Should abstaining from voting in elections be allowed?

[Xanafax]

Ahh so your one of those people that wants to be independent - but your all right with others having to give up their freedom for your sake.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Another point to consider is that there are more adult women than there are adult men. (Women tend to live longer, and also the effects of having large numbers of young men killed in wars over the years means that women are in the majority).

So newsbone, enforcing the vote means you would be submitting the way your country is run to a majority vote by women. I'd be surprised from your other posts that this is something you would want.

I don’t care which gender will run the country the way I want to be run am not gender sensitive but purpose oriented. If women can make the world a better place so be it!

[Holistic Star]

Glad to hear it


anyway - you didn't answer my question about why you thought enforced voting would bring about change. I think it is more likely to bring about the status quo and people who are made to vote will stick with the govenment they have because it's familiar to them.

[newsbone]

I don’t think so; we are not talking about some ignorant, needy and uneducated folks here for they vote. The people who are not concerned with voting are usually the most enlightened in the society who have left voting to the less privileged. Even if you force this group to vote it will not remove their ability to choose correctly.

[Holistic Star]

Oh I see that's where we disagree. I think it is the people who are uniformed and those that don't care that don't vote.

I think the priviledged and educated do tend to vote.

Of course there are many exceptions to every generalisation. It probably also varies between countries too.

But I can see now why we disagree about the benefits of enforced voting. You think it will increase the numbers of educated people voting. I think the opposite.

However I think we are both on the same page about wanting educated people voting. We just disagree in which methods would be best to create that situation.

I don't know how you find out the facts about people's level of education and whether or not they vote.

[Xanafax]

What does level of education have to do with your political understanding?

That's a bit discriminatory. It's only the well educated that can make decisions then? Everyone else is too stupid to know what's best for themselves?

Frankly I'm insulted.

[tintin]

ha ha ha yup and ive just been called uneducated and uninformed

newsbone you have GOT to STOP evaluating people from your own fixed standards.

even if you be very well read and informed does not take away the fact that right now you are using none of it.
its a 'my way is the best way'thinking.and ill jail you if you dont agree.

your posts are tyrannical and archaic to say the least.
like an 'old' way of thinking.

real power is not pushing people threatening them with or elses and having them obey.
maybe youve come here to learn that. yknow one of the lessons you need to overcome.

Gandhi got rid of a 200 year old monarchy without a raised voice or violence.

now thats power.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

What does level of education have to do with your political understanding?

That's a bit discriminatory. It's only the well educated that can make decisions then? Everyone else is too stupid to know what's best for themselves?

Frankly I'm insulted.

What constitutes education to you?

[Xanafax]

An educated person is someone who has completed at least 15 years of school, a highly educated person is someone who has completed about 19-21 years of schooling. In my opinion.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Oh I see that's where we disagree. I think it is the people who are uniformed and those that don't care that don't vote.

I think the priviledged and educated do tend to vote..

That makes it interesting because it is quite the contrary these sides of the world. Here it is mostly the underprivileged have the time to go to the polling stations while the seemingly enlightened don’t care a rat’s ass about what they consider a waste of precious time.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Of course there are many exceptions to every generalisation. It probably also varies between countries too.

But I can see now why we disagree about the benefits of enforced voting. You think it will increase the numbers of educated people voting. I think the opposite..

It is quite surprising looking at the choices the educated make when it comes to voting, I do not mean to question their judgment but why complain about a government you voted for in the first place. According to me education transcends school to include self education the bottom line remains one is informed about the choices he/she is making, consequently there should no room for complaints thereafter.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

However I think we are both on the same page about wanting educated people voting. We just disagree in which methods would be best to create that situation.

I don't know how you find out the facts about people's level of education and whether or not they vote.

Somehow you are agreeing that most of the educated are skeptical on the idea of voting and I did not say anything about the levels of education therefore I cant tell where you got it from.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by tintin

ha ha ha yup and ive just been called uneducated and uninformed

newsbone you have GOT to STOP evaluating people from your own fixed standards.

even if you be very well read and informed does not take away the fact that right now you are using none of it.
its a 'my way is the best way'thinking.and ill jail you if you dont agree.

your posts are tyrannical and archaic to say the least.
like an 'old' way of thinking.

real power is not pushing people threatening them with or elses and having them obey.
maybe youve come here to learn that. yknow one of the lessons you need to overcome.

Gandhi got rid of a 200 year old monarchy without a raised voice or violence.

now thats power.

My arguments are never personal tintin! And I have not evaluated anyone in this forum or thread just voicing my opinioned observations. The methods are tyrannical but effective for am not looking at it from the perspective of what it is but what it can achieve.
Gandhi did not sit on the fence complaining but chose to leave his profession despite his education to rally up the poor and un-educated folks to do what they did. That is why there is only one Gandhi!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

An educated person is someone who has completed at least 15 years of school, a highly educated person is someone who has completed about 19-21 years of schooling. In my opinion.

I think you are talking about formal education which is not education per se!

[themaster]

So let me guess based on your location your from a 3rd world country.. and I guess you feel like your people aren't exacting there power?

Well starting more dictatorship crap in africa isn't going to help, which is what your proposing??

