Which one would tax you more?

[waitforufo]

So would compulsory voting and fines for people who failed to vote.

 

I have to agree with ParanoiA regarding discouraging the ignorant vote. Compulsory voting inforced with fines would do just the opposite. I do believe that low voter turn out reflects the fact that most people who are ignorant politics & government know that they are ignorant and choose not to vote.

 

Back to the tax issue. I have spoken to may people who think you should just never look at the big number on your pay stub. They think you should only look at the bottom line. Why pay attention to a make believe number? Everone I know who holds this position tends to have liberal views.

Edited August 31, 2008 by waitforufo

[iNow]

It's a tough point to argue, though. If voting were compulsory, perhaps people would almost force themselves to pay more attention. It's really speculation either way (unless we look at the Aussies or other like countries), so I won't worry too much on this point. I, too, tend to agree with ParanoiA, but am uncomfortable with who gets to define "stupid" and "smart" in these instances.

[Sisyphus]

I, too, tend to agree with ParanoiA, but am uncomfortable with who gets to define "stupid" and "smart" in these instances.

 

Obviously, an effective intelligence test would be measuring to what degree they agree with me.

[Psycho]

It's a tough point to argue, though. If voting were compulsory, perhaps people would almost force themselves to pay more attention. It's really speculation either way (unless we look at the Aussies or other like countries), so I won't worry too much on this point. I, too, tend to agree with ParanoiA, but am uncomfortable with who gets to define "stupid" and "smart" in these instances.

Why not just make them actively abstain from the voting, rather than not voting they have too go and tick a box saying they don't want to vote for any of the candidates.

[iNow]

Why not just make them actively abstain from the voting, rather than not voting they have too go and tick a box saying they don't want to vote for any of the candidates.

 

Would we then be able, if the greatest percentage of the populace chose "none of the above," to choose alternative candidates and try again? If so, I like the idea.

 

Also, the idea of them having to "actively abstain" would further increase engagement between the populace and the government. I really do like this approach.

[CPL.Luke]

one problem with engagement is that people tend to get strange ideas about what the government does, and what it can do.

 

for instance everyone hates taxes, but the government does need to tax people in order to provide services that people require, its a cliche of polling that the sam people who support tax cuts also support increased spending on programs they like.

 

Ask any of your friends who think the government should cut taxes if they support increased veterans benefits, increased education spending etc.

 

peope don't understand that the government is required to provide services and services cost money.

[Pangloss]

Well certainly forcing people to vote for between two authorized parties is scarcely better than forcing them to vote for one authorized party. That would not be democracy.

 

But even if you allow people to "actively abstain", just the requirement to vote itself would be a violation of a freedom.