- Thread starter
- #81
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Re: OT Happy Birthday America, July 4th, 1776-2007 !!!
Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting mandatory voting.
I would like something done, but I am not sure what.
"that if no candidate satisfies one's wishes"
Sounds good but I disagree.
Surely one is less bad than the other, usually there are several, not
just 2.
More research on the voters part may be needed to make that
determination.
What would happen if the 40% - 60% of those that currently shirk their
responsibility for various reasons started to vote.
Since they do not vote, they start with that in common.
What else do they share?
Are a majority inclined to avoid surveys?
that is my guess.
If so, we know even less about them.
That silent group very conceivably shirk enough responsibility to
change everything in the control of power.
We will probably never know.
Alias can speak and I will listen, somewhat, since he votes.
I tend to ignore those who shirk their responsibility to vote since
they choose to give up their power when they have the chance to use
it.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:OpcRDoKwHHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Whilst I understand the reasoning one could argue that if no
> candidate satisfies one's wishes then voting for any would be wrong.
>
> Freedom is about choice and compulsory voting could (And would)
> simply be used by the richest party to ensure their permanent re
> election. Having policies that encourage people to turn out and vote
> is the important requirement, and we see evidence all the time that
> none of the candidates really has much to offer.
Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting mandatory voting.
I would like something done, but I am not sure what.
"that if no candidate satisfies one's wishes"
Sounds good but I disagree.
Surely one is less bad than the other, usually there are several, not
just 2.
More research on the voters part may be needed to make that
determination.
What would happen if the 40% - 60% of those that currently shirk their
responsibility for various reasons started to vote.
Since they do not vote, they start with that in common.
What else do they share?
Are a majority inclined to avoid surveys?
that is my guess.
If so, we know even less about them.
That silent group very conceivably shirk enough responsibility to
change everything in the control of power.
We will probably never know.
Alias can speak and I will listen, somewhat, since he votes.
I tend to ignore those who shirk their responsibility to vote since
they choose to give up their power when they have the chance to use
it.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:OpcRDoKwHHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Whilst I understand the reasoning one could argue that if no
> candidate satisfies one's wishes then voting for any would be wrong.
>
> Freedom is about choice and compulsory voting could (And would)
> simply be used by the richest party to ensure their permanent re
> election. Having policies that encourage people to turn out and vote
> is the important requirement, and we see evidence all the time that
> none of the candidates really has much to offer.