Compulsory Voting: Yes or No?

Manc in London said:
Would you like to explain why?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech and expression is the right both to speak and to choose not to speak or express yourself. The right to abstain or sit on the fence.

See the Northern Ireland Gay marriage cake court case.

Using the same logic, the right to vote is also the right not to vote.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Freedom of speech and expression is the right both to speak and to choose not to speak or express yourself. The right to abstain or sit on the fence.

See the Northern Ireland Gay marriage cake court case.

Using the same logic, the right to vote is also the right not to vote.
Click to expand...

So you spoil your ballot or don't X anyone

Making it compulsary for those eligible go and make that choice to vote or spoil the ballot isn't undemocratic though, maybe inconvenient to habe toale the effort though
 
Last edited:
Fode N The Hole said:
Freedom of speech and expression is the right both to speak and to choose not to speak or express yourself. The right to abstain or sit on the fence.

See the Northern Ireland Gay marriage cake court case.

Using the same logic, the right to vote is also the right not to vote.
Click to expand...

Then you would spoil the vote.

Not sure I buy the logic of your argument.

I am not stating that compulsory voting is democratic in itself but neither is it undemocratic. If anything, compulsory voting would only be implemented via representative democratic processes or via direct democracy.
 
urban genie said:
So you spoil your ballot or don't X anyone

Making it compulsary for those eligible go and make that choice to vote or spoil the ballot isn't undemocratic though, maybe inconvenient to habe toale the effort though
Click to expand...

Spoiling the ballot still takes the effort to queue up and draw a cock and balls or do it by postal ballot.

Compulsory voting in FPTP is pointless anyway, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

They have compulsory voting in Brazil and Argentina. Yet they have a history of electing far right nutters. Bolsanaro is almost uniquely unfit for government and makes Trump look like a rational man.

Maybe a well informed electorate who actually have a basic understanding of the mechanisms of government is more important than compelling people to vote.

In such a society, little Hitlers wouldn't rise to power in a democracy because the majority of the electorate would be smart enough to tell them to fuck off.
 
The tories have always resisted prportional representation. They like total power, and the current system favours them in a huge way, so of course they are going to lambast PR.

They trot out the usual guff about people being confused about it, which, if you are a thick as pigshit die hard tory supporter you will agree with, but that doesn't deflect from the fact that many countries have PR with as many thick as pigshit voters we have, but they understand it!

I first read about PR in the late 70's as a student, and I've been an advocate ever since. Yes, it would lead to, for me, awful individuals with dreadful opinions being voted in to seats of power, but it would also act as a brake on extreme policies being enacted as no overall majority would be possible, and coalitions would have to be agreed between political parties to govern the country.

It would be much more representative of how a nation votes than our current system whereby one party can have, say, 35% of the vote and end up with an overall majority, but more importantly, it would encourage more people to cast their vote because it would mean something. Their vote would count.

I'm not in favour of compulsory voting. Many people at the moment feel forgotten about without a voice in parliament looking after their interests. They can't be bothered going to the polling station because nothing will change in their favour. PR would help to address that issue.

Yes, we had a referendum to introduce PR, but those that needed it the most were so disenfranchised they couldn't be bothered turning up to vote for it.
 
NPBlue said:
The tories have always resisted prportional representation. They like total power, and the current system favours them in a huge way, so of course they are going to lambast PR.

They trot out the usual guff about people being confused about it, which, if you are a thick as pigshit die hard tory supporter you will agree with, but that doesn't deflect from the fact that many countries have PR with as many thick as pigshit voters we have, but they understand it!

I first read about PR in the late 70's as a student, and I've been an advocate ever since. Yes, it would lead to, for me, awful individuals with dreadful opinions being voted in to seats of power, but it would also act as a brake on extreme policies being enacted as no overall majority would be possible, and coalitions would have to be agreed between political parties to govern the country.

It would be much more representative of how a nation votes than our current system whereby one party can have, say, 35% of the vote and end up with an overall majority, but more importantly, it would encourage more people to cast their vote because it would mean something. Their vote would count.

I'm not in favour of compulsory voting. Many people at the moment feel forgotten about without a voice in parliament looking after their interests. They can't be bothered going to the polling station because nothing will change in their favour. PR would help to address that issue.

Yes, we had a referendum to introduce PR, but those that needed it the most were so disenfranchised they couldn't be bothered turning up to vote for it.
Click to expand...
Behave yourself. It's not just the Tories who don't like PR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.