Yeah. They could. But it seems the popular goal is to get people to vote for some strange reason.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
What I am try to say is that government could make it so ppl don't have to vote if they don't want to.
Printable View
Yeah. They could. But it seems the popular goal is to get people to vote for some strange reason.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
What I am try to say is that government could make it so ppl don't have to vote if they don't want to.
You can't tar all protests with the violent brush, it just simply insn't the case. Put yourself in the shoes of the black slaves and then what are you gonna do? Sit at home and let the government of the day continue on it's merry way?Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
If that's a goal, then why do these people smear themselves by attacking police, pissing off everybody who's not at the protest (by blocking city streets - remember that stoopid cylce protest through thhe city and over the bridge some months back?)
So we have a couple of stupid protests.... big deal, but don't cut the larynx out of society's throat.
The politicians no matter who you vote for the still do a bad job.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Yeah. They could. But it seems the popular goal is to get people to vote for some strange reason.
How so? On what grounds do you state this? Prove it.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
The politicians no matter who you vote for the still do a bad job.
I dare you.
OK, maybe my comments are too broad. I'll paint every one of these anti-WTO protests like that though. Since they started, they have been violent to some degree. The attacking police thing is my main problem. That's low. People who do that deserve a whooping.Quote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
You can't tar all protests with the violent brush, it just simply insn't the case. Put yourself in the shoes of the black slaves and then what are you gonna do? Sit at home and let the government of the day continue on it's merry way?
So we have a couple of stupid protests.... big deal, but don't cut the larynx out of society's throat.
And I'll definately put that stupid cycle protest thing in the 'wrong way to achieve your goal dumbarse' basket. I reckon a good many of those people who work in the city would prefer a public transport option if one existed, so why they **** would you want to alienate them completely?? :confused:
You can't decide for people who they are going to vote for.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
How so? On what grounds do you state this? Prove it.
I dare you.
How do you know they the person who won is going to keep their election promise? You don't. Most of Australia I think has labor governments while the fed is Lib.
Interesting 'proof'...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Interesting 'proof'...
Compulsory voting which forces everyone to vote and takes the decision away from the individual as to whether they want to vote or not. You shouldn't penalize people for choosing not to vote.
I'm all for using incentives.... I still think the Infomercial or live appearance by John Edwards might work with the masses, or how about having voting boths for men and women.... you could have strip shows for the men and makeup stalls like in David Jones for the women and get the large department stores to put them on for free, while the men will be happy to tip the gorgeous girls.
:D
I reckon in Australia, if voting was optional, we'd get about 5% turnout. And 4 of that 5% would be the people who hand out leaflets on 'how to vote'. :D
:D
It is prolly closer to 60% not that that's a bad thing mind you, cause those that miss out prolly are too stupid to make a sensible vote :)
Fines for failing to vote ... in this country, at least, would be nothing but lining the pockets of corrupt politicians.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
So you get fined if you don't vote? I don't think that will go over well with my teacher. He's way too liberal.
John - I get you point. But I simply have no other alternative. I guess I'm aiming for a C+ with this paper. I just don't want to do it. It's the fifth we've had to do this year.
I just don't care anymore.
Hobo - just an observation from far too many years dealing with tax 'incentives'. And one your teacher would likely point out.
As far as forced voting ... far too many would be intentionally voting for whoever they thought would be the worst candidate - just for revenge. (People here are quick to shoot themselves in the foot over just this sort of thing.)
For us, probably the best incentive for voter turnout would be true election reform. This isn't going to happen any time soon, so...
Exactly:DQuote:
You shouldn't penalize people for choosing not to vote.
Where did I say I wanted to decide who they were going to vote for? And how are you proving anything?Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
You can't decide for people who they are going to vote for.
How do you know they the person who won is going to keep their election promise? You don't. Most of Australia I think has labor governments while the fed is Lib.
Yeah. You have no way to know if they're going to keep they're promise. But every politician nows that if they don't keep their promises, it's bye bye next election.
That's the game. You boot them out if they don't perform.