LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAustralia has mandatory voting and some of their recent selections didn't go too well from what I hear.Originally Posted by kalniel
Yes
No
Australia has mandatory voting and some of their recent selections didn't go too well from what I hear.
I do know my MP, we've corresponded a few times and we've met twice.
My remark about complaining was a little tongue in cheek but, as it's hard to convey context in written form without the use of smilies, I can't really complain about your overboard response. However, as you said, we are all affected by politics - all the more reason to be a responsible person and make the effort.
Complaining suggests you care enough about something to want it to change/improve, so why not make an effort and vote for a candidate that is willing to address that issue (assuming his or her views on other matters aren't violently opposed to yours)?
TBH, I'm sick of all the "they're all the same" arguments as justification for not voting, it's just a cover for the lazy gits who can't get off their arse and walk down to the polling station once in a blue moon.
As a result of the mandatory voting?
I don't disagree with the argument that you could be getting the vote of only those who feel they have a statement to make. However, the "normal" majority you talk about is just as irrational as the extremes. The only difference is in the strength of belief and thus whether they will act on it. If you force people into doing something then you will get a reaction, which is likely to be defiant. At best spoilt ballot papers, but some will feel the need to go further. If enough people are driven to protest, say outside polling stations, at some point things will get "messy".
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
well that I disagree with. Aussies have to vote, and it doesn't get like that. And they are as peeved with their lot as we are with ours.
Compulsory voting has been in place since 1924 in Australia, so it is a major part of their political history. In addition, apples and oranges are both fruits but that doesn't mean you can make meaningful deductions about one from the other. The dynamics of society in Australia are different to the UK even though they are both democracies. Protesting, and not just against the establishment, is a deep seated behaviour of the UK population. We don't like being told that we have to do something. Australians in general are much more civic minded.
It's a moot point anyway as no government is going to go down that route, at least while we are part of the EU convention on Human rights.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Based on what evidence? When I lived out there I found them to be no different really to normal folk back here. There would be no issues making voting mandatory in this country. Things would not get "messy" just because they did that. In fact most indifferent people would welcome the extra day off
That is where my problem lies. I've spent most of my life moving from countries to countries, and as my journey in Japan seem to be coming to a close (at least for now), I have plans to go to the next country. Where am I going to settle eventually? Not decided yet. I might go back to the UK, I might come back to Japan, or I might end up one of the many countries I have been, or not yet been. What this means is that I spent much of my adult life (in addition to childhood) in countries where I can't vote as I am not a citizen, and I may be away from countries I am a citizen for so long that I no longer follow the politics in said countries. I tend to take the view that if I don't like I place, I can just move somewhere else I like better. I really am an oddball as far as identity, roots etc. is concerned (family on 5 continents? check), and I think this partly explains my apathy.
If I was to vote for my benefit, one of the criterion I'd look at, is how it could potentially affect my mobility. I suppose that is why had the vote for Scotland happened a few years earlier when I would have been present and eligible to vote, I would've voted to stay in the Union.
Absolutely - but the relative proportion will be equal to the proportion in the total populace. Ie, reflecting the will of the governed citizens.
I can understand the dismay of having rational votes nullified by irrational votes, but if we're to suggest that some people are more qualified to vote than others then we ought to use that as the criteria for voting, not self-selection.
The problem with having no deterrent of your own is that "protection" from a neighbor may well be completely worthless.
Say Scotland picks a fight with another nuclear capable country. The other country drops a nuke on Scotland but wouldn't dare drop a nuke on the rUK.
Would we really get into nuclear war against them, knowing there will be nuclear retaliation? Just because we signed an agreement?
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
It's more that the UK-1 would not allow another country to launch against Scotland for fear of the effect on northern England and/or the chance it was used to mask an attack on UK-1. So Scotland would get some measure of protection just as a result of being geographically close to a country with retaliation capabilities.
Technical point .... we aren't part of the EU convention on human rights, because no such convention exists.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as enforced by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), existed before the formation of the Common Market, never mind the EU, and until recently (by which I mean 2009) the EU could not be bound by the ECHR even if it wanted to, because doing so was legally incompatible with EU treaties. That changed in 2009, upon the Lisbon treaty coming into force, wh2icg removed the legal bar, and the process of accession of the EU into the ECHR has started. Barely.
