tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541479885845327365.post2318957186770079949..comments2020-06-20T04:40:06.020+10:00Comments on overwatering: Compulsory Reading?Gileshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05034571153121453245noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541479885845327365.post-83491117961192805822007-03-11T16:44:00.000+11:002007-03-11T16:44:00.000+11:00Unfortunately, I have to say that you've largely m...Unfortunately, I have to say that you've largely missed the point.<BR/><BR/>My main issue is with compulsory voting and the loss of freedom that it imposes. The 'caretaker government' issue you seem to feel so strongly about is a random idea to actually achieve some enforcement of low voter turnout.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am well aware that elections are expensive, though thank you very much for reminding me.<BR/><BR/>And your argument that this would just descend into obvious vote buying is not really a counter-example. If people can't be trusted to actually see through cheap schemes and vote on potentially larger issues, then why bother giving them the vote at all?<BR/><BR/>And that is essentially my point, if you're going to treat people like children by forcing them to vote, then why let them vote at all?<BR/><BR/>And no, I don't have the answers for how to actually make low voter turnout influence a government strongly, I am not a professional psephologist.<BR/><BR/>Maybe an appeal to the politicians better nature would be enough to prevent them claiming a mandate? Along with perhaps a stronger opposition...<BR/><BR/>Certainly, I'm not the only one concerned about governments claiming a mandate to do just about anything: <A HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/it-is-not-too-late-to-save-the-political-process/2007/02/28/1172338709542.html?page=fullpage" REL="nofollow">It's not too late to save the political process.</A><BR/><BR/>And it might be very fashionable with your mates to claim that all politicians are 'silly, silly fricks' who can never be trusted, but that doesn't really achieve anything, now does it?Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034571153121453245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541479885845327365.post-19999260498139608212007-03-08T23:40:00.000+11:002007-03-08T23:40:00.000+11:00AquamanPoliticians are already notorious for makin...Aquaman<BR/><BR/>Politicians are already notorious for making short sighted funding decisions based on the hree year election cycle. Now you're proposing that we have the daft pricks going around spending money in a perpetual election campaign. Every marginal electorate would have an Olympic swimming pool and a 15 story government department, but the country would go broke.<BR/><BR/>Elections in themselves are also very expensive exercises. Holding a national election every two years, so you and your mates can decide whether to vote informal or not at all, does not sound like a viable alternative.<BR/><BR/>And another thiing. The very term "caretaker government" implies that the silly silly fricks with the title are at liberty to take no care at all. The decision making process would run something like, "fucked if I'm going to change that, I'm only here in a caretaking capacity".<BR/><BR/>Go away and think of a better idea.Discohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00018270878954782164noreply@blogger.com