- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 1,373
- Location
- Here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.
Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.
Higher voter turnout is a positive thing, but not if it's coerced; that's rather missing the point that higher voter turnout is a good thing because of increased political engagement by the citizenry.
Inherent to every right is its opposite; if you have the right to vote, you have the right to not vote.
I know it seems to work well for many countries, but forced voting is the antithesis of what America stands for, and in all probability would be eventually adjudicated as unconstitutional. To get a higher turnout of eligible voters, we should do away will delegates, and go with a one-person, one-vote method so that a vote in a state with a large population is not worth a fraction of a vote from a person from and state with smaller populations, and the candidate who receives the highest number of popular votes actually, you know, wins.
The national vote should take place on April 16th each year
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?
It's based on Congressional representation, which is (mostly) based on state population.
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?
But the number of delegates per voter is a fraction of the delegates per voter of a state like Ohio. This is done so that lower populace states have "more of a say" in choosing the president, so it takes considerably more voters in California, New York, and Texas to earn a single delegate than it does in states with lower populations. It's also the reason that a candidate can, and has, won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote.
I'm pretty sure you already know this, lol.
No for the simple reason that a non-vote IS a vote...against the candidates placed on the ballot.
Why should people be forced to pick from a list of candidates selected for them by established political parties? Especially when we see in both the Democrats and GOP how the machines determine who runs, not us?
Selecting from the lesser of two evils (or weevils) in a pretense at a mandate.
I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.
Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.
Compulsory voting...what a ridiculous idea.
What are you going to do...have police/the military physically force people into polling booths? Arrest them and throw them in jail if they don't vote?
Pass.
I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.
Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.
It's based on Congressional representation, which is (mostly) based on state population.
And yes, Cali has 35 electoral votes to 3 for Alaska, for example, but Cali also has 39 million people and Alaska has less than 800,000. Smaller states are very overrepresented in the EC.
It doesn't come to that in Australia. As I understand it, a fine or community service is levied if a person doesn't vote.
I want fewer people voting, lets put up some good roadblocks so that only the people who are determined can do it.
Agreed. A modest fee should be charged for voting, say $10. People tend only to value what they pay for.
More generally, a large proportion of people are 'not interested in politics', meaning that they have very little knowledge of how their country is governed. These are the people who are most likely to be swayed by tendentious claims. The fewer of them that vote the better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?