Obligation to vote, Terrible, terrible Options

[Nymphetamine]

So, the Belgian community elections are over. I voted for the first time unwillingly! I was OBLIGED to vote because;

1 I'm a Belgian
2 I'm 18

That's insane!! Either I voted or paid a fine!! I don't think we should be forced to vote!

Does this happen in your countries?

Arrgh.

[Tyweezy]

No.. you just dont vote if you dont want too.(USA)

So most people dont vote, then complain that the president sucks.

[Nymphetamine]

I voted blank so whatever. I know NADA about politics!

[Tyweezy]

Well thats not that bad, so its basically like not voting.

[smoke]

Nope, not in the USA. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. Only problem with that is that everyone complains about who's in office when they didn't even vote. In my opinion, if you don't vote you shouldn't complain.

[Nymphetamine]

Exactly! I don't complain! I don't give a shit about the mayors and whatnot so why should I vote?

[mznikki]

Nope, not in the USA. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. Only problem with that is that everyone complains about who's in office when they didn't even vote. In my opinion, if you don't vote you shouldn't complain.

agreed^

well i couldn't vote until now and i still need to register which i will =]

[*Infinite.*]

Woah, either vote or pay a fine. That sucks. I know not to move there. Seems kind of pointless, do they want false votes when you just go in and pick and name and its over.

[*kryogenix*]

[HakunaMatata]

^

I don't think it's that bad to have to vote, especially if you have the oppurtunity to just blank it. Voting is a privilege, and I'm kinda glad that they're encouraging you to use it.

[*mipadi*]

Nope, not in the USA. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. Only problem with that is that everyone complains about who's in office when they didn't even vote. In my opinion, if you don't vote you shouldn't complain.

What if you disagree not with who's in office, but with the very sociopolitical underpinnings of American "democracy"?

And by extension, why vote? If you're not a corporation with deep pockets, you're not likely to be heard, anyway.

[smoke]

What if you disagree not with who's in office, but with the very sociopolitical underpinnings of American "democracy"?

And by extension, why vote? If you're not a corporation with deep pockets, you're not likely to be heard, anyway.

Then express your opinion on that and vote for someone who's trying to change things. If you don't see anyone who matches that description, then I can see your reason for not voting but don't complain about who's in office. Furthermore, voting for someone who is closer to your idealistic candidate than their opponent is better than not voting at all. I don't exactly agree with "democracy" either but sitting on my butt not doing anything about it isn't going to help.

Uh, because we have the freedom to do so? Voting is your way of being heard. You'd be surprised how many people are just like you. I've encountered so many people with your exact thought process. As the old saying goes, if you want something done, do it yourself. Take action. There is power in numbers.

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

Nope, not in the USA. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. Only problem with that is that everyone complains about who's in office when they didn't even vote. In my opinion, if you don't vote you shouldn't complain.

Actually, even if you do vote you still have the right to complain. In the US popular vote doesn't determine who is president. So, in a way, our votes don't really count.

[smoke]

^ Erm, that didn't make any sense. Did you mean "Even if you don't vote..." Last I checked, the candidate who gets the most votes in a county wins that county and whoever has the most counties in a state (depending on their population) wins the state. How do you figure that makes our votes not count?

Oh, and I never said you didn't have the right, I just said you (general you, not you you, haha) should be silent because if you really wanted to change things you would vote or in the very least do something about it. I'm tired of people ranting about people in office and then you ask them if they vote they say "No. What's the point?" Ugh. Stupidity at its epitome! Haha. If they really have a problem, what's better? Voting and having some impact or just sitting there and not having any impact at all?

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

^ Oh, I was just talking about individual votes. Because the president is chosen by electorial votes. And your votes don't sway the people who represent your state in choosing the president.

[*mipadi*]

Then express your opinion on that and vote for someone who's trying to change things. If you don't see anyone who matches that description, then I can see your reason for not voting but don't complain about who's in office. Furthermore, voting for someone who is closer to your idealistic candidate than their opponent is better than not voting at all. I don't exactly agree with "democracy" either but sitting on my butt not doing anything about it isn't going to help.

Uh, because we have the freedom to do so? Voting is your way of being heard. You'd be surprised how many people are just like you. I've encountered so many people with your exact thought process. As the old saying goes, if you want something done, do it yourself. Take action. There is power in numbers.

