Or the opposition wins e.g Ghana 2009.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Should voting be compulsory?
- Thread starter Mike Hoxbig
- Start date
But we can choose who's salaries we pay. You can pick to pay the current bunch of incompetent twats or you can vote to get other people into gov. which you would rather pay.
Well, that is better than not voting in a situation where the best party (out of the bad choices) is not in power. This is clearly the case at the moment. Not voting = doing nothing to remove the incompetent ruling party from power. You are not actively doing something to change the situation. It makes sense to still cast your vote for a somewhat better party, as opposed to not voting.
daveza
Honorary Master
It would be a wildly divisive proposition.
But to play devils advocate, let's hypothesise that only tax payers are allowed to vote in the next general election.
The political landscape would alter radically and the DA may well take power in many Metro's.
From this new landscape would ( hopefully ) emerge service provision without corruption and wastage, the disenfranchised would find their lot vastly improved and should they be re-enfranchised would have a more enlightened view on whether to vote for colour or vote for action.
Yes it's a very simplistic hypothesis, but the same ol' same ol' voting pattern currently in play is not uplifting the masses is it.
murraybiscuit
Executive Member
i'm with ponder and viva on why you should vote, even if there isn't a perfect candidate.
because there never will be a perfect candidate. find the one which best represents your interests.
if you couldn't be bothered to research their policies, you shouldn't complain.
if you feel strongly enough about it, nobody's stopping you from getting involved in politics yourself.
if you think the whole system is a bad egg, then by all means, move to another country with a better system.
i'm not really agreeing with mike on the op.
people can always spoil a ballot. forcing them to vote doesn't mean they will vote or that they try to make the best choice for themselves.
violation of personal freedom almost always ends up with abuse of the system and corruption as a result.
because there never will be a perfect candidate. find the one which best represents your interests.
if you couldn't be bothered to research their policies, you shouldn't complain.
if you feel strongly enough about it, nobody's stopping you from getting involved in politics yourself.
if you think the whole system is a bad egg, then by all means, move to another country with a better system.
i'm not really agreeing with mike on the op.
people can always spoil a ballot. forcing them to vote doesn't mean they will vote or that they try to make the best choice for themselves.
violation of personal freedom almost always ends up with abuse of the system and corruption as a result.
DurbanMonkey
Banned
and considering this idiot has never been heard by the masses, we should analyze and consider why? please join him in the land of barley existent of those that steal oxygen.
daveza
Honorary Master
Hell, 1994 seems eons away from where we are now.
I remember standing in a queue for hours amongst white folk ecstatic that they could vote for the ANC - myself included.
I suspect 95% of those voters are now supporting the DA.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
So much for one vote not making a difference :/
Arthur
Honorary Master
Voting should not be compulsory, in my view. We should not criminalise people who refrain from participating in the political process - that is their choice and it should be respected. Forcing participation by using police power (laws) is an abuse of State authority and in fact undermines the common good because it undermines the State's legitimacy.
That said, I think it is the moral duty of citizens to vote. It should be freely exercised (and exercised freely).
---
(There is no contradiction between these views. Quite the reverse, in fact. Call me antiquated, but I'm with the long Western tradition that draws a distinction between crimes and sins, between civil and moral rights & obligations. Not all morally desirable things can or should be legislated, and not all politically or economically desirable possibilities are necessarily moral. Human liberty is much more than just civil, political or economic liberty, though it of course encompasses these.)
That said, I think it is the moral duty of citizens to vote. It should be freely exercised (and exercised freely).
---
(There is no contradiction between these views. Quite the reverse, in fact. Call me antiquated, but I'm with the long Western tradition that draws a distinction between crimes and sins, between civil and moral rights & obligations. Not all morally desirable things can or should be legislated, and not all politically or economically desirable possibilities are necessarily moral. Human liberty is much more than just civil, political or economic liberty, though it of course encompasses these.)
Last edited:
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
2nd post on this subject, and still no to the idea.
Forced or required voting means that politicians have less work to do , less promises to make and less action required on their behalf.
You the politician should be out there convincing me the voter to attend, not by what you promise , but by what you do.
Are you in there helping people build house ?, are you finding jobs for people ?, are you feeding the poor people ?, and are you actually physically getting involved in those tasks?.
You as the politician need to convince me you are the right candidate for the job, through your actions not a lot of hot air promises and bleating from your soapbox.
Then and only then do you earn the right to get my vote.
Dont expect it because i am forced to the poll, or simply because you are the opposition.
However we could just as much add an 'undecided' option to the ballot too. I wish that you read my arguments in this thread too. I think that the most important issue at hand here is that people should all be required to go to the same effort, and as such no body would not vote, simply because they couldn't fit it into their schedule or didn't think that the 15 millionth that thier vote matters to themselves would actually make a real difference in their own lives, they did not want to act as the slaves to the rest of the population, and as such chose not to vote, which i would say is a fair view that should be considered just as well.
+1 on that
Well more people have heard about him than anyone on this forum, so according to that logic everyone on here should be ignored even more so.
