drink. Forcing folk to vote would just increase online voting and get a bigger share of the vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 very definitely NO. Taking away the right to abstain is an appalling idea. And compelling human beings to turn up at a polling station and abstain there, is also appalling. it is however rather encouraging that despite all the various measures suggested to change the electoral system in these past years, this one has been discussed very little. It appears that nearly everyone has realised what a bad idea it actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I would accept changing the day from some time in May to a summer evening in July on a Saturday so as many people as possible vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I would accept changing the day from some time in May to a summer evening in July on a Saturday so as many people as possible vote. that has got to be the dumbest post ever. July is one of the last months to have elections. Far too many people are on holiday, although it is not as bad, as August. UK elections are limited to February through to June (minus Easter) and then October and then, just maybe, November. even September is not normally thought of as being an especially good month. The kids might be back but it is still the student vacation time. all the other months - December, January, July and August are all total no-nos. really the best months are between April and June. Which is when each election has taken place since October 1974. had Heseltine won the Tory leadership contest in November 1990, he reckoned he would have called a snap election in January 1991, which would have turned heads. He thought he needed a head of steam to get his honeymoon into momentum but didn't want to leave it too long until February when the climate starts improving with the economy being in a mess. He feared the bounce he would have undoubtedly got, might have worn off by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.