I highly suggest you use the power of LOA and your example to clean up your region of the world.. after all we need it cleaned up so we can hit proposed deadlines for events.. there should be work underway in all of africa.. democratic work.. and EU like agreements.. if you weren't so head strong about using the illusion of power.. you might realize all the power is in.. the "power of illusion"

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by themaster

So let me guess based on your location your from a 3rd world country.. and I guess you feel like your people aren't exacting there power?

Well starting more dictatorship crap in africa isn't going to help, which is what your proposing?? "

On the contrary I was not advocating for president for life or anything of that sort but for people to be coerced to vote. Dictatorship is not only found in Africa George Bush practiced it somewhere in the western world, it might look different to you but I don’t see where Americans made decisions that might affected the way their country was run, this is just a different kind of dictatorship I think.
I don’t suppose people who do not vote can have the moral right to talk about dictatorship as they are under a leader they don’t want but can’t do anything about it, this might look different to you but it is all the same with the difference lying on you deciding on which dictator shall rule over you while we don’t enjoy the privilege of which tree to climb.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by newsbone

as they are under a leader they don’t want but can’t do anything about it

This is incorrect.. you can change everything.. everywhere.. there are no victims only people playing the victim or in your case maybe seeing victims..

I'll give you a example on our side.. a lot of people are upset with bush, darn right.. I asked them to be

In 2000.. I wanted him in.. I fell for the stigma campaign that they ran on clinton/gore.. and guess what without voting he won (barely)

In 2004.. I wanted him out.. and I pushed against him for the lie that was WMD (reverse LOA effect)

In 2008 little earlier than this.. I made my choice for president based on body language alone that was Obama as Hilary’s body language was bad.. anger/lack kind of meanness bitchy feel.. (she seems better as secretary of state)

Here we are at the outcome the only thing that would have been my preference for obama was more electoral votes.. I was going for a landslide.. but seems like it was a mudslide

Back to bush.. while a lot of people are unhappy with him for running the country like a dictatorship.. I think he provides a excellent example of what not to do..

- Presidents probably should be smart
- Democracy via force doesn't work (not really)
- Fear sells may be over in our country..

You can if you choose do more work for your country on a reality level then any form of government.. I tell you this.. you ignore it.. that's fine.. if you insist on living in a action based universe.. then stop being like your local people who you want to force into voting and start running for power/office.. and hopefully if you’re a good leader.. you will realize that you don't force people, you persuade them..

[Eric Roosevelt]

Hey guys, we encourage vigorous debates but please keep in mind that personal attacks won't be tolerated and also that threads should not be taken too far off topic.

[Brutha]

The ancient Greeks had laws that punished staying neutral in time of civil war with death.
It's good democratic tradition to force people to participate in the community.

People have a duty to pay taxes and get sent to prison when they refuse to pay.

That's a bit discriminatory. It's only the well educated that can make decisions then? Everyone else is too stupid to know what's best for themselves?

People aren't supposed to vote based on what's best for themselves. The are supposed to vote for the candidate that best for everyone.

There the slight difference between what the public is interested in and the public interest which Rousseau called the general will.

there should be work underway in all of africa.. democratic work.. and EU like agreements..

The EU agreement aren't what you get when you have the kind of democracy where everyone votes what's best for them and that proposal afterwards gets implemented.

When the EU decided to hold referendums on whether it should get a constitution the referendum failed.
If you interpret the EU as a right thing it's a classic example where what the public is interested in and the public interest aren't the same thing.

The good of the community is a tribal belief.

The good of the individual is the paramount good.

If you think that I don't really understand why you make those tribalistic arguments against Muslims migrating into the UK.
If it's all about individuals and tribal stuff like being the citizen of a given country and religion doesn't matter you should allow everyone the same rights to live in a country.

That makes it interesting because it is quite the contrary these sides of the world. Here it is mostly the underprivileged have the time to go to the polling stations while the seemingly enlightened don’t care a rat’s ass about what they consider a waste of precious time.

How many percent do you believe to be "seemingly enlightened" in your country? Is that an amount of people that would really change election results?

[Daffy Duck]

I always found it funny that the same people who talk about those who "fight for your FREEDOM" are the same people who say "you HAVE to vote."

Hey -- where'd my freedom go?!

Anyway, I didn't vote in the 2004 election and got some crap for it. I don't care. In 2008 I voted to keep Palin out of office.

I'm allowed to praise or criticize government, even if I don't vote. If I pay taxes, don't I have a say, whether or not I voted? Why can other countries talk about my government when they didn't vote?

The whole idea of being required to vote in order to have an opinion is logically flawed to the extreme.

[ns123]

newsbone,

It seems to me that freedom is not a aspect of life that is highly valued to you. Which is ok, we just don't agree. Freedom is a high priority in my life, which means, I accept that others have the freedom to make choices that are contrary to my own.

Since freedom is not a priority to you, I can see why your forced voting idea would seem ideal to you. So you have the freedom to believe that forced voting is a good idea, and I also have the freedom to fight you tooth and nail, all the way if it ever becomes even a plausible reality.

Because: "Give people freedom, and some will make "unpopular" choices. And that's OK, because freedom means nothing if you're free only to do what others want you to do."