jseal, 4 occasions computes to nearly ten percent failure rate...maybe acceptable in some situations, but for choosing our leaders, I find it appalling...& if memory serves, the previous occasions resulted in ineffective one-term presidents...

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

scotzoidman,

It could only be considered a failure if the presumption is that the candidate with the most votes should be the president. As best as I can tell, that is not the way the Electoral College works – and not how it was intended to work. Do you read it differently? This is not to say that it cannot be replaced with a popular vote based approach, but a structural change of that order may be a difficult sell. You couldn’t point to England, Australia or Canada as models.

The election of 1824 could be identified as the first in which the candidate who obtained the greatest popular vote (Jackson) failed to be elected president. The claim is a weak one, though, since six of the twenty four States at the time still chose their Electors in the State legislature. Some of these (such as the populous New York) would likely have returned large majorities for Adams had they conducted a popular election. You’re not seriously suggesting that Andrew Jackson should have become president with less than 50% of the popular vote, are you?

In 1876, Hayes had announced in advance that he would serve only one term.

Benjamin Harrison's election in 1888 is really the only clear-cut instance in which the Electoral College vote went contrary to the popular vote. This happened because the incumbent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, ran up huge popular majorities in several of the 18 States which supported him while the Republican challenger, Benjamin Harrison, won only slender majorities in some of the larger of the 20 States which supported him (most notably in Cleveland's home State of New York). Even so, the difference between them was less than 111,000 votes out of more than 11,000,000 cast - less than 1% of the total. Interestingly, in this case, there were few issues other than tariffs (Harrison for, Cleveland against) separating the candidates so that the election seems to have been fought - and won - more on the basis of superior party organization in getting out the vote than on the issues of the day. I find this strikingly similar to what happened between Messrs. Gore and Bush.

And, of course, the election of 2000. It seems somewhat presumptuous to refer to that winner as a one term president (even if the presumption seems appropriate).

__________________
Eudaimonia

I have had several acuaintances,that were,hugely,popular,in a variety of circles.They may have been popular,but their decisions,wouldn't be right for
a country!Being popular,doesn't mean that you can make the correct decisions.It still remains that,if your candidate,didn't win,there will always be
"sour" grapes! Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

Sorry to steal your catchcry Sharni...but that smells of frogshit to me

Having one's name checked off of the electoral roll and submitting a ballot paper is compulsory only for those enrolled to vote. Being eligible to enroll to vote (being over 18) does not compel one to enroll to vote. If you don't enroll to vote, you won't go on the electoral roll and so won't be compelled to vote. Of course, once you're on, you can't remove yourself, but I have friends who are nearing their mid-20s and are not enrolled to vote.

Even if you are enrolled to vote, there is nothing compelling you to actually write anything on your ballot paper. Plenty of people submit a blank ballot paper, it's called "voting informally".

So essentially, you can sign yourself up to be forced to go through the rigmarole of showing up to a place of voting until you snuff it, but even then you don't have to submit your preferences. So I'd say that voting is not compulsory for all intents and purposes in Australia.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

Belial,

I think Sharni and Catch22 were merely pointing out one of the differences between the Australian and American election processes. In Australia, the state may penalize voter non-participation, while in America in cannot.

People can be VERY difficult to organize, as your example illustrates.

__________________
Eudaimonia

*LOL*....most politics is frogshit Belial

As for the not enrolling...just because they dont know your there doesnt mean its wrong to not enrol...by law you are sposed to enrol and vote...bit like tax dodging...illegal but ppl do it...still not right eh

Your are being given the chance to have your say on how you want your country run....the whole hiding or donkey voting is a crock of shit...stand up and be counted...your missed vote may have been the deciding vote for all you know...and you've just flushed it down the toilet

__________________

I wouldn't go all the way to a polling booth and then put a blank paper in the box. Would vote for someone. Even if it was just the silly walks party!

__________________
Half of a set :halo:

I didn't know that, and apparently, you're right. It sounds a bit stupid to have a compulsory enrolment process.



Many people would see it as an appropriate response to a pointless exercise, and that the odds of their vote deciding anything is somewhere in the area of being struck by lightning on the way home. And the unfortunate part is that many of them are right.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

__________________

Sharni, I like the idea of having some sort of compulsary law in place, even if it's not foolproof...makes me ashamed when I hear of people in emerging democracies braving bullets and/or death squads to vote in their 1st elections, when less than half of us in the so-called developed countries can't be bothered to go out & vote cuz it's raining or [insert lame-ass excuse here]

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

I'd really much rather perv than walk to a booth to decide between Pepsi and Coke. My "lame-ass excuse" is that it's completely pointless.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

My take on compulsary voting is this.

A democracy only operates properly if the people do their duty and vote.

We all have rights in a democracy and hand in hand with rights goes responsibilities. You have no say in paying taxes you have to and voting is in the same category. So you vote or get fined.

It does get a much more representative result. Not too many people vote informally. Often the ones that vote informally do so because of their misunderstanding of how to vote not through submitting a blank voting slip.

Amen Scotzoid....typically closer to 30% here but we still find the need to exalt democracy to the rest of the world. Bit hypocritical.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

I've got a friend who told me in October 2000 that he didn't think his vote mattered. He lives in Florida. Three years ago, he told me to quit forwarding him news articles with the subject line "does it matter yet?" He'd gotten the point. Damn good thing he loves me, cause I can be annoying as hell sometimes.

I've always been fascinated by Australia's mandatory voting policies....but they've kind of left me wondering about something. Pixies seems as good a place to ask as any, since it's on topic in this thread: if you knew that you would be forced to vote, would it make you any more interested in paying attention to the issues around you? Or would those who don't care today (not the only reason not to vote, just one that puzzles me) vote casually and ignorantly? Not that I'm saying that some of the votes that ARE cast aren't done in ignorance....just curious to know if the new votes wouldn't just make the signal/noise problem worse.

Wandering back to the pics now ,

G

__________________