I can tell you this … you could pick a better example. Italy is one of the biggest political messes among all the modern democracies out there.
Ultimately, voting shouldn’t be mandatory, I believe. The simple rationale? Knowing that people don’t care to vote is important knowledge and tells you that politics is failing seriously, and that something needs to be done to restore faith in politics.
I’d agree, except for my niggling feeling that politicians and parties in the US don’t really care that politics is failing seriously.
US voter turnout is quite low on the list (not even in the top 100). For some reason, that is not considered a big problem in the US.
How can you say Italy is worse off? (Don’t tell me about Berlusconi - I already know that - I mean as an electorate)
This has some interesting parallels to the system the founders originally set up. Winner of the largest electoral college votes is President, second is VP. This put former opponents on the same team. The Vice-President wasn’t supposed to be the president’s man, he was supposed to be the watchdog. The top rated opponent of the man who won. He was also supposed to hold an influential membership in the Senate and chair that august body which was supposed to be the elite thinkers of the legislative branch. The President and VP ticket system has gotten around this design and I think the country has suffered a bit because of it.
Enjoy,
Steven
I never said all citizens shouldn’t vote. I think they should. I just don’t think they should be required to do so.
[quote[I’ve got a libertarian bent to me. I see elected officials as employees. That is why I see voting as a responsibility rather than a priviledge. You still have not provided an answer to my response as to the first amendment. There is nothing specific in the constitution that says not voting is a right. Yes or no? Do you feel capable of arguing that there is a right to not vote?[/quote]
I’d like to see a libertarian argument in favor of mandatory voting. Got one?
I gave you my argument, but you seem to ignore it. The Supreme court has ruled that flag burning is protected speech. There is nothing specific in the constution that says that flag burning is a right, either. I see “not voting” as being in the same category as flag burning.
That’s not the point. You tell ME what Italy has that the US doesn’t have. You want to make a change. Justify that change. You brought up other countries that have mandatory voting. Tell us what is better about the political system in those countries, relative to the US, that advises us to change things.
Very interesting. So my idea is hardly crackpot at all. 
That’s the december game, and I’m not playing it with you. Reread your own OP if you’re really unsure.
It would seem that you cannot honestly answer any of my questions to you about the *purported * actual substance of this thread.
Here’s my OP:
The following statements appear to qualify as “allegations:”
[ul]
[li]The majority of people that voted Bush into a second term are idiots[/li][li]The majority of people have wasted - or at least improvidently exercised - their franchise[/li][li]We have four years to solve the problem [/li][/ul]
Now, you said: “I’m not demonizing a fucking thing, just pointing out that Bricker has no facts to support his allegations. Facts are good, remember?”
I asked: “What allegations?”
You referred me back to my OP.
Of the three statements I identify as “allegations,” the last one seems self-evident. We have four years until the next Presidential election.
The other two are not allegations that I stand behind – they are summations of a sentiment that has been expressed on these boards many times by many people. Are you saying that these are strawmen – that they do not accurately reflect the feelings of many? I don’t understand your objection.
Well can you tell me how many governments have lasted the whole four-year term since WWII?
I agree with you that poticians and parties care more about winning and most of them are probably as happy to win with a turnout of 30% of the electorate as with 85%. I think it’s all about education and improving the system. Teach people the importance of voting, and make sure the vote counts. I’ve not been nagging about the out-of-date political system in the U.S. for nothing. I think this is the real cause.
Over here, a party that has chosen to put a specific issue that matters to the voters high on the agenda can win a lot of votes, and even if that party ends up third in the elections, it will become a sizeable faction in parliament instantly and even has a decent chance to become part of government and act out their voters wishes by forming a coalition with one of the two larger parties.
This gives voters a very strong sense that their votes count, and is, I think, the best guarantee of keeping voters involved in their democracy. It is no full guarantee though, if one party after the other fails to do a good job or deliver on the promises it made to its voters, voters can still get disillusioned - but even in those circumstances the chances that a new party will come up that can and will deliver are a lot more favorable than in a system that keeps people between thinking a third party would be good and making sure that the lesser of two evils wins the elections.
That’s a good point, and I wonder if anyone has done a study of voter participation in countries with “winner takes all” vs “proportional representation” systems.
In the past, it wasn’t as much of a “crisis” as outsiders perceived it. The ministries were stable, for instance. Besides, think of the excitement! 
But speaking more recently, I’ll agree with you.
I’m not sure how that relates to mandatory voting, though. As I said, it’s not enforced anymore in Italy, but the (good?) habit remains. If you’re implying there might be a downside to high voter turnout, then please expand on it. I’m still thinking about it…
Well, I agree, but in the current system, voter education and “every vote counts” isn’t much more than lip service. It’s increasingly obvious that pols and parties are more interested in rallying their base and suppressing the other side’s base than high turnout and an informed electorate.
I would love to see this happen in the US, but it seems to have no more chance of occuring than pushing through something like mandatory voting. So what’s the best way to get there, in practical terms?
Excuse me but this analysis is ahistorical. Originally there was no official distinction between votes for president and vice president. Each elector had 2 votes for president, one of which had to be cast for a candidate from another state. There was nothing to stop electors from casting both ballots in favor of like-minded candidates and if those candidates were popular enough they might both carry enough electors to win. This, in fact, was how the system worked.
In the first 2 elections Federalists Washington and Adams won and in the last before the system was scrapped by the 12th Amendment Republicans Jefferson and Burr did the same. Only the third election resulted in a president from one party and his opponent in the vice presidency. This anomoly was due to the fact that there was a lot of regional distrust and the political parties of the day weren’t the coherent entities we think of today. Perhaps more importantly, it was incredibly difficult to coordinate nationwide activities when it sometimes took weeks and months for word to travel back and forth.
While records of the constitutional convention are sparse and unreliable it seems fairly certain that the purpose in having a vice president at all had nothing to do with the office itself. Instead the position seems to have been created specifically in order to allow for the complex voting scheme. One of the main objections to allowing the states to pick the president outside of Congress was that the electors would nearly always vote for someone from that state. Introducing a second ballot with the restriction that both ballots couldn’t be cast for people from that state provided a way around this problem. Even if electors were prejudiced in favor of local candidates they would still have to vote for at least one out of state candidate. So instead of allowing the Senate to select its own president the Constitution calls for this officer to be selected by the electors.
Except that “like-minded” in those days was far from the lockstep party loyalty we often see in the highest echelons of politics these days. Washington and Adams were both Federalists, but that doesn’t mean the VP rolled over to the President’s decisions like they do today. I can’t see John Adams saying “At this stage, obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes”. Adams chafed under Washington’s leadership and was anxious to get the reigns himself. When he got it he did some pretty nasty stuff, nearly started a war, and Jefferson kicked his can in the next election. Burr and Jefferson were both “Democratic Republicans” but the lack of trust between the two of them was pretty much legendary. When they tied for the election of 1800 Burr refused to conceed defeat and accept the VP slot like the “party” had originally planned for him to. This lead to some serious estrangement between Jefferson and Burr and if Burr could have gotten some dirt on Jefferson I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he would have done so.
In both of these cases, Washington/Adams and Jefferson/Burr there were clearly VPs who were acting as checks on the president(I don’t need to go into the Adams/Jefferson pairing do I?). If only because they wanted the top job for themselves, that still accomplishes the goal. The president, IMHO, should not be insulated from repercussions from his decisions. Cabinet members and underlings who can fall on their swords instead of the President getting impeached for the policies he enacts seems to remove some of the much-needed accountability from the system.
Enjoy,
Steven
I didn’t mean to imply that vice presidents were expected to exhibit “lockstep party loyalty” but merely to explain that the office wasn’t envisioned as anything other than a president of the Senate chosen not by that body but in what was thought to be a helpful manner. The VP wasn’t a “second president”.
Since I’ve already started down this path let me continue the digression by making a few more clarifications. John Adams did get into plenty of “nasty stuff” during his presidency, most notably the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he doesn’t deserve the accusation that he nearly started a war. To oversimplify things greatly, he was the leader of the moderate faction of Federalists. Had Hamilton or Ames or another “High Federalist” been in the presidency we might have gone to war with our oldest ally. Adams supported using the crisis with France to create a large standing army but it was Hamilton, who managed to get put in charge of that army despite his poor relationship with Adams, who wanted to use it to put down Republican opposition in the South and adventure on into Spanish Florida and Louisiana in hopes of territorial expansion. Adams forstalled this at no small political price. Had he the solid support of Hamiltonian Federalists and the patriotic upsurge that wartime brings he would, in all likelyhood, have won a 2nd term.
Even without those advantages the election of 1800 was very close. Jefferson didn’t “kick his can”. If the outcome hadn’t been so doubtful then the invective wouldn’t have gotten so heated and the mess in the House of Representatives would have been avoided. The race was so tight that none of the Republican electors dared cut Burr from the ticket lest Federalist Adams be elected vice president or worse, tie alone with Jefferson. The Federalists made sure that their VP candidate, Charles Pinckney, received one less vote than Adams by having a Rhode Island elector cast one vote for John Jay. Even in defeat Adams deserves his due. Some of the High Federalists wanted to fight on and worked on schemes to prevent a Republican ( either Jefferson or Burr ) from taking over the White House. Things were tense. Here in Penna the Republican governor made contingency plans to use the militia if the Federalists wouldn’t relinquish power. But there was no need. Adams refused to play along.
Nor, for that matter, does Burr deserve his reputation as the scoundrel of 1800. While the party did, in general, see him as the VP choice, for the Burrites their leader was equally deserving of the top honor. Burr made an agreement with Jefferson that they wouldn’t collude with the Federalists and it was Jefferson who broke that compact. When both received a majority and the election went to the House Burr kept his word and kept his mouth shut. It was Jefferson who either indirectly came to an agreement with some of the Federalists or at least discussed the matter through intermediaries and allowed them to believe a deal had been reached.