Originally posted by sh76 I think we can all agree that the right to vote is a key element in any democracy.
But should we really be encouraging people to vote or should we merely allow them to do so if they want to?
Stephen Dubner, in a recent Freakonomics podcast, took the position that an individual voting is invariably a waste of time and resources. He said that people vote on ...[text shortened]... something that will almost certainly have no effect on anything.
Anyone agree or disagree?
I didn't vote in the last election for exactly the same reason as Dubner.
Originally posted by telerion I didn't vote in the last election for exactly the same reason as Dubner.
Thank you for not diluting my vote. Like Dubner, my opinion is that people who do not vote because they think their voting is less important than the time and gas involved, should not be encouraged to vote. Only those who are committed enough to be well informed, and who think it is worth the time and gas, should be encouraged to vote.
Originally posted by sh76 I think we can all agree that the right to vote is a key element in any democracy.
But should we really be encouraging people to vote or should we merely allow them to do so if they want to?.......
Anyone agree or disagree?
I heartily disagree. People should be compelled to vote by any means necessary that will ensure universal participation. It is the only way to ensure that the political discourse sits firmly in the middle of a given societies character.
Originally posted by kmax87 I heartily disagree. People should be compelled to vote by any means necessary that will ensure universal participation. It is the only way to ensure that the political discourse sits firmly in the middle of a given societies character.
If compelling people to vote somehow convinced them to become informed citizens, I would agree with you on doing something like the Australia system. But I would have to see the results of studies to overcome some of the arguments against it such as at:
I do not see why democracy should be forced on us. I think that if we do not wan't to (or feel we don't have the time to) get involved in the whole process of government making, then we should have the option to abstain. I understand there being some monetary compensation for those wishing to run the government - with elected officials being paid to work and possibly even voters getting a small compensation for their time.
we should not encourage people to vote i think the people who want to vote are people that have a keen interest in the parties vying for election i dont want somebody to vote just for the fun of it i want someone to cast their vote with the integrity and honesty of the elected official that gains his or hers vote
What I want to see is more systems or processes whereby ordinary people can get more involved in local decisions on an ongoing bases - and where they are encouraged to know what is going on, why it is going on, and have some input into where it will go next.
Originally posted by JS357 If compelling people to vote somehow convinced them to become informed citizens, I would agree with you on doing something like the Australia system. But I would have to see the results of studies to overcome some of the arguments against it such as at:
Kmax' post was some flame bait that didn't quite haul em in the way he'd hoped, while he is a 'not so closeted attila' I doubt there is anyone this side of a lunatic assylum that believes:
"People should be compelled to vote by any means necessary that will ensure universal participation."
Marched at the point of a gun? While the Aussie system is wrong it hasn't quite reached the "by any means necessary" level, and we already had a poster here at RHP volunteer to pay all fines of those that chose not to vote as the fine is negligible.
A binding constitution that so constrains the power of the pollies so that their highest level decision might be what colour to paint the Whitehouse this year. Then if enough people get upset about the latest shade of Vladimir Red let them vote another party in...if they feel like it.
to vote in a "democracy" is to have a group of people in a room or in a plaza vote a yea or nay by voice vote ( a mob vote, polite or uproarious ).
a republic ( not the french republics but rather cromwell's republic and the amerian republic before the 19th amendment ) is a vote for learned men ( of age and property ) who assemble to vote as "representatives" with a lower house for popular issues and a higher house for wisdom...
...almost all of you who play here have neither the classical education, reading history, knowledge of government, etc., to understand what i have said...most of you live off television, watch soccer ( what a stupid sport ), don't go to church, have mothers who aborted your siblings and vote socialist...
...for the few who might be led to understand...i print this ( until a socialist mod deletes it for political reasons but claims it was for some other reason )...
Originally posted by reinfeld to vote in a "democracy" is to have a group of people in a room or in a plaza vote a yea or nay by voice vote ( a mob vote, polite or uproarious ).
a republic ( not the french republics but rather cromwell's republic and the amerian republic before the 19th amendment ) is a vote for learned men ( of age and property ) who assemble to vote as "representat ...[text shortened]... ocialist mod deletes it for political reasons but claims it was for some other reason )...
Some of us rubes, having caught up with the turnip truck, are going to think you don't like the 19th amendment, but of course the real question is, what did it change that leads you to insert a mention into that sentence?
Originally posted by reinfeld to vote in a "democracy" is to have a group of people in a room or in a plaza vote a yea or nay by voice vote ( a mob vote, polite or uproarious ).
a republic ( not the french republics but rather cromwell's republic and the amerian republic before the 19th amendment ) is a vote for learned men ( of age and property ) who assemble to vote as "representat ...[text shortened]... ocialist mod deletes it for political reasons but claims it was for some other reason )...
...almost all of you who play here have neither the classical education, reading history, knowledge of government, etc., to understand what i have said...most of you live off television, watch soccer ( what a stupid sport ), don't go to church, have mothers who aborted your siblings and vote socialist...
I have the education, reading history, knowledge of government to understand you. I do not watch much TV at all. I am contemptuous of the sports entertainment industry and those people who are obsessed with it (though I have some thoughts on the matter than complicate this attitude). I don't go to Church. My Mom never had an abortion. I vote Democrat mostly. How do I fit into your stereotypes?
Should we encourage people to vote?
16 Feb '11 00:10
Back to Top