Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Let's do away with public elections

I just got the latest Wired Magazine (May 2012). It has an article called "Fewer Voters, Better Elections". They take their information from a couple of reports about better elections. The proposals are slightly different, but they suggest that instead of holding big public elections we do it the way most medical research is done. We should send ballots to a random selection of anonymous registered voters and base the outcome of the elections on the statistical results of their votes. After all they say, a very small turnout selects the winners in any case. They foresee a lot of savings for just about everybody. It would make massive changes in the way politics was played out. Voters would receive ballots and then be directed to a web site that gave information about the candidates. They could take their time looking over the data and possibly make better informed decisions, rather than doing what a lot of people do. Lot's of people just go to the polling place and look over the candidates and make a decision based on not much of anything.

It is an interesting concept, and might even be a good idea. But I seriously doubt that it will ever be implemented.

Bill Gill

It would only work in a country which had not legislated for compulsory voting (*actually compulsory attendance at a polling booth and placing of a ballot paper on the box---you don't have to fill it in!). There aren't many, and I live in one of them!

The scheme also directs to a web site. Lots wrong with this, Not everyone has access to a computer, privacy would be a huge problem and getting a representative sample would be difficult just to start with.

Whilst there are many arguments for and against compulsion, I find myself amazed by how many Americans seek to punish unpopular politicians by withholding their votes. Surely the way to punish politicians is to vote them out of office?

* I have put that lengthy explanation in as someone is bound to point out that it is legal to not place a vote on the paper, or to write Mickey Mouse's name in, or otherwise render the vote informal, before putting it in the Ballot Box, and thus not have it counted. Mostly people think that having made the effort to get there they may as well have a go!

Compulsory voting has its good points and its bad points. The good point is that you actually have people out voting. The bad point is that having gone to the polls a lot of them will just kind of randomly vote for whoever they happen to have heard of, with no idea of who or what they are voting for.

Bill Gill

lets not do that.

lets keep the election process in force but change the
politicians ability to recieve campaign funding from businesses
and corporations and special interest groups.

if businesses and corporations and special interest groups
want to ensure that a politician gets elected then they should
only be allowed to do so using their single vote.

lets make political campaign funding fair and balanced.

stop all donations from business and special interest groups
because businesses and groups cannot vote.

if people in a group are allowed to donate money to a politicians campaign fund
then that donation increases their ability to purchase the election.

which is not fair and balanced.

each person only gets 1 vote that counts equally.
so each person should only be allowed to donate a predefined amount to any political campaign fund.

that predefined amount should be across the board no matter
how much money you want to donate.

and the campaign funding is the only funding that he can use in his campaign no matter how much money he personally has.

and we should stop all the bill sponsorship which tunnels millions of dollars from business
and special interest groups to political campaign funds.


this would cut out the ability of the rich and special interest groups to just buy the elections so that they and their friends can legally steal more money from the citizens and government.

like the ingenious stimulus plans followed by the bailout of failed companies , LOL
that put $300.00 in the pockets of the average citizen to pacify them as they stuffed millions on average in the pockets of the rich.

we shouldnt stop having elections we should fix what we have.

want to have a look yourself

http://www.govtrack.us/

the money trail
http://www.opencongress.org/money_trail

opencongress.org
http://www.opencongress.org/


1.2 million dollars for a single senator donated by special intrest groups
on the fair tax bill of 2012

probably well over 3 million dollars in total campaign donations for this single bill.

see what I mean , our votes for politicians dont count as
much as they would if this bill sponsorship were not legal.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2230/money

what a racket these guys have going !!!



hey mugsy you think there on to us?

Bill wrote;
"The bad point is that having gone to the polls a lot of them will just kind of randomly vote for whoever they happen to have heard of, with no idea of who or what they are voting for."

And of course that NEVER happens now.

Actually our weird voting system (preferential in the Lower House and proportional in the Upper house) has some in-built safeguards, but the position on the paper is often blamed for the 'Donkey Vote', that is numbering from 1 to the last! (I told you it was preferential!) There are in fact surprisingly few informal (invalid) votes.

I actually philosophically find it hard to support a compulsory system. People should have the choice. But I have to admit it works. People know they are the ones electing people like them. Our federal rep. was an accountant, and in the State Government our lawn-mower man is the rep! Of course there are also the party hacks who get elected, but there always were.