In Australia it is illegal to not vote in an election. If such a law were purposed in the US what would the political response be to in via party demographics? What would be these parties say are the reasons for or against it? Are these reasons that you would support as well? Do you think it should be done? If any Aussies are reading this, do you think this has been effective in creating a more equally represented form of democracy?
208129
In addition to the fact that such a law is unconstitutional and could only have a chance if it came about through a ratified Constitutional Amendment (which would never pass).  It would likely demonstrate that un-a-lined voters out numbered members of the two major parties.\n\nIf ever enacted it could have an unexpected result, that is, the same number of people who don’t vote today say, “I still won’t vote, come and get me.”  \n\nIt might be a better idea to give people some reason to want to vote.  Say, by adding something interesting to the ballot.  As. . . . . the final line for each elective office have it say, “None of the above.” And have that line able to win.  That would mean that some elective office could end up with no office holder until a new election were held.  That could mean that the candidates would have to actual, and honestly, serve the electorate.
405808
You make an excellent point first of all. There are indeed many people who vote with minimal knowledge of the issues and of what's at stake. I can attest to being one of those people myself, but the fact of the matter is, I know the basics of whom I will vote for and whom I will not (I live in Michigan), and to propose a test to qualify to vote is essentially stripping people of their right to vote all over again. I blame the Government Officials (I do not use the term 'Politician') because they make it into a popularity contest. I also blame the media because they egg it on, but I digress.
493171
A minority will always be prejudiced against ESPECIALLY if they have no vote - so politicians don't have to care what they think, therefore they can make a hardline sweep response instead of actually having to think about finding a solution. A ban on football because some people are hooligans would cause a government to collapse, it's just because young people have no effective power.\n\nIt would work (for those children whose parents at least have SOME control over them, but then again the worst offenders would just ignore it, as would their parents) - but then again it's very unjust and unfair.
432859
Voting apathy is only a problem for the elected representatives (MPs and councillors) of the people.  They fear that if not enough of us turn out to vote, they will feel they do not have a mandate to govern.  I think we reached that point about fifty years ago.  If the turn out is under 50 percent, how can any politician legitimately claim to have received a mandate from the people to govern them?\n\nLocal elections are a case in point - the same shipload of cut-throats get re-elected time and time again.  They draw huge expenses (at our expense) and waist their time going on various jamborees abroad to see if the wine is safe for us to drink back home.\n\nMPs are the worse scoundrels.  Many of these thieves draw expenses amounting to £150,000 pa on top of their already bloated salaries of £60,000.  God only knows what government ministers are paid - something resembling a telephone number I should think.\n\nOn the whole I think the British people are let down badly by their representatives most of whom pay little or no attention what so ever to what we the people are saying, once they're elected that is - another five years on the jolly waggon at our expense.  And to cap it all, these people want us to pay for their political parties and their profligate spending.  Oh, never mind, the tax payer will foot the bill.  VOTE NO to that by the way.
393385
it prolly could not happen with our system of checks and balances.  \n\npeople do vote, just in small numbers (about 50%).  \n\nthe problem is that the rest of us know how those 50% will vote so it doesnot matter what we say  because of the electoral college.  \n\nthere is still a huge process of candidates within political parties running against each other.  a whole party would decide to allow a dictator to run for election.
195533
Is there a 'right' to vote? Or should we take a different view and argue that it is a 'privilege' to vote? Let's see.\n\nIf voting is a 'right', especially if you call it a 'civil right' then by definition it can not be taken away. Rights can not be lost, for then they would not be 'rights'. Privileges can be lost (ask any teenager!), but not rights. Also, 'rights' belong to everyone equally, so if you have any rules about voting, it can not be a 'right'. Many countries have a minimum voting age. Well, since many countries are filled with convicted criminals that can not vote, as well as underage people that can not vote, voting can not be legally considered a 'right'.\n\nWell then, it is a privilege? If so, there are rules on earning it and on losing it. How does one 'earn' the privilege to vote? Is it by being a landowner? Is it by being born male, or by being old enough? How old is old enough? Is it 18 or 21 years of age?\n\nDo any of these rules, or the many other ones tried by countries over the centuries ensure quality voters? Many of us know people of voting age that are just plain, well, not intelligent voters. We also know people too young to vote that are very careful and intelligent about casting their vote. I know dumb landowners and intelligent renters. If you want to call voting a privilege, I assure you that any line you draw for people to cross in order to 'earn' that privilege will be a flawed line. I offer you the argument that voting is not a privilege.\n\nVoting in political elections is not a right, nor is it a privilege. Then what is it? I contend that it is a grave responsibility. Those that do not agree, should not be allowed to vote. Those that do agree, should be allowed to vote. They should strive hard to make 'informed' decisions which are best for them in the long-term.
