SURVEY: Should citizens be required to vote?

[Odysseus123]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, i accept the scolding for misquoting you, and, regarding this topic, i'm close to the stage where i'll agree to disagree.

I'll also admit that i'm a bit of a nihilist, and i find that living in Asia, among a mix of Asian people and foreigners, suits me better than any other place, or at least, i think it does.

PAX my friend-I have always enjoyed your posts..

 

I kinda think that I would have enjoyed your company too..

[zydeco]

In November 1932, American voter turnout was 57 percent and the United States elected FDR.

 

In November 1932, German voter turnout was 81 percent and Germany elected Hitler.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

PAX my friend-I have always enjoyed your posts..

 

I kinda think that I would have enjoyed your company too..

Same here, i am sure we could argue for hours, disagree on many things, and still be friends.

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, zydeco said:

In 1932, American voter turnout was 57 percent and the United States elected FDR.

 

In November 1932, German voter turnout was 81 percent and Germany elected Hitler.

It didn't elect Hitler.

 

Hitler got 33% of the votes.

 

Hitler was appointed into the position by Paul von Hindenburg (President) at the connivance of Oskar von Hindenburg (son)General von Blomberg (Army) and Franz von Papen-Reichstag.

 

Even at the height of the terror in 1934-with the KPD and SPD banned,most newspaper and media outlets also banned-the Germans only delivered 44% of the vote to Hitler.

 

That was the end until the first democratic vote of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.

 

The Germans can hold their heads high on that one.

 

But be warned..

[zydeco]

16 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

It didn't elect Hitler.

 

Hitler got 33% of the votes.

 

Hitler was appointed into the position by Paul von Hindenburg (President) at the connivance of Oskar von Hindenburg (son)General von Blomberg (Army) and Franz von Papen-Reichstag.

 

Even at the height of the terror in 1934-with the KPD and SPD banned,most newspaper and media outlets also banned-the Germans only delivered 44% of the vote to Hitler.

 

That was the end until the first democratic vote of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.

 

The Germans can hold their heads high on that one.

 

But be warned..

Hitler was appointed through a process reliant on highly engaged voter participation through a large number of political parties reliant on proportional representation. And, in fact, the theory of "Democratic Radicalism" being responsible for 1930s Germany has been out there for quite some time. The one time dean of German historians, Gerhard Ritter, advanced the idea and so did Karl Dietrich Bracher. In fact, as voter turnout intensified, so did voter extremism, with both the NSDAP and KPD gaining at the expense of the middle. 

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Hitler was appointed through a process reliant on highly engaged voter participation through a large number of political parties reliant on proportional representation. And, in fact, the theory of "Democratic Radicalism" being responsible for 1930s Germany has been out there for quite some time. The one time dean of German historians, Gerhard Ritter, advanced idea and so did Karl Dietrich Bracher. In fact, as voter turnout intensified, so did voter extremism, with both the NSDAP and KPD gaining at the expense of the middle. 

Again,I repeat,The vote for Hitler in 1932 was 33%.

Even with the full apparatus of the state behind him he only achieved 44% of the votes in 1933.

 

He achieved his power by a deal done by the right wing elements of the Army and the Reichstag.It was,in fact a partial military coup conducted against other elements of the Army-Kurt von Schleicher and Wilhelm Groener.

 

Schleicher was to die in "The night of The Long Knives" in exchange for Ernst Rohm.

 

Something that conservative German historians really don't want you to know.

[zydeco]

Just now, Odysseus123 said:

Again,I repeat,The vote for Hitler in 1932 was 33%.

Even with the full apparatus of the state behind him he only achieved 44% of the votes in 1933.

 

He achieved his power by a deal done by the right wing elements of the Army and the Reichstag.It was,in fact a partial military coup conducted against other elements of the Army-Kurt von Schleicher and Wilhelm Groener.

 

Schleicher was to die in "The night of The Long Knives" in exchange for Ernst Rohm.

 

Something that conservative German historians really don't want you to know.

Your repetition aside, Hitler came to power through the system of elections established for a democratic state. It's not just the argument of Ritter and Bracher, above, it's also in the work of Dahrendorf and Schoenbaum. And do remember the Nazis governed in a coalition with other parties only slightly less radical than they were. See: Harzburg Front and what came after. Stahlhelm and DNVP and several radicalized smaller parties shared many of the same aims (and anti-Semitism) but were the equivalent of "favorite sons" in American terms.

[zydeco]

14 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Something that conservative German historians really don't want you to know.

Meaning who exactly?

 

[ParadiseLost]

41 minutes ago, zydeco said:

In November 1932, American voter turnout was 57 percent and the United States elected FDR.

 

In November 1932, German voter turnout was 81 percent and Germany elected Hitler.

Anything Hitler achieved was hardly the result of a 'democratic process', more like he destroyed democracy, first in Germany then across most of Europe, in pursuit of the ultimate prize - white supremacists running the world.

 

Do you have your own little collection of nazi memorabilia?

[Nyezhov]

1. Inimical to the idea of freedom (and in the usa, probably run afoul of the 1st Amendment)

 

2. If someone is too lazy, stupid, uniformed or whatever to get up and vote, then Im not one for wanting them to help pick which clown is going to run things.