There are myriad difficulties, though. A BIG one is that doing so requires the EU itself, not just individual EU member states in their own right, to come up with a way to subject itself to accountability of a court that isn't under EU control.
Bear in mind there are two European Courts :-
1) European Court of Justice (ECJ) - this IS part of the EU. And, by the way, broadly recognises the principles of the ECHR, and is "guided", but not bound or constrained by, the ECHR or ECtHR.
2) European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - operated under the auspices and authority of the Council of Europe (CoE).
So, for the EU to accede to the ECHR, a minimum first step is to find a form of agreement that harmonises the operations, and judicial independence, of the ECJ's jurisdiction from tbe ECtHR.
Oh, and of course, the CofE under which the ECHR and ECtHR operates consists of a lot of countries that aren't part of the EU, as well as those that are.
Anyway, in short, the ECHR isn't (yet) anything to do with the EU, even though the EU follows ECHR principles. Common misconception, though.
ik9000 (22-04-2015),Noxvayl (23-04-2015),SeriousSam (22-04-2015)
I think less people should vote, take out all those who treat them like football teams, I remember talks with a girl were I use to work and she said she was going to vote for X party when I asked why her answer was 'because I always have' to which I asked why that was 'because my parents always have'.
I have voted for different parties at different elections based on policies/promises they are making.
In short there should be a reason for your choice box and all the stupid peoples get binned.
Just to be clear I am not saying people who don't agree with me a stupid, just those who do it with no real idea why.
Personally I think voting should be made compulsory. Because at the very least it would level the playing field. There are certain groups who can always be relied upon to vote (the elderly for example) and then there are some very vocal groups (students spring to mind) who talk a good game but can't be bothered to get out of bed on time to do so. If hauling yourself to a polling station was mandatory I could then at least have some modicum of faith that those in power were voted in by a real majority. Not a majority of those aged 60-85 or of an income over or under "x" amount per year.
As for the position that there's no point because politicians are all the same grade of scum, or that so and so always wins in my constituency so why bother etc. etc. - That's fine, but unless you put your money where your mouth is and use the vote that's given to you as far as I'm concerned you have zero right to complain about the establishment for the next four years. If you're given the choice to speak up and choose not to because you rationalise yourself into a corner where your voice counts for nothing then there's no argument to be had there in my opinion, you've got to put up and shut up. Even a spoiled ballot is worth more than nothing at all.
Whoa, hold on a minute. Nobody mentioned a day off before.In fact most indifferent people would welcome the extra day off
Now i'm all for it
I don't see how that logic follows to be honest, because it's entirely reasonable to be of the opinion that by voting at all, in a game where the deck has already been stacked in favour of the establishment, means even a vote against one of the mainstream parties can be viewed as giving legitimacy to what some reasonably see as bent process. Look at the Union ballots – one of the main weapons the Tories use to bash industrial action is their obsession with turnout and, leaving aside that they intentionally made it harder for TU's to ballot members for this precise reason, they not unreasonably question the legitimacy of a ballot where there is only 30% turnout and It's hard to argue that it isn't a smart tactic if you are attempting to force change. You have to go back to 1935 to get Turnout lower than the 4 most recent elections, so people are clearly feeling disengaged from the political process more than ever and if turnout keeps falling who knows what would happen? Tyranny by the majority is bad enough, but tyranny by the minority?
Now don't get me wrong, I vote and would support compulsory voting, but I think it entirely misguided to be of the position that someones opinion is lessened because they don't vote. In fact I actually admire people, of whatever political hue, who are willing to at least try something different in an attempt to change the system, and completely understand why they remove themselves from what is, if you look at it objectively, from lobby groups, Unions and vested interests to the absurdity that is Prime Ministers Questions and the political duopoly that still exists, a very flawed process. Those of us who have been voting, and complaining, for years, where has it got us? It got us where MP's are trusted less than estate agents. where deflection and obfuscation is now almost expected by the public, and a condescending political elite that rule rather than serve. So yeah, we might well be more entitled to complain, but perhaps we're more responsible too.
Noxvayl (23-04-2015)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
