Should voting be mandatory?
- Thread starter shagster01
- Start date
Absolutely NOT! In fact one of the qualifiers for the privilege should be that you actually pay income tax.
Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app
Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app
Tyrathca
New member
So pensioners, the recently unemployed or those with large deductions the year/s prior to a election all can't vote by your rule? Wouldn't that also corrupt government since they would have an incentive to cut tax out for the poor of they don't like them (since then they can't vote them out)
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Pensioners have paid income taxes as well as many recently unemployed. There are many people in the United States who never pay income tax. It's kind of mind boggling that people who don't pay any thing receive a refund from the IRS each year through "earned income tax credits". If you don't have skin in the game you shouldn't get to play.
Tyrathca
New member
At first this sounds good but just inevitably leads to a concentration of power with the rich. Those who have monopolistic market share will simply vote in regulations and other supports and subsidies that keep out competitors. Then those of low income will also have all supports (like education, health, etc) taken away from them leaving them with no social mobility and ability to increase their wealth and vote. Economic disparity will become more entrenched and passed on down each generation.
There is a reason why everyone still uses the one person, one vote system in democracies. Not because it's a great system but because no one has figured out a way to have inclusion/exclusion criteria or weighting of votes where the criteria itself can't be corrupted. I'd love it if we could all have a system where only the informed can vote but have never been able to solve the above problem of the criteria being corrupted.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Not even at first for most people. You are correct; it would place more power in the hands of the most wealthy.
One unpopular argument I might raise is; if more than half of taxes and paid by less than 10% of people, should they not have a higher, or more stake in how that money is spent?
Better choice makers for sure. The main hitch is, as a society, we have been moving more in the direction of equality over liberty since income taxes.:wave2:
Voting should be electronic, conducted online, updated anytime online or by post, abstention should be an option, and citizens (from puberty onwards) should be able to change their vote at any time. The default option should be abstention.
Then individual MPs can be changed at any time, especially when they mess up, because the MP can be changed just as soon as the existing MP's vote falls below a specified threshold.
As a political activist myself, I've asked around about this, and the only objection is security, but I say that that all security issues can be addressed, and canvassing polls will show if something suspicious needs to be investigated.
But why this question here in this forum?
I think that all candidates should have to declare they faith/non-faith orientations prominently !!
Then individual MPs can be changed at any time, especially when they mess up, because the MP can be changed just as soon as the existing MP's vote falls below a specified threshold.
As a political activist myself, I've asked around about this, and the only objection is security, but I say that that all security issues can be addressed, and canvassing polls will show if something suspicious needs to be investigated.
But why this question here in this forum?
I think that all candidates should have to declare they faith/non-faith orientations prominently !!
You forgot the attribution...though I hear there's some difference of opinion as to whether it was Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or Caligula.
lain:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
While at it, every person's vote should be recorded for big data analysis and eventual visits by guys in black SUVs for, er, discussion with the voter. :AMR:
AMR
The current 'democracy' results in the selection of parties or coalitions
that are 'insane', 'unworkable', 'corruptible' and/or 'a source of much instability'.
So an improvement is needed.
If you don't like my improvement, either you personally are self-satisfied
within the current anti-Christian fiasco, or you have little interest
in the plight of many other citizens, which is also unChristian,
or you have ideas better than mine that you have not yet shared.
But, you're honest reaction has spurred me to think / explain further, if I may...
Option 2: For those people who fear SUV reprisals, then why don't they just leave their vote
as an abstention and then support them seek to influence politics through lobby groups.
Option 3:: As above, but individuals (or mass lists) can be
barred from public office by paper referendum !!
that are 'insane', 'unworkable', 'corruptible' and/or 'a source of much instability'.
So an improvement is needed.
If you don't like my improvement, either you personally are self-satisfied
within the current anti-Christian fiasco, or you have little interest
in the plight of many other citizens, which is also unChristian,
or you have ideas better than mine that you have not yet shared.
But, you're honest reaction has spurred me to think / explain further, if I may...
Option 2: For those people who fear SUV reprisals, then why don't they just leave their vote
as an abstention and then support them seek to influence politics through lobby groups.
Option 3:: As above, but individuals (or mass lists) can be
barred from public office by paper referendum !!
Stalin, Mao, and a host of dictators, past to present, salute you.
As much as I hate to spoil a "gotcha" moment, Hitler once vowed (and then managed) to "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy." Grunfeld, The Hitler File: A Social History of Germany and the Nazis, p. 109
And Hitler salutes you.
Is this seriously your idea of how a sensible debate should go?
Nope. He used democracy against democracy. That doesn't discredit the institution. I've never suggested the democratic idea is incorruptible. It takes vigilance and investment. That a church leader runs off with the congregation's money and his secretary isn't really a criticism of religion.
That will mean something when you stop playing games predicated on tense and issue more than bumper-sticker one-offs. So...is your idea of a serious or sensible debate, "Democracy is for pansies"?
lain:
That's nice.
You're still a pansy for thinking democracy is the way to go.
Et tu quoque?
It wasn't a debate; it was my opinion. You disagree with it and thought the fallacy of poisoning the well would be a convincing way to change minds.
If you disagree with me, give a sensible reason. "Hitler would like you" is just plain stupid.