Option 1: "Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide," says civil rights activist Roger Bush. "You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."
Option 2: "It's not contradictory at all," argues political commentator George W. Nagasawa. "The fact is, if not everyone votes, the outcome isn't truly representative. Some groups--like elderly gun nuts--vote more often than others. That's why we always end up with such terrible politicians."
Option 3: "This raises an interesting issue," says Randy Licorish, your brother. "And that is: why do we need elections, anyway? Seems to me it would be much simpler if you just decided what was right, and did it. Wouldn't that save everyone a lot of time?"
OR
Dismiss this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
ok. well here i goes with this issue, which we had to write an essay on in english last year... go kirchenko! and I'm sticking with my same belief. Compulsory voting is wrong.
I looked at the three options and I found them quite interesting. option 3 seems like the most logical choice, but if everyone had that outlook, then there would be no order and who knows what would happen. we have always been limited in what we could do and had rules restraining our actions. If people all of a sudden were given unlimited power to do whatever they wanted, many people's impulses would take over and they would go overboard. so fancy the idea, but theres no control without an elected leader to turn to. no matter how good or bad they are. sometimes its not about good leadership, it's simply about having someone you can call the leader.
as for option 2, i understand where its getting at. i know how only 30 percent of registered voters actually vote and its not very representative of the nation as a whole, but if you want to be represented, then take the time to put your opinion in there. You shouldnt complain about not being represented when youre not putting the effort in yourself to do so.
So no compulsory voting. people have the freedom to chose their paths in america. by forcing people to vote, you're basically telling them "we don't care what you want to do, we don't care who you want to vote for. your opinion doesn't matter. you are simply another number." votes lose their value if theyre being forced.
finally for voting to be forced, there has to be some powers enforcing this. this means extra money to spend and imagine all the riots and chaos that would occur.
bad idea all around.
So Riccardo are you voting for option 3?
In fear of looking like an idiot after Riccardo's post, I shall simply say: I vote option 1.
no option 1
Option 3? Are you serious, Riccardo? Who could decide what was right? Who would decide who was right? Who would decide on who would decide who was right? How would we know that either of those three "unpersons" are right? It's ridiculous. Every issue in this race is a matter of perpective, and can be argued either way, so technically, there is no right except what someone would believe. That's why you have debates or arguements, although, admittedly, some arguements are weaker then others (i.e., most of Palin's arguements).
And what is really ridiculous is that if you think about it, America uses choice 3 in the interim of every term. Some nutjob decides what avenue is right, and he mostly ends up wrong. (Well, at least for the past 8 years).
Post a Comment