Philosophy Now Forum

commonsense wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:47 pm

Well put. You have my vote!

Glad to hear it.

Sorry, this reply is in somewhat of a tangent to the OP. May I present a link that describes exactly why democracy is so screwed in many countries. In a nutshell, they are elected oligarchies masquerading as democracies as most electoral systems do not require obtaining and retaining the consent of ...

Sorry I didn't realise someone had replied, hence the delayed response. Candidates will continue to act this way, even after the implementation of NOTA. Once elected, the wise politician will work for those who made the greatest donations to help him get elected, i.e., lobbies, corporations and spec...

A snippet of the interview from 'The Wright Stuff' radio show of my colleague on the white paper and NOTA.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1 ... Kn5FHGkgk

So you can abstain by not voting, which you can't do if voting is compulsory. This is not true. A person can abstain from compulsory voting. Civil disobedience. There is no mechanism to force a person to vote beyond their own willingness to comply with compulsion laws. You can legally reprimand a p...

^ Its so weird. I can only assume he is trolling. The definition of abstention is not voting. So you can abstain by not voting, which you can't do if voting is compulsory unless there was an option to abstain, which is in many ways absurd, as you have to go to a voting booth to abstain from voting. ...

Which is why I think you'd have to have compulsory voting and then some optiins could be that if the NOTA vote won there is a re-election and govt supended until or party's have to form a coiltion interim until rerun, etc. In general, I am pretty much against compulsory voting, as there are valid r...

[*] 1. Also in a post-NOTA environment, big money may still invest in candidates if they would like to. However, since the ultimate objective of corporate donations is to gain influence after the election, the safest bet is to contribute to both candidates. Whoever wins will have received support fr...

Thank you for posting. I sometimes wonder what planet I am on when answering the seemingly only other poster on this thread. Roman, You are right to say that Timeseeker is essentially the only other poster on this thread. Although I have barely posted, I have read every post and re-read many as wel...

For those new to the thread. The first post described what I refer to as 'real democracy' which is the adherence popular sovereignty. ie all power is vested in the people. If this is the case then the people must be free, as that is the only way they can have power. If they are free then they must h...

I am so tired of timewaster. He just wants to troll and derail this thread with nonsense.

I will no longer respond to him.

I have never once advocated for voting to be compulsory. if fact I support his view. Then you necessarily contradict your definition of democracy where your rights cannot be taken away from you. If 51% abstain from voting then 49% can take away your rights. In fact the numbers don't matter. Those w...

We are not arguing over the definitions/distinctions between abstention and voting now. I am trying to understand your conception/criterion for "real democracy": Do you live in a "real democracy" if 49% of the voter base can dictate policy for 51% of the abstainers? That is not "the will of the maj...

Voting does not automatically involve logic and reason no more than not voting does not involve them Abstaining is an important part of the democratic process and is why voting should not be compulsory See! You and romanv already have different conceptions of what a "democracy" is supposed to be an...

Voting does not automatically involve logic and reason no more than not voting does not involve them Abstaining is an important part of the democratic process and is why voting should not be compulsory Thank you for posting. I sometimes wonder what planet I am on when answering the seemingly only o...