Fact checking

[Justin]

Graham Lally (2004-04-28 14:47Z) wrote:

> Damian Gerow wrote:
> >I don't see any way to educate the mass public.
> 
> Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote
> if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections?

Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea.  While being deathly ill
or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is
extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not
indicative of lack of desire to vote.

The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters.
While that's certainly an "improvement" (by your metric), it doesn't
resolve the core issues.

If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent?
If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive
their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or
more informed.  It might even increase stupid voting patterns by
encouraging dumb people to form cliques.  They won't want to appear dumb
to their friends as a result of voting for the "wrong person," and
groupthink is bad for elections.

> Make sure there's a handy "abstain" option for those who want to get
> the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why,
> too.  Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable
> space and eh, instant feedback.

There is an abstention option.  The poll administrator checks off your
name when you show up, so someone knows that you "voted."  You don't
have to choose anyone on your ballot.  You can either toss it in the
garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians
on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the
fiber-starved voting machine.

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill and Beatrix