Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm curious to know what everybody thinks about this, I've been doing some research on it for a debate.
    Personally I think voting is a right and not an obligation, if you want a say in who is running your country go and vote, if you don't then don't. It seems that the major problem is apathy and somehow people think that making people vote will somehow solve this problem.

    Anyways thoughts and comments appreciated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roxy potter)
    I'm curious to know what everybody thinks about this, I've been doing some research on it for a debate.
    Personally I think voting is a right and not an obligation, if you want a say in who is running your country go and vote, if you don't then don't. It seems that the major problem is apathy and somehow people think that making people vote will somehow solve this problem.

    Anyways thoughts and comments appreciated.
    It's fine if you live in a dictatorship.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    compulsory voting is a terrible idea: you can't force people to become interested in something if they don't want to and all it's likely to do it end up with a high proportion of spoiled ballots.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Comrades love to vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No. There is the the issue of whether it's right to force people to vote at all, but also the practical issue that not all parties can field candidates in all constituencies, or want to. Imagine a hard line conservative having to choose between lib, lab, green and respect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    God no.

    The only way we get reasonably sensible government is by stopping the lowest of the low from voting by making it far too confusing for them to understand.

    Voter apathy is a good thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lib North)
    God no.

    The only way we get reasonably sensible government is by stopping the lowest of the low from voting by making it far too confusing for them to understand.

    Voter apathy is a good thing.
    LOL
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Lib North)
    God no.

    The only way we get reasonably sensible government is by stopping the lowest of the low from voting by making it far too confusing for them to understand.

    Voter apathy is a good thing.
    Then have the compulsory voting and add 'Oooo a poll option'. Those you talk about will hopefully see that option, go straight for it and not affect the outcome, yet actually get out off their arses once in a while.....

    ...I' be interested to see just how many people would chose that option in real elections...hehehe
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    Then have the compulsory voting and add 'Oooo a poll option'. Those you talk about will hopefully see that option, go straight for it and not affect the outcome, yet actually get out off their arses once in a while.....

    ...I' be interested to see just how many people would chose that option in real elections...hehehe
    I suggest we swerve past the illusion of political participation and simply force fat people to participate in an early morning jiggle-run for our amusement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What do you think about religious objections to voting?



    (Didn't half of those who voted for Galloway book their place in hell? )
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Galloway is a legend. I'd vote for him.

    Unless he was running against Boris Johnston or Prescott.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by The_Bear)
    Galloway is a legend. I'd vote for him.

    Unless he was running against Boris Johnston or Prescott.
    I'd be tempeted to vote Tory if that was the only other option for voting against George Galloway. He ain't a legend. He's a fool:mad:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    FORCING people to vote would destroy the idea of living in a democracy!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I support the idea of having "none of the above" in a ballot.

    I wonder if we'd get no government if enough people voted for that option...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't agree with FORCING people to vote, but why not make the entire system postal to avoid ballot boxes getting lost etc, and send every voter their ballot papers at home. I think that would improve turnout, as although there would be no obligation to vote, it removes the 'can't be bothered to go to the polling station' factor and makes it more convenient.

    Wouldn't it be cool if 'none of the above' won the election? That actually happened at my uni in the union elections because of the activities of the candidates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salgueira)
    I wouldn't agree with FORCING people to vote, but why not make the entire system postal to avoid ballot boxes getting lost etc, and send every voter their ballot papers at home. I think that would improve turnout, as although there would be no obligation to vote, it removes the 'can't be bothered to go to the polling station' factor and makes it more convenient.
    They did that in several areas for the 2004 local and european elections as a trial. Numerous election fraud cases later (including a judge describing Birmingham's council elections as ones that would disgrace a banana republic), we're being investigated by the Council of Europe for human rights violations because the widespread fraud deprived people of their right to equal suffrage. Ooops.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    I wonder if we'd get no government if enough people voted for that option...
    The more probable outcome is that the candidate who is an actual person gets elected, whereas the opinion of those who care for no candidate wouldn't matter. Which is exactly the system we have now, except no one has to drag their ass all the way to the polling station to register their apathy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrism)
    They did that in several areas for the 2004 local and european elections as a trial. Numerous election fraud cases later (including a judge describing Birmingham's council elections as ones that would disgrace a banana republic), we're being investigated by the Council of Europe for human rights violations because the widespread fraud deprived people of their right to equal
    suffrage. Ooops.
    Plus if you can't be bothered to walk to the polling station, you don't really deserve to vote in my opinion.

    And there's no way of ensuring a secret ballot without little private booths and a village constable on hand.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Voting should not be compulsory. There are enough thick people out there who can vote. It's bad enough that our politics is somewhat flawed, but to allow these thick people to join in and give a mandate is just crossing the line.

    Only people who want to vote should vote.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely if voting is compulsory then the government doesn't have a mandate because people were forced.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.