Previous  1  2  3  Next

Which says it all.

   

Some thoughts from rabble.ca:

Rod Manchee
posted 13 June 2005 10:46 AM
Voting is supposed to be an expression of aggregate public interest, which in a democracy is supposed to be the ruling principle. Making it mandatory is just as likely to force people to vote who really don’t want to, with the result that their vote will, at best, be not particularly well thought out and at worst could be more of a vindictive act. It is a fairly irresponsible requirement, more interested in the form than in the substance of democracy..
An approach with much more potential to increase voter turn-out in a healthy way would be to motivate politicians to make their actions more responsive. For example, Parliamentary pay could be tied to turn-out(not vote for the winner, but interest of the total electorate). There could be a total potential MP salary, and the actual salary could the same proportion of this potential as the actual turn-out was in proportion to the potential vote. This could also apply to things like research and communication allowances. The actual vote proportion could be calculated on a riding-by-riding basis or nationally(there are arguments for and against both), but it would provide some incentive for MP’s to try to actively involve all their constituents(right now their only real motivation is to appeal to their supporters).

Mr. Magoo
posted 13 June 2005 11:01 AM:
Make campaign promises into contracts.
Right now, politicians can mouth any nonsense they want, and if elected can say "Oh, well, uh, um..." for the next four years. I think this makes a lot of campaigning a little, well, uninteresting.

On the other hand, if politicians and their parties were bound by law to keep their promises, that might make for some slightly more interesting civics, and might prompt a few more people to bother voting for someone whose promises they like.

   

You are all so cynical it's sad. I'm sure that when Belinda goes on her cross country tour to address young voters apathy, they'll be many more voters.
link
I'm hoping that when they see this fine, trustworthy example of Liberal candidate, they'll vote for anybody else!

   

Some points about the Australian system: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108832/

Some highlights:
Actually, the voting part of "mandatory voting" is a misnomer. All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must register and show up at a polling station, but they need not actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—or do nothing at all.

The Australian government clearly doesn't want to imprison a lot of its citizens for not voting. I've been able to find only a few cases of Aussies going to jail over this in the past few decades. A significant percentage of Australians—about 15 percent of them—don't bother to register at all. The government doesn't go after these people, reserving fines and prosecutions only for those who register and don't show up on Election Day.

Devine pointed out that parking fines in Australia can be 10 times higher than the fine for not voting...
Most Australians obey the law, however, convinced that mandatory voting makes their nation a more robust democracy...
If anything, mandatory voting has reinforced straight party-line voting, since reluctant voters find it easier to align themselves with one party or another and get the whole business done with as quickly as possible....

In general, political scientists believe the practice gives a slight edge (2 percent or 3 percent) to liberal parties, since presumably the poor and disenfranchised, once forced to the polls, tend to vote liberal.

   

I agree. But I dont think people who are totally ignorant of whats going on should be forced to vote, they wont know who they agree with.

Oh and they might all simply spoil their ballots.

   

Bang-on Bro.

Until we implement some system that holds the elected official accountable to their election promises (and prevents them from acting on things that were not mentioned -i.e., gun registry, G.S.T., etc.,...) most voters will feel that they do not have an effect on how government is run. And they're not wrong!

The other change we REALLY need is fixed election dates. The situation in Alberta, last year, was such a fiasco (three elections in 6 months) that when it was revealed that 16 year-olds were voting in the Civic election the populace barely registered a collective yawn. This would also prevent opportunistic elections - the last three federal elections were called when the Liberals detected the opposition was at a weak point.

I would also like to see electoral boundaries established and modified by a completely independent body (i.e., fixed and guaranteed funding and exempt from political appointment). As it is now, the Maritimes, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are all over-represented, while Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta get the short sticks. This would also prevent gerry-mandering like we saw in Hamilton before the last election (not that having Sheila Copps re-elected would be a benefit to either the Government or the People of Canada).

I am personally against forced-voting. If you regard choice as a burden and not a privilege, why should I believe that you will make an informed choice based on your needs or wants, or those of your community? Voting is not an obligation, it is an opportunity.

   

I only agree with manditory voting if they're all forced to learn what each group intends to do and what they stand for if not then it is stupid idea.

   

Who wants to cast "donkey votes," so named because apathetic voters play pin the tail on the donkey at the polling station, randomly making their selections.

Mandatory voting would probably cause a further dumbing-down of election campaigns, if such a thing is possible. Motivated by a need to attract not only undecided voters but also unwilling voters, candidates would probably resort to an even baser brand of political advertising, since they would now be trying to reach people who are voting only out of a desire to obey the law and avoid a fine.

   

How? By voting Liberal?

All jokes aside, I agree completely and think this is a good point. Forcing pople to vote is actually a bad idea, because uninformed voters can really fuck up the program (by voting NDP ). I think it makes more sense to encourage people to vote.

   

Actually I was thinking they would waste their vote by voting Conservative.

   

Fascist! They would screw up our country by voting for Darth Harper! Come fellow nationalistic socialists, come together! We shall defeat the fascist "conservatives"!

   

Maybe we can all agree to vote for the Bloc Quebecois or the Alberta First! party?

   

Implementation would be easy... all voters are already controlled and registered... Receipts could be handed out at polling stations. The "costs" (net loss of government income) would be a 1% income tax break for all Canadians, (whatever that works out to) less any additional income the government would get by a stimulated economy (people spending their own money on good and services...).

   

I certainly hope so... look at this BS:

I'm sure that there are much better things to spend my tax $'s on than something so pathetic.

   

Not everyone is registered....
Check out Australia: if you don't register you DON'T have to vote.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next