370670
I would go for a change: a mixture of the current system and a component of proportional representation. This would mean an overall majority would be unlikely. That is a good thing in itself, so rotten laws are not forced through Parliament.
7343
There is a problem here that goes a little deeper than you might expect.\n\nIn my humble opinion, people in our society have gotten very used to having someone else (i.e. "the government") do things for them.\n\nThey have moved away from (or forgotten) the concept of collaborating with their neighbors, friends, co-workers, acquaintences, etc., to accomplish needed missions and goals.  For instance, the United States has a relatively low voter turnout compared to other countries.  As a matter of fact, sources rank the U.S. in the lowest 25% worldwide in terms of voter turnout among different countries.  It should be noted that some countries such as Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, to name a few, have compulsory voting.  If you don't vote, you are either fined or disenfranchised.  Compulsory voting is an admirable, if not misguided, attempt at keeping people from becoming complacent.  I believe it is better though to make our decisions freely.  Free will is what was given to us by our Creator, to make right and wrong decisions.  It is what makes us Human. \n\nNow, if we don't tell the government what it is that we want, how can we expect the government to "do anything".  To take it a step further, do we really want the government to "do anything"?  After the tragedy of 9/11, the government "did something" by removing various and sundry civil protections that were afforded to us by federal statute and the Constitution.  Now that's "doing something!"\n\nI, personally, work for the government (a state, but government none-the-less).  Now, I am here to tell you that you really don't want the government "doing anything" without very clear, concise, and incontrovertible, instructions.  It is very important that you go visit at least one government office a week (preferably with a group of your associates) and let them know in very clear terms, what it is that you want them to do. You also could possibly write a letter to the manager or director of the government offices, while sending a copy to your congressman, alderman, commisioner, or what have you, clearly indicating exactly what it is that you think should be done.  Otherwise, the people that work there will go on their merry way, doing what they think they should be doing, when that's not really what they should be doing at all.  But you can't blame them... you didn't tell them!  So how are they to know?  They are people just like you and me.  But sometimes they get isolated and lost, and they forget. At first, it may appear that they are unresponsive.  But that is only because they have gone so long without being reminded what it is that they are supposed to be doing.  It may even be necessary, at first, for you and your associates to stand out in the street in front of the government office, and make a spectacle of yourselves.  But like I said, it's only because the people that work there have forgotten, because we all have gone on our way and left them to their own devices without the guidance, experience, and knowledge, of the body politic. \n\nI noticed in your question that you mentioned your paycheck.  Have you discussed this with your co-workers?  Are they having issues with their paychecks?  Maybe you should consider organising yourselves as a group, and discussing this with your employer?  Perhaps as a group, in negotiations with your employer, you could come up with ways to increase production and efficiency.  This would increase your employer's profit margin and thereby  make it easier for him to give you a raise.  Of course if after you increased his profit margins, he found himself still unable to consider your plight, you would already have formed a group of people with a common bond and concern that would find it within their ability to deal with that too!\n\nSo to answer your question... No, I don't feel particularly betrayed by my government.  I f
447324
I haven't heard about this specifically, but in theory, I agree- it would just bring in uninformed voters. We need voters who have opinions that need to be heard; the payoff of voting is having someone in office to do the job correctly and get things done, what's a better incentive to vote than that?
45455
Good point, and yet another flaw in our voting process. I would suggest that all voters would have to take a simple test, whether they understand the workings of our government (unbiased ?'s like "How many people on the Supreme Court", or "Name the governor of your state").\n\nTrouble is, voting tests are often associated with the biased "literacy tests" in the South, to make sure blacks couldn't vote. So this idea, while interesting, is unlikely to go anywhere for a while.
128999
Yes voting...But the problem is they are trying to pass the bill at a time no elections or voting is taking place. They are not daring to put this out here at this time for us to vote on. While they do this, they as well as many groups with personal gain and interests are spreading false poll results and false statistics to persuade Americans that it is a done deal and that they would be out voted on this.\n\nIt couldn't be farther from the truth. I have a website with a polls forum on every important national poll going on right now. So it would be a good idea for everyone to go there and put their votes in. So that the truth of how the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS feel about all this. At the moment it is running 95% against amnesty at all the polls I have seen in 2 days.\nThere are also links to sites who will email or fax all your congressmen and the president about your views for free.\n\nhttp://alipac.us/forums.html
432792
The electoral system over here is subtly different to the US but not so bad that you'd lose sleep. The big difference is that we don't elect our PM, we elect a government (think - party) and the leader of the majority is normally "requested" by Her Majesty to form a government, but this is not written down in our constitution, as we don't have a written constitution. I've had HUGE rants at the current leader of the opposition, but I must admire him for this statement:\n"The constitution of the United Kingdom is whatever The Queen says it is".\nLegally, that is 100% correct.\nOur current government (ruling party, blair's thugs) were elected based on 21% (or so, don't flame me over a percentage point) of the valid electorate. A lot of people simply don't bother to vote because they're all crooks anyway, aren't they?\nBut listen to the talk in the trains and the bars etc. When they build the scaffold to hang Saddam, make space for Tony - and George - they're ALL war criminals.
265506
http://www.alipac.us/article-1242-thread-1-0.html\n\nThe US Senate could go to a vote any day or hour now on S. 2611 which \ncontains amnesty for both illegal aliens currently in the US and for \nemployers that have broken the law hiring them.\n\n\n\nSenator Sessions says S. 2611 to bring 217.1 million new immigrants in 20 years    http://www.alipac.us/article1223.html\n\n\n\n\n\nGOOD NEWS\n\n1.  This bill is so full of amendments now that neither side really \nlikes it increasing the chances it will fail.  If it does pass, the \npoliticians that voted for it will face even more opposition from the voters \nfrom both sides of the issue!\n\n2.  If they pass S. 2611 the fight is not over yet so do not get \ndiscouraged.  It still has to pass our House lawmakers.  Also, there are \nbenefits from a Senate vote that passes this amnesty bill.  On one hand, it \nwill allow us to determine exactly who we need to target for removal in \nthe elections.  On the other hand, passage of S. 2611 will INCREASE THE \nELECTORAL BACKLASH on this issue.\n\n3.  Even if the Guest Worker amnesty program is passed into law, it \ncontains a fatal flaw.  It does not grant instant amnesty.  This will \nallow time for the majority of American citizens to assert their influence \nover the lawmaking process through the elections.  If signed into law \nby George Bush, we will immediately announce our intent to seize \npolitical control of the program, remove any citizenship plans, and use it as \nan effective targeted deportation tool for illegal aliens that do not \nreturn to their home nations on their own volition.
267512
Do due lack of anything else better to do.  I would be willing to bet that at least a third of them (if not more) did not vote at all in the last election.  \n\nNo vote=no right to gripe.
460366
Mark D: unless the changed the law since 2000, dimples chads are specifically NOT valid votes.  The law clearly stated that at least 2 corner of the chad must be detached.\n\ncaptainco...: So 18,000 voters that can't find either candidate is more likely than 18,000 that didn't vote for an office most of them don't know who holds?
229587
great point! i think that it is because a lot of illegal aliens are illegally registered to vote in several counties and, because they are voters, our politicians don't want to upset them and lose their precious votes. i am not sure that the polititions can do anything about the problem, i believe that it is up to the citizens.
166346
I love this question...we could be like the 60's and just boycott! If you can find someone to organize this nationwide...I'm in...until then I suggest we all get more involved in our community, state and national elections. The fact of the matter is that only a small percentage of the public actual vote. If more people were like you and purposed this question, maybe we could do something about it!