Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4961532.stm
Why not force it on our own, obese, idle, uneducated citizens? After all we seem to feel comfortable in forcing democracy on many other nations in the world (political and militarily) Somehow, I think those that support such military actions fail to turn up to vote and want to 'protect' their right not to. Oxymoronic, idiotic, and patrionising, I know, but true nevertheless.
It'll be amusing to hear the same old excuses once again . . .
I think people should have to pass an exam before they are given the right to vote.
Yeah. That's not a bad idea in practive. But in principle . . . well . . .I just think we should crimimalise people who believe that they are 'not political' or 'don't understand' or 'can't be bothered' or 'don't like any of them' in short anyone who finds any excuse not to support the democratic process in which they live.
But as always it will be the same excuses; same IQ<80.
When I don't vote, it's simply because I don't have an opinion one way or the other. If I was forced to vote, it really wouldn't reflect how I felt about the situation and I think alot of people would agree.
Making it mandatory wouldn't reflect the voice of the people, but just prove the power of the press.
If you have an opinion then why not express it? Why not add your voice to eveyone's elses. A democracy is about representation. Sure, there is an argument against the British form of it - but you'll need to vote for the party who'll change that, won't you? What other complaints do you have? It doesn't reflect my opinion? A cop-out and nothing more. You and I both know that you lean toward one political side or the other . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
The answer is easy; it's not because you're stupid; it's not because you're ill-informed - it's because you're too damn lazy to put down that Big-Mac and walk to the polling station.
It is unfair to vote for any one candidate. You should vote for all of them. If it was upto me I would make it mandatory to vote for all candidates. That way we have no winners or losers. It's not winning that matters, but participating.
Maybe they should do an internet polling station, maybe that will get people to vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Sometimes... I seriously don't. When I look at the political parties, often I feel that the evils vs the good don't balance out. It's not my voice if I have to comprimise. And if I comprimise, I'm standing up for things I don't support.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Sure I lean towards one side more then the other... But I'm not a straight-line party voter.
And please... Let's be civil and leave my Big-Mac out of this.
yrwyddfa, he said he doesn't have an opinion either way.
Isn't the comments you ar emaking a generalisation and assuming that people should comply with your views and opinions. There is no obligation to vote and perhaps it would be wiser to see why the majority of the population are so disinterested with politics that they feel unenthusiastic about voting?
As for me, I vote (mostly to keep the conservatives out of power), but I am fed up with all the rubbish they keep throwing at each other to try and demonise the enemy. i couldn't care less about their private lives as long as it doesn't affect the quality of the work they are doing for the country.
security is the problem here though but I would definitely prefer to vote online as I could then do it if I'm away for the day on business/holidaysQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew G
Why should you vote if you don't know and don't care? That only cheapens the vote of those who do.
Side Note: I had a friend who was straight line republican. Whenever I wanted to piss him off, I would tell him that I was going to vote just to offset his. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Nothing pisses republicans off more then that...
Edit: I wasn't serious and I never actually did, FYI.
Just wondering what ever happened to him? :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I had a stroke and he was wiped away from my imagination.
Of course it's a massive generalisation, and I believe that all citizens should be obligated to vote by default. Can you present an argument where this should not be the default point-of-view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
*Raises hand*
I kind of already did...
:eek: So sorry to hear that, you must miss him alot then?
Also, Pena, not sure if you wanted to misspell on purpose to achieve an aim, but you misspelled 'funciton'.
Sorry must of missed it; I didn't see any sort of argument just a mismatch of excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
So you're telling me...Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Canidate 1: Supports a few things I agree with, but also wants the total eradication of kittens.
Canidate 2: Supports alot of things I don't agree with, but hey... The kittens get to live.
I should have to vote for one of these two people, no matter what?
(Just a note: I used the kitten analogy not to over exaggerate, but to avoid stating my point of views and possibly having the thread shift topics)
I think that there is not one person whose beliefs in their entirety agree with that of a current serving politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
We are, after all, simply people.
I think you should be made to vote. Furthermore - if you read the link I posted - there is a strong suggestion for voting for 'none-of-the-above' I can't see anything that you say counters that.
Apart from being too idle that is. Would you vote if you could express your dissatisfaction by effectively voting not to vote?
I think it's a rather good idea.
Wouldn't that just be the same as not voting in the first place? It seems hugely redundant to vote "not to vote."Quote:
Would you vote if you could express your dissatisfaction by effectively voting not to vote?
Voting is like the global warming issue... not doing anything can actually cause more damage.
Not voting at all is a message of apathy. Using your feet and your vote to declare that you're not happy with what's going is far from a voice of apathy; it's a positive remark to those in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Why do you resist so much? Are you not aware that everyone will eventually be assimilated and that resistance is futile?
Would you rather have a nation of apathetic non-voters with 3 or 4 interested and motivated people voting, or a nation of apathetic non-voters being forced to vote even though you know full well they're just going to pick the guy that gets his mug on telly the most?
BTW, we have compulsory voting here in Aus.
Do you also have the option of voting for 'none-of-the-above' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I would certailny agree with a "None of the above" vote as this can allow me to express my distaste of current politics. If the "None of the above" vote wins then the second highest count would be elected, but they would then know they have a population that doesn't like the current process.
At the moment however I can see how some people decide not to vote because essentially the politicians are only interested in money and power to further their own ambitions, not the country they serve.
no. You must list a minimum number of preferences.
It reminds me of when I worked as a waiter at a restaraunt. We used to have those comment cards at the front door that you can rate your service. NOT ONCE did anyone ever read them. For the most part, people knew they were horribly uneffective and would take it up with the manager instead. The people who didn't were extremely naive in thinking that marking a whole card "Extremely Dissatisfied" was going to change our perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
And on a further note, I am not apathetic when it comes to what I believe. I have protested things I am against and donated/volunteered to things that I'm for. I wouldn't volunteer my time to a cause I beleive if I knew they were killing kittens in the backroom... So why would I vote for a canidate who's killing kittens?