Un-votes (from the Atlas section)

[Gustaf]

I like it, but I think there should be as many votes as candidates, and you can aither vote in favour or against or abstain.

[Gustaf]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

A) 'un' is pronounced...'un'

B) They probably would, like it or not...

C) Also, the possibility of protesting against the legitimacy of the system is vitally important in an open, democratic state.

[Gustaf]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

1. Al would have won with al(ternate voting). (It needs work...)

2. Hmmn, who will people who vote for ON preference? The right wing Liberals (biggest misnomer in poitics) or the left wing ALP? Also, I put a coupe of hundred preferences to the ALP from ON.

3. All you have to do is turn up and recieve your ballot. Then you can eat it if you want, doesnt matter. People can always protest by not voting, but if people actually turn up to the ballot box, they are more likely to vote-and if they know thy have to vote, they are more likely to pay attention. Sure, some people will just vote along pry lines, but that already happens here with the parties radical bases. if everyone had to vote, the true voice of the people would be heard because fringe groups would have less power over the parties. Also, third parties could be significantly more sucessful b/c if people voted for them then it wouldn't hurt anyone else. If we had preferential voting Nader would have won 5% or so, and Gore would still have won the presidency.

There are only three ways, in theory, that a candidate can get over 50% of the VAP-1. they are the only candidate; 2. turnout is high and there are very few candidates, or they win in a landslide 3. Turnout is high and there is preferencial voting. The first isn't democratic; the second never happens here, and the third has worked in Australia and New Zealand for decades.

1. No, it's great!

2. The ON are weirdo-Nazis, those people have voting patterns that are very hard to predict.

3. So you just have to show up? That's slightly better, but still infringes people's liberties. The state shouldn't have that kind of power, that's what I feel.

There is PP as well, but let's not get into that, huh?

[Gustaf]

100% correct Gustaf!

Thanks.

[Gustaf]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

Sheesh...You are SUCH a Democrat....

What happens if they refuse to pay the fee?

Dose this mean that I am 20% Dem and 100% Rep?

The state shouldn't pay people to vote either, that's almost as bad as charging them for it...

And I second Don's quetion...what if they don't pay?