Argus Posted June 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 So that makes the majority of Australians self identified idiots. Just wanted to be clear on your thoughts. This is so blithely illogical I have to laugh. If everyone in Australia was in favour of it they wouldn't need it. Or is that too straightforward for you? Why do you need a law to force people to vote? Because substantial numbers of people don't want to vote. And most people see the lack of logic in ordering people without any political interest to vote anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Well then, you must have read the Charter that you cite so often. Forced voting would almost certainly be unconstitutional. It would be no more unconstitutional than having to wear a seat belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 This is so blithely illogical I have to laugh. If everyone in Australia was in favour of it they wouldn't need it. Or is that too straightforward for you? Why do you need a law to force people to vote? Because substantial numbers of people don't want to vote. And most people see the lack of logic in ordering people without any political interest to vote anyway. Do a little research on the 80 or so countries around the world that already have it, and enjoy much higher voter turnouts than we do. Or is that too straightforward for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Do a little research on the 80 or so countries around the world that already have it, and enjoy much higher voter turnouts than we do. Or is that too straightforward for you... Well, we could require four year olds to vote, too. Then we'd have an even higher turnout. And is high turnout the objective? It seems to me that an educated, intelligent, responsible voting public is a hell of a lot more likely to choose properly than a bunch of four year olds, or people who think like four year olds or people who have all the political knowledge of our year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Do a little research on the 80 or so countries around the world that already have it, and enjoy much higher voter turnouts than we do. Or is that too straightforward for you... Once again you're completely wrong - and once again, you will likely show no humility and just move along until your next embarrassment.... As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (and one Swiss canton) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 It would be no more unconstitutional than having to wear a seat belt. Sure if you ignore the section on democratic rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Once again you're completely wrong - and once again, you will likely show no humility and just move along until your next embarrassment.... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting Pardon me for the typo, should have been 30 or so. Never made a typo yourself I suppose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Pardon me for the typo, should have been 30 or so. Never made a typo yourself I suppose... Nice try - the 3 is a long way from the 8 or the zero on any keyboard. Humility is when you admit you were wrong - you've got a ways to go. As you keep blindly telling others - do some research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Nice try - the 3 is a long way from the 8 or the zero on any keyboard. Humility is when you admit you were wrong - you've got a ways to go. As you keep blindly telling others - do some research. 32 countries is the actual number I have from my research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 32 countries is the actual number I have from my research. 32 is correct...but only 13 enforce it - including Australia......but you probably wouldn't like the company they keep - the list includes Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador, Argentina, Nauru, Malaysia and of course - North Korea - hardly bastions of democracy.......and if you're not going to enforce it in any way, then it's merely a symbolic gesture. I just wanted to keep this election ploy in perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 A system that allows Conservatives to rule with the endorsement of only 4 of 10 voters is one to be defended at all costs by Stephen Harper. The latest Forum poll, released yesterday, asked respondents their position on forming a coalition to defeat Conservatives in the increasingly likely situation of a Tory minority. 75% of Liberal and NDP supporters approved (only 12% of Conservatives agreed). The message in this? A Conservative minority outcome is tantamount to an outright defeat for Harper's gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 A system that allows Conservatives to rule with the endorsement of only 4 of 10 voters is one to be defended at all costs by Stephen Harper. But if only 4 in 10 voters vote for the NDP it's perfectly fine that they form a majority government, right? I haven't seen any of you bitching and complaining about Rachel Notley's majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 A system that allows Conservatives to rule with the endorsement of only 4 of 10 voters is one to be defended at all costs by Stephen Harper. The latest Forum poll, released yesterday, asked respondents their position on forming a coalition to defeat Conservatives in the increasingly likely situation of a Tory minority. 75% of Liberal and NDP supporters approved (only 12% of Conservatives agreed). The message in this? A Conservative minority outcome is tantamount to an outright defeat for Harper's gov't. Only if that possibility is put out as a possibility by the LCP and the NDP leaders pre-election. No one believes the NDP and the LCP will form a coalition. Many in the Liberals are closer to the CPC than the the NDP. To suggest that the those two parties are a group that speaks for 60% of the country as a united group is quite laughable. But it does further to perpetuate that claim that Harper's election is somehow invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Harper's majority is invalid, as is Rachel Notley's and Jean Chretien's. That much is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Harper's majority is invalid, as is Rachel Notley's and Jean Chretien's. That much is true. Lets take bets to see if JT goes through with electoral reform should he win then. Is Rachel Notley talking about it? At least the McWynnty government in Ontario had a plebiscite asking for reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 But if only 4 in 10 voters vote for the NDP it's perfectly fine that they form a majority government, right? I haven't seen any of you bitching and complaining about Rachel Notley's majority. If Notley was several seats shy of a majority I would expect her to reach out to other elected opponents of the sitting gov't, thus forming a representative gov't reflecting the voters intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 If Notley was several seats shy of a majority I would expect her to reach out to other elected opponents of the sitting gov't, thus forming a representative gov't reflecting the voters intentions. Why would you expect that? Forming a coalition with a party that has vastly different views has consequences. The Coupe ERRR Coalition talk in 2008 really hurt the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Lets take bets to see if JT goes through with electoral reform should he win then. Is Rachel Notley talking about it? At least the McWynnty government in Ontario had a plebiscite asking for reform. The NDP is one party. So she's for MMR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 The NDP is one party. So she's for MMR. So she's tabling legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Why would you expect that? Forming a coalition with a party that has vastly different views has consequences. The Coupe ERRR Coalition talk in 2008 really hurt the Liberals. In Alberta, there was only one(1) Liberal member elected, hard to imagine more severe "hurt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 In Alberta, there was only one(1) Liberal member elected, hard to imagine more severe "hurt". So you'd be happier with the result if, say there was a minority, that the Wildrose and the PCs formed a coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 The proportional representation system appears to have worked well in the UK. Perhaps this type of system works best for a well informed and educated society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 So you'd be happier with the result if, say there was a minority, that the Wildrose and the PCs formed a coalition. What nonsense. If, if, if. If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 What nonsense. If, if, if. If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Just seeing. You'd rather see coalitions than parties with a plurality take power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 So she's tabling legislation?I don't know. I don't live in Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.