The democratic process itself is the problem. If all those people who didn't vote all suddenly turned up and voted ANC, you would still be complaining about the ANC and how the masses who vote for them are ignorent and uneducated, and that proves you are wrong. If you truly believe this system worked, how can you complain when it doesn't turn out in your favour?
I complain because the system DOESNT work, regardless of who is in power.
You cannot argue that mere participation in this farce of a process must be done, and then in the same breadth complain when you don't like their choices. YOU are the ones encouraging them to make those choices, YOU are the people saying please, go and vote for a candidate that will use violence (Law/Police) to impose his/your will on others who disagree with you, and when you are the other guy, you throw your arms in the air and say look what this group of people is doing to our country.
I refuse to participate in a system that encourages fools to impose policies that benefit special interests at the expense of others. When a candidiate is actually going to run on the basis that all they will be doing is removing policies that benefit special interest and not implement anything, I might decide to vote. That candidate in my opinion would be doing his/her duty, which is to protect my freedom (and everyone else's in equal measure), NOT to give handouts and make laws that benefit certain parties.
I'm sorry you feel it is somehow immoral when people on principal refuse to vote for one gangster over another.
STS
Mafia Detective
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 32,797
- Reaction score
- 2,943
if i could vote for a president, i pick WilD_CaT
In his ideal world there would be no politicians or government, just business so you won't be able to vote for him.
Rocket-Boy
Honorary Master
So you arent assuming that is already happening?
You know that those "uneducated" voters are rounded up in busses and taken to vote right?
I think it should be compulsory, at least then you know the results are based on what everyone thinks and not just the people that bother to vote.
You can vote with your wallet with every purchase...Wallmart isn't rich because it provides to a few rich guys, it provides for the masses. So whilst you are attempting to make it sound like an insult, a little more insight shows there are mechanisms for reinforcing good behaviour in the free market, and they are often way more efficient than a 4-5 year election cycle.
satanboy
Psychonaut seven
if i could vote for a president, i pick WilD_CaT
I second that.
RaFi
Well-Known Member
Had this argument some years ago.
The problem is that there are actually no good politicians. By default anyone who volunteers to be a politician is actually the wrong person for the job. Which means that if you are forced to vote, you have to choose from a candidates that you don't necessary approve of and who can walk over to another party, taking your vote with them(unless I understand the whole floor-crossing thing wrong). Unless you can give a no vote, which will be counted as a indication that you as a person do not agree with the current parties or system. However I don't know what will or can happen from there.
I agree that each person should vote, but because we are limited to parties only, it seems silly to simply vote for a party simply because it is the lesser evil. Currently it cannot be determined whether people are simply not agreeing with the democratic system or that they are just lazy.
Since we are asking rhetorical questions, how about people votes count in relation to the amount of tax they contribute to the country. Meaning that some rich person's vote will count more that the VAT paying social grant parasite. Of course the first argument will be that the wealth is still not representative, but its a nice thought though.
The problem is that there are actually no good politicians. By default anyone who volunteers to be a politician is actually the wrong person for the job. Which means that if you are forced to vote, you have to choose from a candidates that you don't necessary approve of and who can walk over to another party, taking your vote with them(unless I understand the whole floor-crossing thing wrong). Unless you can give a no vote, which will be counted as a indication that you as a person do not agree with the current parties or system. However I don't know what will or can happen from there.
I agree that each person should vote, but because we are limited to parties only, it seems silly to simply vote for a party simply because it is the lesser evil. Currently it cannot be determined whether people are simply not agreeing with the democratic system or that they are just lazy.
Since we are asking rhetorical questions, how about people votes count in relation to the amount of tax they contribute to the country. Meaning that some rich person's vote will count more that the VAT paying social grant parasite. Of course the first argument will be that the wealth is still not representative, but its a nice thought though.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
I don't see it as voting for a politician, but rather as against a majority vote. Vote for anyone, just not the one who the majority are going to vote for. If we make politicians actually work for their vote, and keep the main parties within striking distance of each other, then we end up benefiting as a consequence. We force them to work for us if they want to keep their position in power.
Giving someone power on a silver platter and then protesting when they don't deliver is not just counter-productive, but downright stupid. Even if there is no party which satisfies your requirements, a "none of the above" option will make a bigger statement than simply spoiling your ballot. It will induce change within parties to reconsider their policies to appeal to more people and win over their vote.
These sorts of options are only viable if people vote in large numbers, and one way to do that is to have every single adult vote.
As for having a scaling system where the amount of tax is proportional to the strength of your vote - I'm strongly against that. The wealthier will tend to vote along financially motivated reasons, which may not necessarily benefit the country as a whole.
What I am in favour of is having taxpayers cast a separate vote (again, not scalable) as to who manages tax money. The finance ministry should not be part of the ruling party, but part of the party who wins the taxpayers vote. They will then be able to allocate a budget based on audits and how the previous budget allocations have been spent. Or some such structure along those lines.
Last edited: