Damian Gerow (2004-04-29 02:07Z) wrote: > Thus spake Justin [28/04/04 15:41]: > : Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill... > > Proxy vote. I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year.
I hadn't looked it up before, but it seems most countries with compulsory voting have exemptions for debilitating conditions. Assuming that's the sort of scheme you're proposing, proxy voting is unnecessary. > Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote. Semantics. If you're thrown in jail for failing to vote, is that a voting requirement? If you're threatened by a gangster with a machine gun, is that a requirement? Very few countries throw people in jail for failing to vote. Most states either fine violators or revoke their suffrage. IDEA.int considers that "compulsory" voting. You don't. http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/Compulsory_Voting.htm > : The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. > : While that's certainly an "improvement" (by your metric), it doesn't > : resolve the core issues. > > Not in the first year, no. And not in the second year, nor in the third. > But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic > voters -- the ones who don't care. Your plan would split current rare- or non-voters into two categories, the ones who are banned from voting due to apathy, and a second group whose members want to preserve future voting ability. I would guess that the latter would end up voting in Presidential elections, and would only care about the presidential candidates. That might make things worse, since such idiotic, uninformed voters might vote along party lines in other races on the same ballot. We have enough party-line voters at the moment. We don't need any more. > Australia has mandatory voting. I think that's what you're arguing against I'm arguing against any sort of coercion - whether it's a loss of rights, being stuffed in a prison, or being beaten with a stick. You consider voting in Australia to be mandatory? The punishment is a fine, different from loss of suffrage but not necessarily more serious. > : > Make sure there's a handy "abstain" option for those who want to get > : > the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, > : > too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable > : > space and eh, instant feedback. This was apparently a set-up. Most places have abstention options of one sort or another. It doesn't matter that much how you abstain, whether you can tell them to keep the ballot, whether you can feed blank ballots into the machines, or whether you have to mark something. What do you gain by forcing people to go to the polls to mark "abstain", eat their ballots, or otherwise effectively abstain after showing up? It would be a lot more logical to require voting if abstention wasn't an option, though there are still serious problems with mandatory voting. You seem intent on allowing people to express disinterest in who wins, but for some unknown reason you want their disinterest to be expressed within an arbitrarily-designed framework rather than allowing them the flexibility to vote, show up and abstain, or stay home. I suspect there's much disagreement as to whether abstention is included in the concept of "voting". -- "Not your decision to make." "Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter." - Bill, Beatrix
