Not voting is a right IMO.
Why encourage people who don’t care and don’t follow the candidates to vote anyway. Screw 'em.
http://www.nota.org/cbchttp://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2005/10/force-democracy-in-canada-part-2.htmlhttp://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2004/12/force-democracy-in-canada.html
The London Fog iCanadian enough,.
Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I can’t see that huge a divide between “Vote, or suffer the consequences,” and “Vote for Candidiate X, or suffer the consequences.” Once you’re forcing people to do something that they might be diametrically opposed to (like, say, lack of faith in either candidiate), why not just force them to vote for the “right” person? Like the person who is wielding the punishment system for non-voters?
There’s a good Philip K. Dick story in here, somewhere …
No…I certainly don’t think its time for this at all. Want to get folks to vote? Then make it easier for them to vote, make it less of a hassle. Also, give them some better choices of what TO vote for. A lot of the time its a matter of holding one’s nose and voting for the lesser of two weevils.
The various Dems and various luddites among us will freak, but figure out a way to allow us to vote electronically from home. Save the gas and hassle of going to a voting place and waiting in long lines by doing something similar to absentee voting but online. I really don’t see how mail in votes are all that much more secure than mailing out a one time encryption key to everyone (maybe combine it with some kind of key word, or the persons SS# or something for a two stage key) and having folks vote online.
But nanditory voting? I HATE those little nanites personally, they get into everything and they will eventually make the whole world into grey sludge…!
-XT
Let me share with you the dreck that is Arizona’s Prop 200:
A goddamn lottery for voters. I say let those who don’t care enough to vote without some sort of reward system stay home and let us make your decisions for you.
That said, I headed to my polling station first thing this morning because I had this irrational fear that they would run out of stickers before I got there. :smack:
http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2004/12/force-democracy-in-canada.html I had 3 sources in there.They didnt come out.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/mandatory_voting_060118?s
_name=election2006&no_ads=
It is under discussion. how loudly i dod not know.
Some group would find a reason to bitch about it. It’s just easier to take the whole religious angle out of the equation altogether.
Wow xt noticed I typed n instead of m .Good job.
What’s all this fuss about nanditory voting?
And you typed an “i” instead of an “a”, too.
Never heard of it, but once I made it through the snarl of links, I found it.
So what is it? A blog I’d never heard of before written by a bunch of people who have no role to play in government. Still, it does offer the blogger’s opinion of one Canadian senator who wants mandatory voting. Given the time since the blog’s post in question (October, 2005), the fact that the Canadian senate is where very little gets done outside of what the Commons wants it to do, and the fact that this question is not currently burning up the editorial pages of legitimate Canadian news sources, I continue to stand by my belief that the debate is not on, and we are not considering it.
And you NOTA cite quotes back to a CBC News story, again just before the last general election in January 2006, and again dealing with the think tank in the CTV story. Interestingly, this story is from CBC Manitoba–it was never national news.
I might believe your argument that we are considering it and “the debate is on” if you cited from some reputable and respected news sources, and that your cites occured within the last six months. Here are some places to start looking:
– CBC National, CTV National, Global National (all TV networks)
– The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star, the Montreal Gazette, the Vancouver Sun (all newspapers)
– Canadian Press, Broadcast News (news services)
But neither blogs nor websites of special-interest groups, especially those that spoke of the matter over ten months ago at the time of our last election, will convince me that it is currently being considered and discussed on a national scale.
I wish it was clearer that you don’t have to vote on every race on the ballot. If you don’t recognize the names, skip that race and move on!! It bothers me to think of all the people who go in with one race in mind, then just pick randomly for the others because they think they have to choose one way or the other.
There aren’t as many of them, and I just can’t imagine them getting as upset. Even the Orthodox would be able to vote after sundown. But maybe that’s just my take.
You must live in upstate NY. 
The fact is, anything that disadvantages a group, especially a religious group, is going to be made a stink over.
I knew that too. that however was a mispelling. I almost wrote nispelling to give you something to do.
“Mispelling” will suffice.
*Two esses.
I’m sorry! I should have put in the standard disclaimer for you! Here you go:
For the humor impaired, this is a joke
That clarify things for ya, gonzo? 
FTR, my own spelling is about as bad as it gets…
-XT
Born in New York City, few years in Queens, lived on Long Island for most of the last 20 years. It’s just my interpretation, obviously. Australians do have Christians and Jews, however.
Anyone that far from a polling booth who wanted to vote could easily arrange a postal vote anyway.
For a second I thought it was a pun on the nanny state – i.e. nannytory voting.