Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[evilcherry]

What? That I'd vote for the best overall party, not the best party for my needs alone? I recognise that in the long term, voting beyond only my needs benefits myself more, and voting solely for my needs ultimately screws me over so my own needs should be pushed out and ignored in this situation. I take them off the table, and simply can't bring them back on.

That's essentially how society as a whole functions: We act selflessly in the most selfish manner.

I simply didn't find a best overall party. I'm not saying they're the same in all areas, I'm saying that they're equally as good because they are all better in different areas.

I have sympathy for you; is why there must a need of direct democracy.

Referendum must be done for every matter, from local to global, and presence should also be made mandatory or one should dock 10% of his income for the nearest Charitable.

Really, what everyone need is that political parties should ultimate cease to mean anything, but only the people should decide what they need. No need for MPs, PMs, ambassadors, heads of state, or anything, since there will be no counterpart for them, so they will not have the reason to exist.

You can say that I'm an anarchist at heart.

[Nilocy]

I have sympathy for you; is why there must a need of direct democracy.

Referendum must be done for every matter, from local to global, and presence should also be made mandatory or one should dock 10% of his income for the nearest Charitable.

Really, what everyone need is that political parties should ultimate cease to mean anything, but only the people should decide what they need. No need for MPs, PMs, ambassadors, heads of state, or anything, since there will be no counterpart for them, so they will not have the reason to exist.

You can say that I'm an anarchist at heart.

Compulsary voting is wrong, it only leads to dictatorships and shizz. What we need is it to be morally wrong to not vote, actually make people think that voting is the right thing to do. Not sit on the sidelines critising and not offering any solutions.

Also, good luck with that.

[Starver]

Compulsary voting is wrong, it only leads to dictatorships and shizz.

Australia?   Nice place (give or take the usual winging I hear from that side of the planet, just like the background level I hear from everywhere else I have e-friends in, as well as the local stuff) and of course a bit of colonial baggage/disenfranchisement that we could argue about whether it has been/is being/will be sufficiently corrected/recompensed-for) that if it weren't for the fact I'm too much a homebody and not that good with heat and would have to leave places and people I love, could well feature high on my (small) list of "places I'd emigrate to".

What might encourage me to vote more than I do[1] is a Re-Open Nominations or None Of The Above option (distinct from non-voting or spoil-voting, which never really tug at any specific strings.  Then non-voting would mean one thing ("don't ask me, I'm apathetic"), RON-voting would mean another ("I am disaffected with the process"), spoiled votes another (possibly "I'm an idiot", although there may be other reasons), or whatever.  I've even heard of an idea for a blank box to write a non-listed choice against, to put anybody they like down on the list and making it possible that a sufficiently motivated electorate could get together to suggest (and even sort-of-elect) an otherwise unlisted Martin Bell-type character (or Mickey Mouse), although I could see that going haywire under the right(/wrong) circumstances...


[1] Except that, in the parliamentary infrastructure, I'm in a stronghold where I actually quite like/i] the incumbent, so it's feasible that I would have had to decide if I was going to make a protest vote against a person I have no problems with to make a minor stand against a party that I only have a few problems with, and similar dilemmas.