NationStates Jolt Archive

What did you vote on the issue? And why?

My opinion:

The whole point of a democracy is for PEOPLE to vote on who they WANT. If they choose not to vote, no one they wanted ran. Why force them to vote? And as so eloquently stated by Zeke O'Bannon, "Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."

And as so eloquently stated by Zeke O'Bannon, "Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."

This, incidentally, was one of the most common arguments against the universal franchise, even amongst early liberals (in the 19th century British sense of the word). I think as a general rule, decisions on how an electoral system should be structured should not be based on who the electors might vote for.

In Australia, voting was made technically compulsory after the turnout fell too low. This means that one is compelled to place a piece of paper in a box every few years. Since all real democracies practise the secret ballot, there is no way of knowing whether a particular voter put in a deliberately invalid (informal) vote. If someone doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates, they can (and do) write that on the ballot form. Some even add a box and put their family pet's name in it.

As a curiosity, in Australia it is actually illegal to encourage people to vote informally.

In Australia, people arguably feel less left out of the political system. They are more likely to take an interest in national affairs. Politicians design policies that appeal to most people (centrist policies) rather than policies designed to convince particular constituencies to vote in the first place (niche, fringe policies). The political process is given greater legitimacy, because a politician that wins 52% of the national vote when only 50% of the electorate voted can only claim the support of 26% of the electorate.

So Taqlid has compulsory voting. That's also because Taqlid has a very inclusive political culture. Also, the King of Taqlid supports voting, and taqlidi culture revolves around blindly following the King. So I had real world and 'role play' reasons for voting that way.

If all the derelicts don't get off their ass every few years, then who does get elected? Can you show that they're any less crazy?

I don't believe in Democracy or Republicanism. Anyway, does this thread belong here?

Voting in free and just countries needs to be left up to those who want to vote. Goverment should not force people to vote.

I voted for compulsory

I voted compulsory so that my country would get equal representation. In the US, the young people don't vote. Because of this, they get shat upon by the older people making laws for them. I think it's a good thing :p

I vote voluntary despite the effects. In the UK if it rains on election days then labour will lose a fair chunk of their votes while the conservatives lose much less.

The problem with compulsory voting is that many people who don't want to vote will support parties like the BNP and National Front in protest, luckily the Monster Raving Looney Party scoop a lot of the protest votes but it could be dangerous. BTW did anyone else read the MRLP's manifesto before the election? :D

I read their manifesto but I'm not from England.

In my nations that I want Democratic Freedoms, I vote voluntarily. In my non-democratic nations I go with the third option. I don't think that the cumpulsory option had the desired result in any of my testing nations, so I never use that option in any of my keeper nations.

I chose to simplify this issue by abolishing elections.

I chose to simplify this issue by abolishing elections.
That's a good solution.

The Kea: I don't believe in Democracy or Republicanism
Notice to all U.S. Americans:

Democracy is a term meaning something like "a system of government in which authority derives from the people's will."

Republicanism means "opposed to monarchism" or (depending on how one reads Rousseau et al), "supporting a system in which power is not concentrated in a single ruler and in which authority is not arbitrary (generally, liberal-democracy)."

This is not to be confused with political parties in particular countries that happen to take names such as "Democrats" or "Republican Party".

In normal usage, mixing up these terms is sloppy, but in a thread specifically about voting, it is just confusing to refer to the US Democrats Party as "Democracy".

I wouldn't have a problem with letting everyone decide if they want to vote if the people who don't vote didn't criticize the guy who got elected but probably wouldn't have if they all got off their asses and voted. But hey, Charlen's army is ungodly tiny so whoever doesn't want to vote can join the military. When faced with the choice of voting or forced military service you'll see the numbers skyrocket the polls and you'll be sure to come that much closer to not missing recruitment goals ;)

Hmmm... maybe that should be added to the game =P

Originally posted by Taqlid.
Republicanism means "opposed to monarchism" or (depending on how one reads Rousseau et al), "supporting a system in which power is not concentrated in a single ruler and in which authority is not arbitrary (generally, liberal-democracy)."

As defined in a dictionary Republicanism is a system of government in which people elect leaders.

Also, for the post after that one, the moderators refuse to add options to issues.