Print

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

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Loud Whispers]

I think you mean seppuku.

... Though, a nation-wide game of sudoku would be... interesting.

                                                   Joke
Descan's head

[XXSockXX]

Well, you have every right to put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote.

The half hour walk it takes to get to the voting booth and back seems too much effort for that. 

Also I would argue that it is more democratic to not force people to participate. Democracy is not a given, it is a permanent struggle. If people don't care it's their own fault, though I think politicians need to try to reach out more to people in general.

Then mandatory voting is not something I'm violently opposed to, after all it wouldn't really affect my voting behaviour.

Of course the numbers of non-voters are becoming quite large, in Germany 33 million didn't vote in the EU election (47,9% turnout). In the last national election it was 18,2 million (71,5% turnout), roughly as much votes as the largest party got. All parties lost votes in the EU election,only the Afd got the same amount of votes as in the national election, representing 2 million people (3% of the electorate, but 7% of the vote).

[Sheb]

Actually, mandatory voting in Belgium started as a way to prevent bosses pressuring their workers not to vote. Think of all the voter repression bullshit the republicans are pulling in the US, or what we just talked about with the party opposing e-voting to restrict young voters. None of this would happen with mandatory voting.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What I would add to democracy: vote against someone. Some kind of -1 vote

If we have some party A that is loved by 30% and hated by 50% and party B that is loved by 20% and hated by 5%. In that case, IMO, party B should have more political weight than party A

Works fine until a significant number of people vote negative - then you end up with some kind of anti government with the smallest negative score.

You are saying it like most people don't vote for the politicians they hate little less than other candidates

[vagel7]

Palsch, the site is an official estonian government site, but that article is in the news section and is an opinion article written by an expert in the field, who does not work for the agency.

[TD1]

I wonder what would happen with a merging of British and American politics.

I can't wait to see the Green Tea Party.

UKIP+Republican bastard lovechild of doom. JESUS AND GUNS FOR ALL, BUT NO IMMIGRANTS OR HEALTHCARE!

No Healthcare?

[Sheb]

I guess that part come from the Republicans?

[MonkeyHead]

I guess that part come from the Republicans?

UKIP have on more than one occasion suggested privatizing elements of the NHS. So, yeah, a vote for UKIP is a vote against universal healthcare.

[TD1]

The only thing I've heard of is the end to "health tourists."

[nenjin]

The only thing I've heard of is the end to "health tourists."

What, so we only have your big frickin' clock tower to look at, and that one tower wot they stick people in?

I think not!

[TD1]

? What 

[MonkeyHead]

The only thing I've heard of is the end to "health tourists."

Their deputy leader thinks that a private system would be better than the NHS.

Other NHS policies they have spoken in the media about include allowing people to pay at point of service to jump queues, and ending university training for nurses, presumably so we can then employ enough of them without having to rely on pesky fully qualified immigrants.

[Graknorke]

The only thing I've heard of is the end to "health tourists."

Paul Nuttall's site where he says things to the effect of privatisation being good seems to not exist or something, so I found the next best thing which is an article that at least quotes from it.

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/ukip-privatise-nhs-nuttall-ttip.html
ctrl + f 'paul nuttall'

Those things.

[aenri]

The other advantage is that if you have mandatory voting, the government is also forced to ensure that everyone can vote. That's no evidence in some locations, especially for some groups (senior citizens with limited movement). Anyway, what you get now is that in a non-mandatory voting system, it's the extremist parties that get disproportionate representation.

I mean, just compare the results.

In Belgium, our local Eurosceptic separatist party got 20% of the vote in the Federal elections, and just 17% in the European elections. Meanwhile UKIP got 28% of the vote in the European elections, despite only getting 17% of the vote in the concurrent local elections. Yes, I know the local elections didn't occur everywhere in the country, but they're a good indicator and IIRC, UKIP really doesn't do well in Scotland.

Speaking of which, the UK should get rid of First past the Post voting as well. It's a horrible system.

What I would add to democracy: vote against someone. Some kind of -1 vote

If we have some party A that is loved by 30% and hated by 50% and party B that is loved by 20% and hated by 5%. In that case, IMO, party B should have more political weight than party A

It exists, it's called preferential voting.

But majority voting systems like FPTP are good! Here in Slovakia, proportional list system is the abomination.
There were some attempts to change it, but the parties in power like it too much to let it change.

Also: mandatory voting would be helpful, we got the record in the EU elections - 13% voter turnout!

[TD1]

Regardless, views of individuals don't constitute party policy.

Nothing is concrete as of yet; until such a time as it is concrete and in party policy, I work on the assumption that it's just talk.