Comments on: Statistically One Vote Doesn’t Make Any Difference

By: unhappy

unhappy — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 04:59:40 +0000

Worse than not voting yourself, you are actually advocating not voting to others, primarily it seems, because you feel your vote should be more important.

By the same logic, you could justify littering the streets and flushing poisons into the sewer. Since its just you, the damage would be insignificant. Of course, other people might start to follow your example... but perhaps you tell yourself that its up to other people to make their own choices?

Its obvious the system is broken, but until we work out something better, we'll have to do our best with this one. Boycotts aren't improving the situation.

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:15:07 +0000

Agree with Bill, democracy makes us feel empowered to some degree, but actually causes each individual to have a level of influence that is virtually meaningless. But what else? The real trick is to own/pay a couple of TV stations and papers etc so that you can put out just enough information to guide enough voters to back the required party or person.

You have to do training and pass a test to drive a car. Perhaps instead of getting the right, or compulsion, to vote at some age, we should all instead be banned from voting until we have achieved some level of qualifications? Qual's might include basic economics,investment, law, governance, propaganda and so forth.
Only problem who'll set the exam?

Best solution for now - those with odd numbered houses vote for the more left wing major party and those with even numbered houses vote for the more right wing major party. In that way you make every electorate a marginal seat that must satisfy the local population.

By: obs

obs — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:50:30 +0000

So is that the same "imperfect" as in the same imperfection that got the US G.W Bush? NZ Helen Clark? (note we had to vote for her cause the opposition had only wet blankets to offer)

Yeah compulsory voting is swell you can get dud either way...

We're yet to find out if Rudd is alas the same as the others and if Obama is as well...

By: John

John — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:33:12 +0000

Who cares whose views the politicians pitch to? They change colors quicker than chameleons, it doesn't change what they will actually do once they're in office.

I'm pretty sure Bill voted for Ron Paul in the primaries though.

By: charles

charles — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:40:41 +0000

So it's, I didn't vote so don't blame me. Well a whole lot of moderates didn't vote and look what you got.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:04:59 +0000

Voting is not compulsory in the UK. Hence the low turnout even at general elections.

Compulsory voting forces all the idiots to vote and makes politicians dumb things down even more.

If you really want to increase voter turnout have political parties that disagree on the important issues, the more vehemently the better. Labour vs Conservative, Liberal vs Labor, Republican vs Democrat just gives you the option of primarily different presentations of extremely similar policies.

I've long since given up hope of getting even moderately intelligent politicians elected. We just keep getting strategically shaved monkeys in parliament who just want to milk the system for what it's worth. We're already well down the road to serfdom. Next stop totalitarianism of one kind or another; hopefully after i'm 6 foot under.

By: Coffee Addict

Coffee Addict — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:50:44 +0000

Compulsory voting (UK, NZ & Australia) leads to statistically better (if imperfect) outcome.

Optional voting brings out the nutters and those with extreme views on election day. US politicians have no option but to pitch their campaigns (and their policies) to these people and their polarised views.

Bill has no obligation to vote but he should "give it a go" anyway.