Here's what CBS think.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...ge2757975g.jpg
:lol:
Words and stuff http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2757766.shtml
Printable View
Here's what CBS think.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...ge2757975g.jpg
:lol:
Words and stuff http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2757766.shtml
I vote for the uninformed vote being the worse of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Under-informed is just as bad.
That said, I hope you get what/who you want.
I prefer democracy to include as many people as possible. In an ideal World we would have a 100% turnout.
The next stage would be for people to think more deeply about who they were voting for. However let's not shoot for the moon just now. If we can just get them off their arses for a wee while to go to the bother of choosing their own leaders that's a starting point.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in Australia voting is compulsory. I like that idea.
I wouldn't mind it myself, as long as it included concurrent means-testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Make 'em show up for the the test, then make the vote optional for those who pass.
They'd figure it out after a few election cycles.
EDIT:
And make it a county, state, or federal holiday to suit.
The only way I would find compulsory voting remotely acceptable is if "none of the above" or similar wording were an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Some people don't vote because there is no acceptable choice for them.
A quibble easily dealt with by adding that option.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccThe only way I would find compulsory voting remotely acceptable is if "none of the above" or similar wording were an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Some people don't vote because there is no acceptable choice for them.
You don't have to get your knickers in a twist over it.
Please explain that to me because my first reading of it and understanding of what you mean is appalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I wouldn't mind it myself, as long as it included concurrent means-testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Make 'em show up for the the test, then make the vote optional for those who pass.
They'd figure it out after a few election cycles.
EDIT:
And make it a county, state, or federal holiday to suit.
Predicted turnout around 60%, whilst not great it's a decent improvement on the last time which was around 50%.
That makes me happy, with reservations.
I'd prefer an informed voter, and means-testing would serve the same function as a naturalization test does in the case of an immigrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyPlease explain that to me because my first reading of it and understanding of what you mean is appalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No reason to be appalled, JP.
What do you mean by "means testing".
In my country it refers to income.