It seems we would have a better republic.
2007-09-27 06:42:20 · 26 answers · asked by lu_dicrous 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Definitely not! And we shouldn't tell them that it is a sin to not vote as many mainstream church leaders are doing now. The great thing about this democracy is that my vote belongs to me and not the government.....I can vote for the candidate of my choice or I can withhold my vote in protest.
Since neither major party represents my interests I either vote for an independent or withhold my vote in protest of the two party system that has brought us to this point. If you passed a law requring me to vote and there were no candidates that I was willing to support, then you would have to arrest me for refusing to vote for corporate trash.
2007-09-27 17:34:25 · answer #1 · answered by Guardian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the concept. But that would interfere with freedom. Good idea. We really should encourage voting. Here's a better idea (in my opinion) Tax breaks for voters. Those who participate in voting get a tax break. That would make it a positive thing.
2016-05-20 00:06:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So much for freedom. People have a choice to vote or not, welcome to the republic. Do you really want people who have paid no attention, and will not even if required to vote, showing up at the polling place and selecting your representatives? Pandering in politics is bad enough now, that would only make it worse.
2007-09-27 06:46:31 · answer #3 · answered by chessale 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, but there should be a test to take to show you are qualified to vote. Politics is very misleading and you must be very aware and do research before making a decision. In the early years of the USA you had to be a land owner before you could vote. Never believe what a politician says only believe how they vote.
2007-09-27 06:44:33 · answer #4 · answered by Curtis 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
People don't vote either because they feel neither party will oppress them much, or they can't find a candidate that represents their interests.
Your idea of forcing people to vote implies jailing free citizens of a democracy for not exercising optional rights they have been given; which is wierd. 'My only offence was to abstain and mind my own business' would be a valid defence, I think.
2007-09-27 06:51:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. If anything they should encourage people not to vote. The only people who should vote are people who actually pay attention and care enough to go to the polls. I am tired of all of the ignorant voters. I heard that someone had chose the person they voted for because he wore jeans.
2007-09-27 06:47:30 · answer #6 · answered by Bob J 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, a person shouldn't be required to vote, because they have different opinions about things that don't apply to what is being said and who is running. That is a free choice to have, and people should have that right to choice, if they want to or not.
2007-09-27 06:51:25 · answer #7 · answered by Tommy's_Sweet_Girl 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
And you think that *forcing* people who are apathetic and ignorant on the issues to cast a ballot will help?
There are already way too many people who vote for a name or a face, rather than principle.
To make a long answer short . . . NOT ONLY *NO*, BUT HELL NO!
2007-09-27 06:47:26 · answer #8 · answered by rayehawk 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. We have too many laws already.
Requiring people to vote doesn't mean that Americans would be more politically knowledgable. It just means that there would be a lot of people ignorant of politics voting.
2007-09-27 06:47:37 · answer #9 · answered by amancalledj 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think the OPPOSITE would be better.
I think there should be a test to see if you are QUALIFIED to vote.
You should also PROVE you are eligible to vote when you show up at the polls.
2007-09-27 07:19:06 · answer #10 · answered by Philip H 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