On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:54:29 +1000, Ron Clarke wrote: > Hi Folks,
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:31:41 +0930, Greg Mayman wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:29:38 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote: >>> Most likely... >>> The world-as-we-know-it would come to a screaching halt. ;-) >> I doubt it. Voting in Fed and State elections is compulsory in >> Australia, and I suspect we are the better for it <G> > Well, we would be if we had worthwhile people to vote for. > Unfortunately, the only folks who turn up as candidates .... are > politicians ! Our (compulsory) choice is between different flavours > of dishonesty. :( > And dishonesty has been elevated to an elite artform in Australian > politics over the last few years. I think we must be nearly caught up, > in that regard, to some other countries represented on this list. > Or am I just an old cynic ? > Regards, > Ron Voting should not be compulsory in any country. In some of the elections here I don't vote because all of the candidates are equally bad and it doesn't make any difference to me as to who wins or loses. Why should I vote in an election like that? I never vote unless in my opinion there are some candidates on the ballot who aren't quite so bad as the rest of the scoundrels. Around here there are many voters who say they always vote against the incumbents by voting for the candidates who seem to have the best chance of defeating them. Those kinds of voters don't even care whatever are the party affiliations of the incumbents, nor do they care about the party affiliations of their opponents. Their political philosophy is very simple. They just think that the incumbents should always be voted out and their strongest opponents voted in. A very significant number of all the votes cast in any democratic election are the votes of the anti-incumbents. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