I think there are other ways to handle "being heard"; for example, by writing and publishing articles and essays, which I have done to a great extent—a simple task, thanks to both the freedom of the Internet, and my position as a newspaper editor.

I just don't think that voting is the way to get a message out. Candidates are more swayed by dollars than by the vote of the common man. Take a look at our current administration, which seems to ignore the popular voice on issues ranging from Iraq to abortion to stem cell research to the assault weapons ban to the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Furthermore, politicians are unable to see more than 2-6 years down the road, so any issue that extends beyond that boundary gets completely ignored. Politicians only care about that which gives immediate results, which in turn adds more money (in the form of donations) to their coffers.

So I think, if a prudent person makes other attempts to sway the public, he has a right to not participate in a system that is both corrupt and almost completely ineffectual while still voicing his opinions loud and clear.

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93wTIjoGi7M

[Gigi]

Hahahaha, that's so true. Where'd you get that from?

[*kryogenix*]

http://filibustercartoons.com/

[*StanleyThePanda*]

[img]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/captainkryo/random/canada.gif

Anyways, That is crazy! How much was the fine?
I definitely dont think they should force you.

[smoke]

I think there are other ways to handle "being heard"; for example, by writing and publishing articles and essays, which I have done to a great extent—a simple task, thanks to both the freedom of the Internet, and my position as a newspaper editor.

I just don't think that voting is the way to get a message out. Candidates are more swayed by dollars than by the vote of the common man. Take a look at our current administration, which seems to ignore the popular voice on issues ranging from Iraq to abortion to stem cell research to the assault weapons ban to the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Furthermore, politicians are unable to see more than 2-6 years down the road, so any issue that extends beyond that boundary gets completely ignored. Politicians only care about that which gives immediate results, which in turn adds more money (in the form of donations) to their coffers.

So I think, if a prudent person makes other attempts to sway the public, he has a right to not participate in a system that is both corrupt and almost completely ineffectual while still voicing his opinions loud and clear.

Yeah, that's why I said if your decide not to vote, in the bery least, do something about it. I'm really glad to hear you do that.

Yeah, I can see your point, but at least it gives us some what of a choice to choose who we want in office. How would you go about solving the problem? Seriously, I'm curious.

How is it corrupt and completely ineffectual? It seems to have been working pretty well for quite some time now. How would you collect votes from a massive number of people to make it fair and uncorrupt?

[*mipadi*]

Yeah, that's why I said if your decide not to vote, in the bery least, do something about it. I'm really glad to hear you do that.

Yeah, I can see your point, but at least it gives us some what of a choice to choose who we want in office. How would you go about solving the problem? Seriously, I'm curious.

How is it corrupt and completely ineffectual? It seems to have been working pretty well for quite some time now. How would you collect votes from a massive number of people to make it fair and uncorrupt?

I don't think it has worked well. Votes don't come from the people, they come from rich corporations. Politicians are primarily concerned with lining their own pockets. The political system is set up so those with the biggest wallets get the most access.

It's ineffectual because politicians are generally only concerned with the next election, so issues that are more than 2-6 years away—global warming, population control, etc.—aren't considered as issues. Furthermore, politicians only try to appease the base and rally around the people (who they don't really represent anyway) by dealing with hot-button issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

Ideally, I wouldn't concern myself with how to collect votes from a massive number of people, because I don't think democracy is the best, most fair, or most efficient political system. Socrates, through Plato, lays out most of the issues with democracy in Republic. I feel that politicians should represent the people not in the sense that they do the people's bidding, but they act in the best interest of the people. The fact is, except on a scant few issues, the American public, as a whole, doesn't have a solid enough foundation to actually form intelligent opinions.

Look at economic issues, for example—taxes, Social Security, and the like. Most people form opinions based on what politicians (who are already corrupt) tell them, not what their own investigations reveal. Even I don't feel I have enough knowledge to really understand most economic issues that politicians talk about.

So politics is really about pulling the wool over the people's eyes, not actually doing anything for them. Even our Founding Fathers realized that most people wouldn't be informed enough to make major political decisions—that's precisely why we have the Electoral College.

Socrates, of course, supported the idea of a "philosopher-king", an unwilling political participant who could truly act in the public's best interest. That's idealistic, of course, but Socrates was at least on the right track.

Barring that, I'm a strong supporter of the libertarian movement. I'm of the opinion that any government is inherently a repressive entity whose influence should be minimized as much as possible.