A solution to 'divisive issues' Politics

[Cut-Throat]

I'm fine with low voter turnout, provided there's no impediment to folks exercising their right to vote. I'd rather not have disinterested folks (or ones who won't take the time to understand the issues) voting. If you DO understand and care about the issues/candidates, how could you choose NOT to vote?

Well, if you are happy with the Senate debating the 'Gay Marriage Amendment' last week, when everyone in the nation knew that it would go nowhere (including the participants), then you are getting the government that serves you.

It's the folks in the middle that claim that they don't like the candidates of either party, that I'm speaking to. Mostly because they are not talking about issues that are important to them. Many are on this forum and claim allegience to neither major party. They won't be disinterested voters, when the politicans know they have to vote! - That is the point!

I think the solution of mandatory voting has value. Just like jury duty and a military draft.

 

[bpp]

I bet all the absentee-ballot voters abroad (and afloat or submerged) are a little nervous about this proposal.

Would be all right with me. You lose anonymity when mailing in your
ballot anyway, so it probably wouldn't make much difference from my end.

 

[samclem]

Well, if you are happy with the Senate debating the 'Gay Marriage Amendment' last week, when everyone in the nation knew that it would go nowhere (including the participants), then you are getting the government that serves you.

I get it. But having politicians debating pointless issues for long periods which result in no action is FAR from the most dangerous thing they could be doing. Every minute they are doing that is a minute they aren't raising taxes, restricting somebody's freedom, or producing dumb top-down solutions. The problem isn't that they are debating dumb things--the problem is that they aren't addressing important things. I don't see how forcing people to vote will make politicians address important things. If people recognized the importance of these issues, the politicans would already be addressing them. If people continue to not recognize important issues, then when forced to go to the polls they'll continue to vote for the name that pushed their hot buttons the hardest.

An apathetic ignoramous forced to go to the polls is still an apathetic ignoramous.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
- Pogo

I think.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I get it. But having politicians debating pointless issues for long periods which result in no action is FAR from the most dangerous thing they could be doing. Every minute they are doing that is a minute they aren't raising taxes, restricting somebody's freedom, or producing dumb top-down solutions. The problem isn't that they are debating dumb things--the problem is that they aren't addressing important things. I don't see how forcing people to vote will make politicians address important things. If people recognized the importance of these issues, the politicans would already be addressing them. If people continue to not recognize important issues, then when forced to go to the polls they'll continue to vote for the name that pushed their hot buttons the hardest.

An apathetic ignoramous forced to go to the polls is still an apathetic ignoramous.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
- Pogo

I think.

That is the point! - It turns the system around. Politicians will be forced to address the apathy. The politicians that can change the apathy into action will get elected.

The politicians will no longer be talking to 'their base' - which is the extreme - they will have to address the apathy.

 

[poboy]

I just want the dead to quit voting.

 

[astromeria]

I just want the Diebold devils to quit voting :

 

[dory36]

I prefer that decisions about who runs the world be made by people who have at least some clue what the issues are, not those who are voting because of positive or negative short term incentives, and not those who are swayed by emotion to the exclusion of reason.

How about this, as long as we are engaged in fantasy: contenders agree on a dozen questions that are fundamental to the differences in their positions, with each providing a short description of their position.

Treat it like a wine tasting. The positions aren't displayed next to the candidates' names -- people vote on whichever answer best matches their views. The winner is the one whose views are selected by most voters. Forget one person one vote-- this is one person 12 votes.

Those who watch the campaign will know whose positions are whose. Those who don't can select from the positions articulated on the ballot and vote accordingly.

Obviously this is a fantasy. I don't believe that many politicians are even psychologically capable of stating their positions in a way intended to inform rather than calculated to persuade "the masses".

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You would need the escape clause option "I wanna vote for the movie star that I like!"

 

[tozz]

You mean a questionnaire something like this?  This was designed by GOP local officials for prospective candidates for Tom DeLay's seat.  A quick gander at the choice of questions is dismaying.  It just reinforces the belief that coast-hugging blue staters are from Mars, Texans are from Venus. 

Ain't no in-between.

How about this, as long as we are engaged in fantasy: contenders agree on a dozen questions that are fundamental to the differences in their positions, with each providing a short description of their position.

 

[Eagle43]

Anytime you vote you are selecting the lesser of two (three/four) evils.  You can only select the person/party that you believe comes closest to your beliefs.  That being said, it is embarrasing how few Americans vote. 

I think that the recent winner of American Idol got more votes that any president. Nobody mandated that voting; they wanted to, they were interested.  Perhaps we should make voting easier.  The Idol voters didn't have to go somewhere to register.  They voted by phone or online.  Modern technology makes voting very easy and it should be used.  IMHO, the pols don't want more voters.

 

[dory36]

Recent elections have been very close. The deciding votes were probably made by people who were "undecided" (i.e., uninformed) a few days before the elections.

Thus, we decide who runs things based on which candidate/party can cajole or scare the most unmotivated, uninformed, and apathetic <1% of the population to actually vote.

Several posts refer to getting additional voters from that pool of people who aren't sufficiently motivated to even mail in a ballot or drive to a voting place.

Is there any reason to believe that these additional voters will result in a better decision for the country?

Or will their inclusion just make politicians even more inclined to appeal to the emotional rather than to logic and reason?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

American idol also lets you vote more than once...and frequently people get voted in/out because 82 people in someones home town voted 32,000 times

 

[dory36]

And this differs from elections how?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm pretty sure all 82 people were alive and actually lived where they said they did