[Basil B]

Yes, 

 

It is the ones who do not vote who tend to be the first to complain.

[zydeco]

9 minutes ago, ParadiseLost said:

Anything Hitler achieved was hardly the result of a 'democratic process', more like he destroyed democracy, first in Germany then across most of Europe, in pursuit of the ultimate prize - white supremacists running the world.

 

Do you have your own little collection of nazi memorabilia?

I suppose one of the things these topics and their accompanying discussions reveal is the ability (or inability) of people to follow even the most lightweight references to academic study. Yet such continue to hold franchise, in some ways confirming the thesis of the above. 

[ParadiseLost]

3 minutes ago, zydeco said:

I suppose one of the things these topics and their accompanying discussions reveal is the ability (or inability) of people to follow even the most lightweight references to academic study. Yet such continue to hold franchise, in some ways confirming the thesis of the above. 

Perhaps one should not seek reasons or excuses to soften or explain the achievements of the most despicable human ever to live, still today his evil ideals influence young people, but you go right ahead trying to apportion the blame to all Germans...

[evadgib]

Having seen the fiasco created by Brexit in UK my own views have changed on this issue & been posted elsewhere. In short UK now needs to implement the following:

 

- Votes should be for life regardless of geographic location and should be tied to our NI numbers, passports and/or driving licences.

 

- Voting should be via secure Govt gateway at home or workplace fully embracing 21st C technology (mugshot, iris, fingerprint).

 

- A Protest option ('Jedi'?) should be included for the non compliant as should a nominal incentive ie GBP 10 off everyone's next tax return (NI no-Govt gateway) or perhaps an e-ticket for the Govt lottery. Elsewhere I note fines are an option. IMO this strays into 'Human Rights' territory whereas the measures I have outlined achieve the same aim without doing so.

 

- PR should replace FPTP asap. For non Brits this essentially means one-man-one-vote rather than winner-takes-all as is currently the case in UK electoral wards.

 

HTH

[Odysseus123]

48 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Your repetition aside, Hitler came to power through the system of elections established for a democratic state. It's not just the argument of Ritter and Bracher, above, it's also in the work of Dahrendorf and Schoenbaum. And do remember the Nazis governed in a coalition with other parties only slightly less radical than they were. See: Harzburg Front and what came after. Stahlhelm and DNVP and several radicalized smaller parties shared many of the same aims (and anti-Semitism) but were the equivalent of "favorite sons" in American terms.

He didn't.

 

What part of history do you not comprehend?

 

Hitler did not have a majority even in coalition with other parties

 

That coalition came into play AFTER his appointment as Reichs chancellor-and not before.

 

Hitler was appointed into power by decree of Paul von Hindenburg-on rthe urging of right wing elements of the Army and Franz von Papen.

 

Hitler did not come to power by the parliamentary system which had been gridlocked since 1930-Hindenburg was ruling by presidential decree.It took another Decree after the Reichstag fire to consolidate his position.

 

Stop posting "sources" found at the bottom of a wiki article.

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, mania said:

Only if they make it a true vote by adding

"None Of The Above"

to all ballots

 

If not your just forcing folks to choose the least worst candidate in most cases

 

 

Agree entirely.

 

The numbers then voting for 'none of the above' should also be 'read out' when announcing the winner.

 

If this happens, I've no problem with compulsory voting, but somehow I know politicians wouldn't be keen on this.....

[Odysseus123]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely.

 

The numbers then voting for 'none of the above' should also be 'read out' when announcing the winner.

 

If this happens, I've no problem with compulsory voting, but somehow I know politicians wouldn't be keen on this.....

Why?

 

The informal vote is announced in Australia in every constituency.

 

That includes those who voted for "Il Belcho" pizza whilst others were down to the plastic wrapping on "Scoffing Carbs" donuts.

 

The only people that think that voting "informal" is a revolutionary act usually die with the TV remote still clutched in their hands..and require winching out from their favourite chair.

[wwest5829]

5 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Definitely.They can get off their fat posteriors and away from their electronic media devices for an hour and exercise their rights as a citizen.

 

 

Actually, that technology gives a greater chance for all to participate in not only elections but active involvement in proposing law/regulation, etc. A proposed law might be required to be publicly posted with time for debate, access to background studies, consideration of unintended consequences. After a period of public debate, the public vote via the available technology. Oh, I am aware of many issues here from election fraud, to electronic hacking to the argument of raising the question of having so many ignorant votes in the first place. Still ... a potential ... As Winnie the Pooh Bear states ... its a "puzzlement"

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Why?

 

The informal vote is announced in Australia in every constituency.

 

That includes those who voted for "Il Belcho" pizza whilst others were down to the plastic wrapping on "Scoffing Carbs" donuts.

 

The only people that think that voting "informal" is a revolutionary act usually die with the TV remote still clutched in their hands..and require winching out from their favourite chair.

Because 'informal vote' (which I assume is spoilt ballot papers?) means nothing to most people.

 

On the other hand, one of the 'candidates' being 'none of the above' would make a very strong point!

