Should voting be made compulsory
Poll: Should voting be made compulsory
Total Members Polled: 179
Discussion
colonel c said:
Despite all the media hype, the turnout was still less than 70%. The remaining non voters could have made a significant difference had they voted.
Or made no difference, especially if they voted in line with the rest of the population......Anyway, it's a good thing as I suspect a lot of non-voters would, if forced to vote, vote for Labour......
Dracoro said:
colonel c said:
Despite all the media hype, the turnout was still less than 70%. The remaining non voters could have made a significant difference had they voted.
Or made no difference, especially if they voted in line with the rest of the population......Anyway, it's a good thing as I suspect a lot of non-voters would, if forced to vote, vote for Labour......
thole from now on, no-one is going to be any different, they are all out to line their own pockets, they couldn't give a st about the country or the people, non of them will make anything better for the vast majority.Do I think voting should be compulsory? Good God no.
Yesterday at work we had one of our cleaners in the office, she honestly said she had no idea who was Prime Minister, had absolutely no interest in the news let alone politics and when pressed said that if she did vote she would probably vote Labour because her Dad did. I bet Emily Pankhurst is really glad she put in all the effort.
Yesterday at work we had one of our cleaners in the office, she honestly said she had no idea who was Prime Minister, had absolutely no interest in the news let alone politics and when pressed said that if she did vote she would probably vote Labour because her Dad did. I bet Emily Pankhurst is really glad she put in all the effort.
Gaspode said:
Tangent Police said:
Yes. You should and there should also be a "get rid of all of them" box.
Does this mean you are in favour of anarchy, or despotism?From wiki:
Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would be rendered moot.[citation needed]
Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.
Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market
randlemarcus said:
colonel c said:
Carfiend said:
Only if there was a none of the above option.
In effect a spoilt paper is just that. WorAl said:
Dracoro said:
colonel c said:
Despite all the media hype, the turnout was still less than 70%. The remaining non voters could have made a significant difference had they voted.
Or made no difference, especially if they voted in line with the rest of the population......Anyway, it's a good thing as I suspect a lot of non-voters would, if forced to vote, vote for Labour......
thole from now on, no-one is going to be any different, they are all out to line their own pockets, they couldn't give a st about the country or the people, non of them will make anything better for the vast majority.te imo and i think whoever gets in next will soon be out at the next election.Anyone who doesn't vote if they can is just being lazy. If your intent is to say "none of the above" then that view should be registered in a way that can be recorded as being a distinct view from the halfwit who just can't be arsed.
Anyone who says that all the parties are the same and/or that voting won't make any difference is an idiot.
Anyone who says that all the parties are the same and/or that voting won't make any difference is an idiot.
It's a free country. You should have the right to vote but not be forced to vote. Perhaps there are some people out there who don't like any of the candidates in their area. When I went to vote yesterday there was a woman arguing with the Polling station staff that she didn't want to vote for any of the candidates on that ballot paper as they weren't from the party she wanted to support. I think she may have been a BNP supporter as they didn't stand in our area but the other 5 main parties did. If you forced people to vote then I feel there may be a lot more spoilt ballot papers.
dern said:
Anyone who says that all the parties are the same and/or that voting won't make any difference is an idiot.
Oh my fking god, you've been brainwashed, do you really thing that the people who sit in a big hall and wave bits of paper at each other and shout "booooo" like children actually give a damn about you or the countries benefits? They couldn't give a toss, they are just here to make as much money as they can for themselves in the next 4 years until the next election where they may get voted in and they can do the same for the next 4 years.It's utter b
ks what they tell you and you're stupid enough to believe it. no wonder the country is in the state it is.dern said:
Anyone who doesn't vote if they can is just being lazy. If your intent is to say "none of the above" then that view should be registered in a way that can be recorded as being a distinct view from the halfwit who just can't be arsed.
Anyone who says that all the parties are the same and/or that voting won't make any difference is an idiot.
OK, can I join the "Lazy, halfwit and Idiots" club then Anyone who says that all the parties are the same and/or that voting won't make any difference is an idiot.
You'l be saying we should all watch football next?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff