Originally Posted by Ladger
Then the politicians who get into office are the ones who spend more on advertisement - rather than meaningful debate and support for their respective ideologies, as I'm pretty sure people will vote for the "shiniest politician".
This isn't america.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Perhaps a better idea would be to convince the people of the importance of voting - not forcefully, but via education?
People are educated on the importance of voting from a young age. When was the last time you checked out your local curriculum? In fact, I believe Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard are forcing the issue harder onto the proposed national curriculum and tieing it in with Australian History (which is also getting a big kick up the arse). I'm sure you already knew that though
Originally Posted by Ladger
If you don't require people to vote, the percentage of people that actually vote depending on the policies the candidates propose will increase - since more of them will care about politics.
That's not really an argument at all.
Also, ITT: Non-voters and virgin voters feel elite
Last edited by m0o; Jan 26, 2010 at 08:54 AM.
Originally Posted by m0o
This isn't america.
So what if it isn't? Stereotyping won't get you anywhere.
Originally Posted by m0o
People are educated on the importance of voting from a young age. When was the last time you checked out your local curriculum? In fact, I believe Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard are forcing the issue harder onto the proposed national curriculum and tieing it in with Australian History (which is also getting a big kick up the arse). I'm sure you already knew that though
Perhaps then they need to educate the students better and remove this obscure requirement to vote then, no?
Originally Posted by m0o
That's not really an argument at all.
Why the hell not? I'm not saying only people who can pass a basic test in politics or something should have the right to vote, I'm just saying that the people with a basic knowledge of politics will increase if a government let voting to choice, big difference.
Originally Posted by Ladger
What if you really don't know which candidate while give "the best future", if there is such a thing? And don't make it sound like you need to care about a country's politics to care about the country.
Firstly, you are taking my words out of context when you say "the best future", what I infact said was "what you percieve to be the best future". If you are unsure of who will best suit your desires for the country perhaps you should take an interest and learn. Last time I checked the politicians practically ran the country, therefore I'm not making it sound like you have to care about politics to care about the country. Caring about politics is also a mis-representation, simply having a basic level of understanding of them is sufficient for most people to be satisfied that they are making the correct decision when voting, thus showing they care about the country.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Then the politicians who get into office are the ones who spend more on advertisement - rather than meaningful debate and support for their respective ideologies, as I'm pretty sure people will vote for the "shiniest politician". I'd rather not let the democratic voting process be something you just throw money at to win. If you don't require people to vote, the percentage of people that actually vote depending on the policies the candidates propose will increase - since more of them will care about politics.
Go watch The Zeitgeist Movement and The Zeitgeist Addendum films, then return when you understand how the world works.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Perhaps a better idea would be to convince the people of the importance of voting - not forcefully, but via education?
Thats what I'm trying to do right here.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Why the hell not? I'm not saying only people who can pass a basic test in politics or something should have the right to vote, I'm just saying that the people with a basic knowledge of politics will increase if a government let voting to choice, big difference.
People's desire to partake in politics is fueled solely by what they want in the world, the only likely reason for what you just stated occurring is that the quality of the politicians in office, in relation to people's views on the world, would decrease before the increase which you believe would occur.
Last edited by TeapoT; Jan 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM.
[Torigod]
Originally Posted by Ladger
So what if it isn't? Stereotyping won't get you anywhere.
That's not a stereotype at all. They elected Obama, and he spent the most on marketing. Other than this fact, IMO Hilary was clearly the best choice for obvious reasons.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Perhaps then they need to educate the students better and remove this obscure requirement to vote then, no?
Would you praytell what exactly is wrong with the education system? I mean, since you seem to know so much about it.
Originally Posted by Ladger
Why the hell not? I'm not saying only people who can pass a basic test in politics or something should have the right to vote, I'm just saying that the people with a basic knowledge of politics will increase if a government let voting to choice, big difference.
This still isn't an argument. You cannot prove that by eliminating forceful voting that people still will not make terrible decisions - or even vote for a laugh. Furthermore, you cannot say that those who are capable of making an informed decision will get out and vote. I'm ignoring your terrible wording here, by the way (bolded)
Last edited by m0o; Jan 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM.