[Odysseus123]

5 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Actually, that technology gives a greater chance for all to participate in not only elections but active involvement in proposing law/regulation, etc. A proposed law might be required to be publicly posted with time for debate, access to background studies, consideration of unintended consequences. After a period of public debate, the public vote via the available technology. Oh, I am aware of many issues here from election fraud, to electronic hacking to the argument of raising the question of having so many ignorant votes in the first place. Still ... a potential ... As Winnie the Pooh Bear states ... its a "puzzlement"

Waal..

 

I had a friend who was a paid shill..

 

Every morning she would receive a full set of "incidents"  (complete with sources) which she then had to post about on a number of forums.

 

There are many,many shill factories on this planet resourced by goodness knows who..

 

No..much better that you heave your over indulged carcass out of a lounge chair and actually go and physically vote.

 

Even if it kills you.

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Waal..

 

I had a friend who was a paid shill..

 

Every morning she would receive a full set of "incidents"  (complete with sources) which she then had to post about on a number of forums.

 

There are many,many shill factories on this planet resourced by goodness knows who..

 

No..much better that you heave your over indulged carcass out of a lounge chair and actually go and physically vote.

 

Even if it kills you.

"No..much better that you heave your over indulged carcass out of a lounge chair and actually go and physically vote.

Even if it kills you."

 

Ignoring the insults against those who don't vote, you misunderstand.  A number of people don't vote because the choices are between bad/bad/bad!

 

Which is why I think adding 'none of the above' - and telling everyone the number that voted this way - is a very good idea.  It would certainly encourage more people to vote!

[Odysseus123]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because 'informal vote' (which I assume is spoilt ballot papers?) means nothing to most people.

 

On the other hand, one of the 'candidates' being 'none of the above' would make a very strong point!

Of what?

 

Aw..c'mon Dick..this isn't Fantasyland,Tomorrow land or even Tinkerbell land..

 

"None of the Above"-all 15 papers would just be put in a vast storehouse somewhere until they are pulped and recycled.

 

The revolution initiated in "The Stag's Head Tavern",Glebe over a schooner would be the stuff of legends I know.Legends in their own lunchtime.

 

Or move to Thailand,Myanmar,Laos and Cambodia.Problem solved!

 

Oh..obesity and I can't vote..I am drawing a long bow,I know.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-obese-nation-in-the-world-just-ahead-of-mexico-2017-05-19

 

 

[Nyezhov]

30 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The only people that think that voting "informal" is a revolutionary act usually die with the TV remote still clutched in their hands..and require winching out from their favourite chair.

World Class Quote dudes, world class quote, use it! Nice one!

[bristolboy]

52 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Of what?

 

Aw..c'mon Dick..this isn't Fantasyland,Tomorrow land or even Tinkerbell land..

 

"None of the Above"-all 15 papers would just be put in a vast storehouse somewhere until they are pulped and recycled.

 

The revolution initiated in "The Stag's Head Tavern",Glebe over a schooner would be the stuff of legends I know.Legends in their own lunchtime.

 

Or move to Thailand,Myanmar,Laos and Cambodia.Problem solved!

 

Oh..obesity and I can't vote..I am drawing a long bow,I know.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-obese-nation-in-the-world-just-ahead-of-mexico-2017-05-19

 

 

Ridiculous comment. Who cares what happens to the paper once the ballots get counted and recorded?

[Odysseus123]

51 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

World Class Quote dudes, world class quote, use it! Nice one!

Aw shucks Nyezhov..I guess that means that you will have to come off "ignore"..

 

Come to think of it-why 'n hell did a have you on ignore in the first place?

 

Hmm..Millwall..????

[Odysseus123]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ridiculous comment. Who cares what happens to the paper once the ballots get counted and recorded?

You should take some time out to acquire a bit of humour.

 

Thailand is certainly not the place to acquire any voting skills is it?

 

Which is probably why you have spent your last 3,569 posts on Brexit-yet another whingeing,whining Pom.

 

This will cheer you up..

 

 

"Come Cheer Up My lads 'tis to Glory We Steer'

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=england+expects+everyman+to+do+his+duty

 

 

[riclag]

I never did like being "told" , "forced" , "made" ,"mandated",! Although I do think that voting for what or who you like.One should be able to choose and not be compelled by government! No

[riclag]

5 hours ago, Happystance said:

Absolutely mandatory, and the first-time penalty for not voting should be seizure of annual tax return.

Looks like "your paying" my taxes.no refunds for me

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

You should take some time out to acquire a bit of humour.

 

Thailand is certainly not the place to acquire any voting skills is it?

 

Which is probably why you have spent your last 3,569 posts on Brexit-yet another whingeing,whining Pom.

 

This will cheer you up..

 

 

"Come Cheer Up My lads 'tis to Glory We Steer'

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=england+expects+everyman+to+do+his+duty

 

 

Humor that works to advance a point has to make sense to work. Your attempt at it didn't. Just reflexive and lazy.

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Humor that works to advance a point has to make sense to work. Your attempt at it didn't. Just reflexive and lazy.

Sure..

 

Back to Brexit for you..

 

You do rather well there.Otherwise,throughout the forum you are a complete non event.