Mandatory military service to vote?

Well, hypothetical question here, do you think that for a person to vote should be in the military (Reserves, Full-Time, ROTP, etc.)? I don't think so, but just curious because I heard someone mention at a dinner party last night that in order for a person to have the privilege and honour to vote, he/she must be involved in defending that right and the country in question.


I think it's a pretty noble idea, but pretty damn risky as it most likely would backfire, I am going into the military when I'm 18 (ROTP) so to me it doesn't matter. Your thoughts, thank you. No hijacking and spamming please :)

Someone has been reading Starship Troopers :rolleyes:

I think there should be some sort of "Service", that should make you work for the Right... not necessarily Military though, just something nasty and risky.

:rolleyes:

lol, ahhhh that's where it's from, Starship Troopers :lol:

Well this certain "gentleman" at the dinnerparty is in the Air Force. Your idea of "service" intrigues me, please explain :) (lol, they make you work in the IRS for a week hahahahah, god that'd just be painful)

no, though i do believe you should have to pass an exam* in order to be allowed to vote.




*not a proper exam in the "need to pass" sense, but some form of basic what politics is about course...then it wouldnt be such a popularity contest.

No.

i would go as far to say as well that if such a law was passed that those that don't get to vote because they haven't "served" should be tax exempt.

no.

4 to 1 so far.

I think it's probably the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard, hard on it's heels is the voter test idea.

I believe I've been party to a discussion on here before concerning testing voters for suitability and the last time such an awful practice was implemented (in the US circa 1960s) was to stop - the more poorly educated - black folk from voting.

The current system may not be perfect but whichever way you try to restrict people's right to vote for the country they reside in, you will always preclude some folk from participating who should not be excluded.

I expect everyone can think of instances of folk who would miss out thro' no fault of their own in both cases.

Thats why i said "service" but not necessarily Military.

There are plenty of other things that could be done.

what i would suggest wouldnt be an exam you have to pass, more a "course" of some description where they tell you what left wing, right wing, etc are and what each of the parties is standing for, policies etc. basically, the problem as i see it is that when theres an election, i believe that a lot of people who vote vote for votings sake...they dont really understand the fundamentals of what they are voting for, just
"Tony Blair has done a crap job...." though they dont know why...basically a course to get rid of the spin.

if i sound prejudiced or condascending, its only cos when i turned 18 and first got the chance to vote, i didnt know jack-shit...only what my ALevel FRENCH teacher taught us about french politics

I dont, im serious.

At the moment, people vote for cakes and circus's... they want better services and less taxes, and the parties try and promise this.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.. Making it so that the Right to Vote isnt free, but can be achieved by ANYONE over their majority, with a bit of time and effort... could actually be a good idea.

Military Service, or some sort of Community Service for a year or two... something that makes them have to sweat with no thanks... may be the way to go.

:ph34r:

I would add... make it so that you cant run for office unless you have the right to vote. May make the politicians that little bit slower to go to war..

What about disabled people.

What about the lad that had to leave school at 16 to get a full time job that can't spare the time to do some form of community serive cause he is too busy looking after his alcoholic mother and three younger siblings.

Do you deserve to vote more then them.

Please feel free to pre-empt and consider what my reasons might be to counter your post as to why this is totally unworkable before your next hit enter. I thank you.

If I sound condescending it is because I mean to, people who think they somehow have more right to vote than some other individual because they watch Newsnight deserve it :)

I delibrately said that it did not have to be Military Service.

There are plenty of Jobs that can be done by the Disabled, and there is an arguement that someone looking after his Alcoholic Parent and siblings is DOING a service. If he/she wasnt there, then it would cost a lot more for the State to look after them.

At least it would be recognised this way :P

So it has to be a 1-2 year 'thing' that can be done by disabled people, of all denominations.

Hmmm, that's a fairly narrow scope. I mean it really is. What about quadroplegics.

Or should we just say fuck it and give ALL disabled people exemption from this 'thing'

Nope, that's positive discrimination, can't have that.

It's got to be the same thing for all too, you cant have one person clicking a mouse button in a warm office and another picking up litter to earn their vote, that's just unfair. There seem to be problems abound.

As to the lad getting exempted for having a tough time of it; who decides that. What if some other bloke decides that he can exploit this loophole by tailoring his circumstance. He may get a lawyer to ensure he also gets this preferential treatment.

Rich folk can afford better lawyers therefore they will be able to 'dodge the draft' (as it were) more easily that poorer people.

Oh dear. Let's just make it so everyone can vote provided they're a resident, shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So it has to be a 1-2 year 'thing' that can be done by disabled people, of all denominations.

Hmmm, that's a fairly narrow scope. I mean it really is. What about quadroplegics.

Or should we just say fuck it and give ALL disabled people exemption from this 'thing'

Nope, that's positive discrimination, can't have that.

It's got to be the same thing for all too, you cant have one person clicking a mouse button in a warm office and another picking up litter to earn their vote, that's just unfair. There seem to be problems abound.

As to the lad getting exempted for having a tough time of it; who decides that. What if some other bloke decides that he can exploit this loophole by tailoring his circumstance. He may get a lawyer to ensure he also gets this preferential treatment.

Rich folk can afford better lawyers therefore they will be able to 'dodge the draft' (as it were) more easily that poorer people.

Oh dear. Let's just make it so everyone can vote provided they're a resident, shall we.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even the kids in Nursery?

How about the ones in Nursing Homes with Dimensia? Who votes for them? How do you know thats what they want?

There IS no perfect system, we all know that...

Making it for Landowners or the Rich is plain wrong...

I just want to weed out the idiots that dont take their Right to Vote seriously... :P

Democracy is the way that you say that the Majority is right..

Autocracy is the way that you say that one man is right...

Tell me, who decides?

I believe in Democracy, however I also believe its being Diluted by people that believe in nothing and want Services AND Tax Cuts... or dont even listen to the issues, and follow a party because they always have.

There has to be a better way.. and i dont mean being ruled by the Intellectuals, or the Rich, or Corporations...

Even limiting the vote to those that are willing to earn it.. in whatever way (There is things that can be done by ANYONE..hell it doesnt even have to be useful).. at least it means that only those that give a fuck will vote :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even the kids in Nursery?

How about the ones in Nursing Homes with Dimensia? Who votes for them? How do you know thats what they want?

There IS no perfect system, we all know that...

Making it for Landowners or the Rich is plain wrong...

I just want to weed out the idiots that dont take their Right to Vote seriously... :P

Democracy is the way that you say that the Majority is right..

Autocracy is the way that you say that one man is right...

Tell me, who decides?

I believe in Democracy, however I also believe its being Diluted by people that believe in nothing and want Services AND Tax Cuts... or dont even listen to the issues, and follow a party because they always have.

There has to be a better way.. and i dont mean being ruled by the Intellectuals, or the Rich, or Corporations...

Even limiting the vote to those that are willing to earn it.. in whatever way (There is things that can be done by ANYONE..hell it doesnt even have to be useful).. at least it means that only those that give a fuck will vote :P

---

Not children in nursery. Did you really think I meant minors, or is that a bit of bluster.

You haven't suggested a single way that you can weed out the 'undesirables'. If you do then I will explain why it can not work.

I can understand that you feel superior to those that do not follow politics because you watch the News instead of Emmerdale at 7pm, but who is to say that the sources from which you derive information are not corrupting your own decision with disinformation more than someone who voted Hague because it was in her tea leaves.

There is no perfect system - you said it - so don't try to create one. Instead work on not trying to deny anyone their right that was so hard earned by our forefathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I believe in Democracy, however I also believe its being Diluted by people that believe in nothing and want Services AND Tax Cuts... or dont even listen to the issues, and follow a party because they always have.

---

I would like to know why you feel that being made to earn the vote would change this? Many countries have mandatory service, yet people in those countries still do exactly the things you point to.

No system is perfect however the way it's done is as good as it can get if one wants democracy....everyone over the age of majority is entitled to vote.
If they choose to blindly vote that is their choice, for good or bad

yep
national security would be upped

and im a cannon fodder any way :P

Vidcc, compulsary wouldnt meant zit...

It would have to be VOLUNTARY...

They'd only be doing it coz they WANT to vote.

I dont care if they count paperclips... just something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Vidcc, compulsary wouldnt meant zit...

It would have to be VOLUNTARY...

They'd only be doing it coz they WANT to vote.

I dont care if they count paperclips... just something.

---

Ok look at the USA we have a voluntary military....not all but many of those veterans vote blindly for the candidate of a particular party.

many Vets in the Uk do as you pointed out happens today.... they want less tax and more services...it's human nature and i don't see why that would change if they had to earn the right to vote.

In my first post i said anyone that hasn't earn't the right to vote should be tax exempt...any thoughts on that? ..because in paying tax they are buying the right to vote are they not?

Youre a big joke:lol:
http://www.sacp.org.za/images/sacp1.gif

PS

Id be the first one to be throwing a molotov at your crazy ass
http://www.tabula-rasa.info/ComicsImages/Molotov.jpg

http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/jg_2003/molotov-a.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Thats why i said "service" but not necessarily Military.

There are plenty of other things that could be done.

---

like i said, a good idea. Cadets? Community Service? Jury duty (lmfao)? take your pick :)

oi, stop hijacking ziggy :mad3:





























:shifty:

To have criteria for voting is like saying some people are better than others. I think society should cling on to the illusion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. :shifty:

As for compulsory voting, I think this is a mistake. I believe in freedom of choice, and you should be free to choose to vote, or not to vote, as you see fit.

I just wish there actually was a choice in this country at the moment, now I hear on the news that the Tories will back the ID cards bill.... just where are the alternatives? Where's the choice?

It's not surprising that the voters don't bother turning out.. It's hard to tell the difference between either of the so-called main parties, the Tabloids will choose the next government, as always, they'll pick the one they can have most "fun" with and who they can sell the most papers off the back of. :ph34r:

Having some kind of "eligibility to vote" criteria isn't going to change anything... :(

Quote:

---

the Tabloids will choose the next government, as always,

---

This is the problem that i have - the whole system is a popularity contest, and the issues that are discussed during the propoganda are a) not thought about seriously by many people, and b)ignored after the election anyhow.

I would definitely agree to a system to make people vote if they really want it, and then my idea of making them goto classes would work - all can do it, and you dont benefit from being intelligent, black, gay, disabled, able-bodied,.....

This way, you get rid of the

Quote:

---

Having some kind of "eligibility to vote" criteria isn't going to change anything

---

problem, cos people would be taught (impartially) what the parties offer, their beliefs, ideas etc. also a bit about basic tax systems etc, so that people who want to vote can, and make an informed vote, instead of relying on "tabloid propoganda"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vivitron 15

This is the problem that i have - the whole system is a popularity contest, and the issues that are discussed during the propoganda are a) not thought about seriously by many people, and b)ignored after the election anyhow.

I would definitely agree to a system to make people vote if they really want it, and then my idea of making them goto classes would work - all can do it, and you dont benefit from being intelligent, black, gay, disabled, able-bodied,.....

This way, you get rid of the problem, cos people would be taught (impartially) what the parties offer, their beliefs, ideas etc. also a bit about basic tax systems etc, so that people who want to vote can, and make an informed vote, instead of relying on "tabloid propoganda"

---

That's not such a bad idea, it's a whole lot better than RF's ill conceived 1-2 year paperclip survey.

As you say it would have to be a fairly rudimentary course without a pass/fail criteria such that no-one is necessarily excluded.

However, to make this course easily accessable to all it would involve a fair bit of planning; qualified instructors would need to be prepared to travel to the homes of bed-riden folk, childcare would have to be organised for single Mums. Recompense would have to be sorted for the employed (akin to jury service) - you can imagine that I could go on and on here ... :really:

The cost involved would be a major sticking point, the incumbent party would not implement it because the opposition would, rightly, argue that it is uneccessary and the money is better spent on education or health. It is a surefire vote loser.

Also this rudimentary course would not suffice to battle the mighty PR machines of the respective parties nor the wily persuasions of the tabloid press which bombard the senses day in and day out. It's an honourable idea but it's akin to a man with a pitchfork fending off a fully laden APV.

this is true, and the cost would inevitably be astronomical, though i also have a plan for that :D

The second thing (of many) which i hate about our system of democracy abd voting etc. is the cost of an election campaign...im sure i read that in the recent presidential election there were 10,000 lawyers on standby, ready to fight for the candidates...cost=unreal. then theres the travelling around the country, cost=a lot. of course this is all without 'cheap' publicity stunts and tv advertising (prime time).

Id love to know how much is spent in each election run-up by each party. I bet that the cost of this could be reduced drastically, especially since there is no 'propoganda' in my new system.

disclaimer: I hate the democratic system, but havent completely worked out a new system, so there will be holes in my argument, all I know is there is something better

Quote:

---

at least it means that only those that give a fuck will vote

---

my point exactly, Voting is not mandatory (that's not my point at all), i just said that those that want to vote should do some sort of service that anyone could do, and then they would realize that voting isn't something you should toy with (ie. blindly vote).

u can go at 16

That is not why we broke away from the British, to give voting rights just to those in the service. Then we'd just be giving everything back to the king, and going against everything we were for. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. knew people were idiots, thats why the United States is a Republic, not a true Democracy. If we were to give voting rights away, America wouldnt be anything but another than a common-wealth of the United Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orcutt989

That is not why we broke away from the British, to give voting rights just to those in the service. Then we'd just be giving everything back to the king, and going against everything we were for. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. knew people were idiots, thats why the United States is a Republic, not a true Democracy. If we were to give voting rights away, America wouldnt be anything but another than a common-wealth of the United Kingdom.

---

Uh? Where does the UK come into play?

I am pretty sure it would be mandatory military service in the US army :blink:

The United Kingdom doesnt have a Commonwealth, it is a member of a Commonwealth.

The UK isnt in charge of it.

Your also getting confused between the Commonwealth Nations (most of which are Republics) and Commonwealth Realms (Those that decided they wished to stay with a Monarchy, and chose to have the same one as us).

The Commonwealth Realms have the same "Head of State" ie: Queen Elizabeth II.. However its a Titular position, whereby she rubber stamps the Parliamentary decisions of all those independant countries.

Or perhaps, your thinking more of certain countries we could mention that are controlled by the USA, but the people have no Right to vote in US elections? You know, places like Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands etc? :rolleyes:

Don't forgot the Constitutional Monarchies.

All the Commonwealth Realms are Constitutional Monarchies :blink: