Should We Have Compulsory Voting?

Upset? Not hardly.

Conservative Voice wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Constipated Voice/Whiny-One/Wanye of several variants, is the new technique to change your screen name weekly to prevent other posters from easily searching for your previous ridiculous comments and quoting them on current threads?

Nope. Wrong guess.

No matter how many times one changes their nic all their posts can still be searched. Click on their profile and then show all posts, or something like that. I even kept my profile pic so the slow ones on here would have a hint.

I DO love the way changing my nick seems to upset some of the radical conservatives on here, though. That's kind of a plus for me.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: And Let's stick to the topic. What I am against I have stated. What you speculate I'm for or against is not relevant here.

I take it you see the US in a position similar to Israel? We have our borders threatened daily in a fashion similar to theirs? To equate the military with the right to vote or to mandate that someone votes is vary different. We both know that is NOT the case. If I have to spell it out for you there is a problem. What I do find interesting is that there is no consideration given to why people don't participate more. One would think that is the place to begin solving a problem. Finding out why it's happening.

Mandating that everyone vote and mandating that everyone serve compulsory military service is similar, in my view. It's giving back to your country.

Personally, I'd like to see compulsory military service here instead of the current system.

So you find out why people don't vote (it's called apathy, as you probably know) and then what do you do? If you hold "Get Out The Vote" events to sign up people, the right jumps all over you. Apparently, they don't want everyone to vote and are very happy with the low voter turnout. The next logical question is "Why is that?" And when you figure that out, you gain some insight into the way they view voters.

Conservative Voice wrote: Your armchair psychology aside, Arlen....

Try driving whatever speed limit you want on the interstate and see how much freedom you have. Using your argument you should be able to do that.

Yeah, having EVERYONE vote puts too much power in the hands of the government.. What? It gives MORE power to the people and lessens the chance that special interest groups can swing an election. Being a citizen of this great country is a privilege and citizens should at least support it.

In the Australian system they don't have to vote for a candidate and if they don't vote they pay a $20 fine. That's it. Think of how much money the government could take in.

I posted this because I happen to support it. It's not an outlandish idea, IMO.

And no, JF, I'm not having a boring day. I'm posting something I happen to want to discuss. Do I need to run my topics by you first before posting?

You are saying that a person who does not vote is not as good as you. How elitist! You want to force them to be a better citizen. How elitist! You do not want to be master of your own actions, but also the master of those beneath you. How elitist!

The military draft by the federal government was started by a Democrat (Wilson) and ended in 1918 , restarted by a Democrat (Roosevelt) until WWII ended, and restarted again by a Democrat (Truman). It ended under a Republican (Nixon). Conservatives believe that voluntary military service is the only way in which a Democracy should be defended. Love of country, and all that stuff, ya know.

Conservative Voice wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: And Let's stick to the topic. What I am against I have stated. What you speculate I'm for or against is not relevant here.

I take it you see the US in a position similar to Israel? We have our borders threatened daily in a fashion similar to theirs? To equate the military with the right to vote or to mandate that someone votes is vary different. We both know that is NOT the case. If I have to spell it out for you there is a problem. What I do find interesting is that there is no consideration given to why people don't participate more. One would think that is the place to begin solving a problem. Finding out why it's happening.

Mandating that everyone vote and mandating that everyone serve compulsory military service is similar, in my view. It's giving back to your country.

Personally, I'd like to see compulsory military service here instead of the current system.

So you find out why people don't vote (it's called apathy, as you probably know) and then what do you do? If you hold "Get Out The Vote" events to sign up people, the right jumps all over you. Apparently, they don't want everyone to vote and are very happy with the low voter turnout. The next logical question is "Why is that?" And when you figure that out, you gain some insight into the way they view voters.

Ok, We disagree in our view regarding similarities between the military and voting.

THe next logical question is why is there apathy. I'd submit apathy has its roots in the feeling that an individual's vote does not make a difference. Look back in previous elections and you find that the popular vote did not make the difference on a state level. Our representatives decide instead. If it did, then I think people would be more inclined to vote. Of course, one needs a viable candidate not just a protest vote to excite people. It seems that the our representation in Washington too quickly forgets what people really want and instead engage in playing politics and that includes pandering to special interest groups. Perhaps the popular vote ought to determine all our elections and perhaps popular vote ought to sign off on major pieces of legislation. It would accomplish a couple of things. Firstly, legislation would have to be well defined and properly explained both in terms of pros and cons to the people, (no more Obamacare approaches where no one knows what is included and how it is supposed to work) and secondly, people would actually have a say in how they are governed. The majority would rule, not special interest groups or groups who shout the loudest. That is what I think.

Arlen wrote: The military draft by the federal government was started by a Democrat (Wilson) and ended in 1918 , restarted by a Democrat (Roosevelt) until WWII ended, and restarted again by a Democrat (Truman). It ended under a Republican (Nixon). Conservatives believe that voluntary military service is the only way in which a Democracy should be defended. Love of country, and all that stuff, ya know.

And it currently seems to be working quite fine without the draft. I know what the draft is like as a Vietnam draftee. If the US were under attack, ie. had its shores invaded by another nation, not just a terrorist attack. I and a lot of other veterans and responsible people would volunteer our services. I if only because I value my freedom that this nation still offers in progressively smaller doses. Freedom from persecution is what brought settlers to this country to begin with and in subsequent waves. The minute you start legislating how you must act, you loose a BIG part of what made this country great and so desirable to live in.

Arlen wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote: Your armchair psychology aside, Arlen....

Try driving whatever speed limit you want on the interstate and see how much freedom you have. Using your argument you should be able to do that.

Yeah, having EVERYONE vote puts too much power in the hands of the government.. What? It gives MORE power to the people and lessens the chance that special interest groups can swing an election. Being a citizen of this great country is a privilege and citizens should at least support it.

In the Australian system they don't have to vote for a candidate and if they don't vote they pay a $20 fine. That's it. Think of how much money the government could take in.

I posted this because I happen to support it. It's not an outlandish idea, IMO.

And no, JF, I'm not having a boring day. I'm posting something I happen to want to discuss. Do I need to run my topics by you first before posting?

You are saying that a person who does not vote is not as good as you. How elitist! You want to force them to be a better citizen. How elitist! You do not want to be master of your own actions, but also the master of those beneath you. How elitist!

Its pretty obvious you don't have kids. Or, if you did, you don't want them to strive for anything and be better because that would mean you were being.... elitist.

So, you think that the masses are childlike? The citizens are ignorant children to be led about? How elitist of you!

Conservative Voice wrote: Your armchair psychology aside, Arlen....

Try driving whatever speed limit you want on the interstate and see how much freedom you have. Using your argument you should be able to do that.

Yeah, having EVERYONE vote puts too much power in the hands of the government.. What? It gives MORE power to the people and lessens the chance that special interest groups can swing an election. Being a citizen of this great country is a privilege and citizens should at least support it.

In the Australian system they don't have to vote for a candidate and if they don't vote they pay a $20 fine. That's it. Think of how much money the government could take in.

I posted this because I happen to support it. It's not an outlandish idea, IMO.

And no, JF, I'm not having a boring day. I'm posting something I happen to want to discuss. Do I need to run my topics by you first before posting?

How does compulsory voting put more power to the people? Don't they already have the power to vote? How are you giving them anything new???? Ah, what it really comes down to is more money for a f&&&ing government that doe snot know how to hold to a budget. In other words instead of taxing, you would penalize people through a forced vote. Now that makes a whole lot of sense. You force people into voting even if they are clueless about what or who they are voting for!!!!. So what is your objective really? Is it making more money for the government or encouraging people to vote. What is the old saying about you get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar?