I agree in some respects, but how legitimate is a vote that is only the result of being forced to do so?...Dilbert_X wrote:
100% voting gives a govt legitimacy.
With turnout ~50% in the US, and the average President getting ~50% of that, 75% of the population didn't want them in office.
A 25% 'For' vote gives them no real legitimacy to pass any law whatsoever.
As defined by the law, it's legitimate. If someone doesn't vote, they can't really complain too much.Dilbert_X wrote:
Under the US system practically no President in living memory can claim democratic legitimacy.
I still don't think that you're taking into account how people's judgment is affected when they are forced to do something.Dilbert_X wrote:
Under the Aus system people are allowed to write 'screw you' on the ballot rendering it invalid.
So if the public really didn't like any candidate they wouldn't have to vote for any of them.
im REALLY NOT VERY SURE about an american raising this as a CONCERNTurquoise wrote:
Quality... not quantity of participation is important.AussieReaper wrote:
Voter turnout.Australia 95%
Malta 94%
Chile 93%
Austria 92%
Belgium 91%
Italy 90%
Luxembourg 90%
Iceland 89%
New Zealand 88%
Denmark 87%
Germany 86%
Sweden 86%
Greece 86%
Venezuela 85%
Czech Republic 85%
Brazil 83%
Netherlands 83%
Costa Rica 81%
Norway 81%
Romania 81%
Bulgaria 80%
Israel 80%
Portugal 79%
Finland 78%
Canada 76%
France 76%
United Kingdom 76%
South Korea 75%
Ireland 74%
Spain 73%
Japan 71%
Estonia 69%
Hungary 66%
Russia 61%
India 58%
United States 54%
Switzerland 54%
Poland 51%
A voter turnout won't tell you much about the intelligence of your electorate -- it only tells you how active they are.
That's what bogans do.Dilbert_X wrote:
Under the US system practically no President in living memory can claim democratic legitimacy.
Under the Aus system people are allowed to write 'screw you' on the ballot rendering it invalid.
So if the public really didn't like any candidate they wouldn't have to vote for any of them.
And my assertion is that we're no dumber than anyone else but that we hand microphones to our idiots more often -- and that our idiots have better internet access on average.Uzique wrote:
im REALLY NOT VERY SURE about an american raising this as a CONCERN
the american electorate are shocking when it comes to geopolitical matters... or even basic geography, for that matter
good job they're too apathetic to vote... unlike your rednecks with their astute grip on the islam problem and those damn beanersTurquoise wrote:
And my assertion is that we're no dumber than anyone else but that we hand microphones to our idiots more often -- and that our idiots have better internet access on average.Uzique wrote:
im REALLY NOT VERY SURE about an american raising this as a CONCERN
the american electorate are shocking when it comes to geopolitical matters... or even basic geography, for that matter
If I judged the U.K. by its chavs, I wouldn't get a very good impression either.
Hey, if we're going to trade snipes, at least we don't have as high of a fetal alcohol syndrome problem.Uzique wrote:
good job they're too apathetic to vote... unlike your rednecks with their astute grip on the islam problem and those damn beanersTurquoise wrote:
And my assertion is that we're no dumber than anyone else but that we hand microphones to our idiots more often -- and that our idiots have better internet access on average.Uzique wrote:
im REALLY NOT VERY SURE about an american raising this as a CONCERN
the american electorate are shocking when it comes to geopolitical matters... or even basic geography, for that matter
If I judged the U.K. by its chavs, I wouldn't get a very good impression either.
Last time I checked, the U.K. is still one of the world's largest military powers, and Tony Blair wasn't exactly one of your better PMs.Uzique wrote:
last time i checked foetal alcohol syndrome wasn't electing leaders of world military superpowers . . .
LOL... But seriously, all I'm saying is that the general public of any nation is going to be a little... disappointing. I'd rather have a system where you actually have to take some initiative to vote rather than forcing people to vote who probably shouldn't be voting to begin with.Uzique wrote:
tony blair was a good honest catholic and i dare you to impugn the man's pious code of honour!
he was merely led down the devilish path to sin by that protestant scumbag, bush...
As been said before, it's compulsory to turn up, there is no law to saying you have to vote, there's also no way to ever tell if people have voted correctly because the ballots are secret.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's compulsory voting, what's the punishment for not voting in Australia anyway? No point bragging on about how great it is when it's compulsory.
You can't say they have no real legitimacy, if someone doesn't want to vote then they themselves have no legitimacy in how the government is working on them, they can't really say anything but they're free to not vote if they don't want to. Also turnout was about 61% in the last US election, those figures from that table are outdated or wrong.
AEC wrote:
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.
Who determines who should and shouldn't vote? It's a democratic right to vote. Unless you're Hitler I guess.Turquoise wrote:
LOL... But seriously, all I'm saying is that the general public of any nation is going to be a little... disappointing. I'd rather have a system where you actually have to take some initiative to vote rather than forcing people to vote who probably shouldn't be voting to begin with.Uzique wrote:
tony blair was a good honest catholic and i dare you to impugn the man's pious code of honour!
he was merely led down the devilish path to sin by that protestant scumbag, bush...
Dude, you missed my point. What I'm suggesting is that someone who doesn't educate themselves shouldn't be voting. Yes, everyone has a right to vote, but you do yourself and your country a disservice if you vote in an uninformed manner.Jaekus wrote:
Who determines who should and shouldn't vote? It's a democratic right to vote. Unless you're Hitler I guess.Turquoise wrote:
LOL... But seriously, all I'm saying is that the general public of any nation is going to be a little... disappointing. I'd rather have a system where you actually have to take some initiative to vote rather than forcing people to vote who probably shouldn't be voting to begin with.Uzique wrote:
tony blair was a good honest catholic and i dare you to impugn the man's pious code of honour!
he was merely led down the devilish path to sin by that protestant scumbag, bush...
People having a choice to vote just encourages apathy, and stupidity. Making it compulsory to vote gets people involved and thinking about how the country is run. I know which I'd prefer in my population...
Try to quote correctly, I never said thatDilbert_X wrote:
If they can remember a name they can probably remember the associated party.Turquoise wrote:
Definitely... but that's why party shouldn't be on the ballot. Just list out names. That way, you have to at least be familiar with the individuals you're voting for.It gives those too lazy to vote no excuse.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Then why institute the compulsory voting to begin with? It just sounds like a big waste of time for people that don't actually want to vote.
The level of someone's comprehension of the issues can usually be determined by how much they know about the person they are choosing to vote for and what ideas they have for solving a current problem.Jaekus wrote:
But who determines whom is uninformed?
What measure do you go by here?
If a party really shouldn't be voted in, should they even be allowed to be a political party in the first place?
I guess I just have a lot less faith in people in general than you do. Granted, I am very cynical.Jaekus wrote:
People on the whole get it right IMO. Most people own televisions and watch a lot of it, or read the papers, or look up stuff online. It's pretty hard to avoid. There's enough information out there for people to have at least a passing knowldege of what the bigger parties are about, and from there they make a decison. It's the political party's responsibility to get their message out there, and they do it pretty well tbh.
