Posted on 11/24/2004 11:44:16 AM PST by freeparella
While our voter turn out is pathetic compulsory voting is not the answer. What you'll get is the people that currently don't vote will either pick their cadidates randomly, or will still find ways to not vote (turn in a blank ballot, double vote everything, whatever). You're not going to change the percentage of voters that are actually engaged and bother to learn about the candidates or the issues.
How does it save money? If Madonna and Puffy Colmes (or whatever) want to waste their money encouraging people to vote, where's the loss?
Well, what's so bad about being lazy and apathetic if the alternative is voting for some idiot!
Anyone in favor of that couldn't pass.
We may not have every eligible voter voting, but we do have voters that vote more than once.
Voter turnout in the United States is not "pathetic," it was at an all-time high for the last presidential election. I don't want an idiot forced into the ballot box at penalty of law flipping a coin and negating my vote, thanks. That isn't freedom, it's silliness.
So, if you had to choose between Hitler and Himmler, who would you vote for?
Candidates in Australia don't need as much money to run because Australia is smaller. We cover 6 time zones in this country, reaching 280 million people spread across that distance isn't cheap whether they all have to vote or not. This article isa large collection of poor assumptions.
How is compulsory voting taking away a freedom? Being able to exercise the vote is part of freedom! We have a lot of things that are compulsory in the country that have no impact on our freedoms. It's compulsory that you be 16 before you get a license to drive, it's compulsory that you pay bills, any number of things that do not take away freedom. If voting were compulsory apathy would no longer be an option. It would mean more democracy and more freedom.
A little less than half of Americans voted for Kerry, so um, TOO LATE.
Only try that idea with Republicans in office.
People who aren't informed enough to make a choice, or aren't motivated enough to vote, should not vote! I don't want these people diluting the votes of other peoples. What good does it have us to force unmotivated, uninformed voters to the polls, it just adds noise to the result.
Plus it takes away the freedom not to vote! :)
I am in the top two percentile. If we use me as a standard would you pass?
...or just make it that the vote defaults to the Republican candidate!
(c;
Oh, heck no. I believe in the wisdom of the founders. We have an Electoral College partly because they didn't want stupid people, i.e., the ignorant masses voting on their own.
The gas chamber.
I have no patience with the stupid. Why should we change our laws and infringe on everyone's liberties in order to pander to the "feelings" of the stupid?
It seems under the compulsory system candidates pay more attention to everyone,
Fantasy. Our candidates pay too much attention TO "everyone" now, instead of talking about what they actually intend to DO to everyone after they get in.
and I feel if more people felt their needs were being addressed they would become more involved in the political process.
The only "need" of the people that is constitutionally appropriate for the federal government to address is security. Hell, my "needs" as a conservative haven't been addressed to my satisfaction, but I have never missed an election.
And yes, that does make me a better citizen and a better person than someone who sits home on election day nursing those vague "feelings" of futility and disenfranchisement that eventually become self-actualizing.
Fourth or fifth grade?
If we use me as a standard would you pass?
If we used you as the standard, the whole world would be geniuses.
I rest my case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.