Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomjen3 | Hacker News Reader

I have been voting in all the elections I have been allowed to vote in. If I am ever forced to vote I won't. If the fine Is æarge enough, I will show up, get the ballot and rip it in pieces right then and there.

Voting should be a privelege for the few who are very well informed, not the many who are not.

View on HN

And I would have no problem with you tearing up the ballot. As long as you were forced to go there, collect it, and tear it up instead of voting.

The important thing is that the effort required to vote or not vote should be the same. This prevents laziness, being too busy, as well as factors like transport or long lines from being part of your decision.

Would you have a problem with me instead voting for the closest equivalent of the nazi party?

Especially if that becoame the party to turn to for those of us who don't like to be forced to vote.

> Would you have a problem with me instead voting for the closest equivalent of the nazi party?

Go for it. Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#United...

Your first point is pretty valid, it it basically the better way of not voting, since in this case the percentage of people wanting neither A nor B will be pretty accuratly known. And this, in turn could provide a much better picture of public opinion which in turn could take out a lot of political bickering and infighting.

But I completely disagree on your second point. A living democracy cannot live on just the "well informed few". In a system like this, fate of the society and almost all discussions would be dominated but exactly these choosen few, a self-percieved elite. In consequence, democracy wont be anymore, as are open discussions on issues important to any one. Voting in a democracy is not a privelege but a right to any citizen notwithstanding his position in life or his education or knowledge on a given subject.

If these "well informed few" have a special duty, it is to get all the rest at least well informed enough to not follow polical populists and extremist.

What elitist tripe. I've worked polling booths in Australia where people have come in and done exactly that (they have actively made a decision not to vote). That is their choice and I think that should be respected. I have no respect for the people who passively or apathetically don't vote.

Politicians should represent the entire country and that is why I strongly support compulsory voting. Politicians should be forced to govern for all. That means people you disagree with and people you consider uninformed. That is also why I believe prisoners and convicted felons should also be given the right to a vote. If someone is going to pass laws that affect you, you should have a say in who that someone is.

Their votes (for any value of them) are just as important as yours and you should come down off your high horse and reconcile yourself with that reality.

Politicians should represent the entire country...

Suppose I decide to vote instead of not voting at all. So now the winning candidate (who I may or may not have voted for) represents me, whereas he didn't if I hadn't voted?

...prisoners and convicted felons should also be given the right to a vote. If someone is going to pass laws that affect you, you should have a say in who that someone is.

Ok, what does that have to do with compulsory voting?

> Voting should be a privelege for the few who are very well informed, not the many who are not.

Except that you're not very well-informed. So why are you voting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com