Over at Ace of Spades HQ, they’re discussing the idea of compulsory voting (which they have in Australia).
I’m against if for many reasons, but — as noted at the HQ — one of the primary reasons is that “the act of not voting is in itself a defacto vote”.
I also agree with this:
I’ve long believed that if “any of the above”, and “none of the above” were included in all elections that none of the above would win a plurality in quite a few elections.
There have been several elections where I would have punched the “none of the above” option.
Right now, that’s how I’m leaning for the 2008 Presidential election.
____
What say you — in favor or opposed to compulsory (or mandatory) voting?
On the contrary.
I rather would support limited voting.
My first reaction would be to limit it to those who are not currently receiving any public assistance or “tax credits” that exceed their tax payments. Allowing people who are on the dole to elect leaders who decide how much of our money they are going to get is a conflict of interest.
Of course, you could look at it that the tax-payers have the same conflict of interest when electing legislators that decide how much we have to pay.
Maybe a “voting policies and issues literacy test” to determine who can vote. You must have at least a basic understanding of the major policies and where the candidate for which you are voting stands on them prior to being allowed to cast a vote.
Nah…that probably wouldn’t work either…too easy to word the questions in such a way as to impact the opinions of the voters.
In any case, I absolutely do NOT support compulsory voting. As many idiots as I run into every day, I can take solace in the fact that most of them won’t bother voting and thus asserting their idiocy on the country through mob rule.
Left by Sailorcurt on December 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm