The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511280.stm[/URL]
Socialists win
Yey
Socialists win
Yey
Page:
I don't think everyone should have the right to vote/have kids etc
They should pass tests
Heil
They should pass tests
Heil
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> But surely forcing people to vote is not democratic? It cannot be.
>
> Ok then, a box saying "abstaining", but their mark should
> be on paper.
Well people can currently spoil their ballot paper in the same way. Even so, forcing people to attend is not democratic.
A better way to get voting rates up, apart from a dark conspiracy ending in blowing a city to crap in the week before the election of course, would be to open up the ways in which people can vote - by phone, digital TV, email, internet.
> Belldandy wrote:
> But surely forcing people to vote is not democratic? It cannot be.
>
> Ok then, a box saying "abstaining", but their mark should
> be on paper.
Well people can currently spoil their ballot paper in the same way. Even so, forcing people to attend is not democratic.
A better way to get voting rates up, apart from a dark conspiracy ending in blowing a city to crap in the week before the election of course, would be to open up the ways in which people can vote - by phone, digital TV, email, internet.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> What he's saying is that people that may not have originaly voted may
> have came out and used their vote.
I know, my point is that those who voted only decided to vote becuase they got 200 of their people blown into bits and because of the reason given by the terrorists for the attack. Until that point, despite low support for action in Iraq, the current party was 10 points ahead of all the oppostion despite still being pro-war. Which means those extra votes were solely on one issue and a knee jerk reaction. Which means those who voted out their current government did, in all likelihood, exactly what the terrorists wanted.
An objective of terrorism is to change the current situation, granted our own security precautions do that also, but in this case the Madrid attacks did just that, they changed what would have happened.
It's democracy in a sense that the people chose, but they're stuck with that choice now and the way it will go down in history, I wonder if they will be so happy in a couple of years time...
> What he's saying is that people that may not have originaly voted may
> have came out and used their vote.
I know, my point is that those who voted only decided to vote becuase they got 200 of their people blown into bits and because of the reason given by the terrorists for the attack. Until that point, despite low support for action in Iraq, the current party was 10 points ahead of all the oppostion despite still being pro-war. Which means those extra votes were solely on one issue and a knee jerk reaction. Which means those who voted out their current government did, in all likelihood, exactly what the terrorists wanted.
An objective of terrorism is to change the current situation, granted our own security precautions do that also, but in this case the Madrid attacks did just that, they changed what would have happened.
It's democracy in a sense that the people chose, but they're stuck with that choice now and the way it will go down in history, I wonder if they will be so happy in a couple of years time...
Belldandy wrote:
> But surely forcing people to vote is not democratic? It cannot be.
Ok then, a box saying "abstaining", but their mark should be on paper.
> But surely forcing people to vote is not democratic? It cannot be.
Ok then, a box saying "abstaining", but their mark should be on paper.
But surely forcing people to vote is not democratic? It cannot be.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, let me get this right, people vote against the current party
> because some terrorists kill 200 people and injure 15000, destroying
> a clear 10 point lead the current party had in polling, and then
> these terrorists say "we did it because you went into
> Iraq".... and that is democracy?
What he's saying is that people that may not have originaly voted may have came out and used their vote.
But you know that.
I personally think everyone entitled to vote should be forced by law to use it.
> So, let me get this right, people vote against the current party
> because some terrorists kill 200 people and injure 15000, destroying
> a clear 10 point lead the current party had in polling, and then
> these terrorists say "we did it because you went into
> Iraq".... and that is democracy?
What he's saying is that people that may not have originaly voted may have came out and used their vote.
But you know that.
I personally think everyone entitled to vote should be forced by law to use it.
So, let me get this right, people vote against the current party because some terrorists kill 200 people and injure 15000, destroying a clear 10 point lead the current party had in polling, and then these terrorists say "we did it because you went into Iraq".... and that is democracy?
Yes, or a way to destroy vote apathy therefore making the country more democratic with a higher turnout.
Socialists win but it goes down in the history books as probably the first time terrorism influenced an election outcome in a democracy.
Hurrah !
Hurrah !
And the first thing they're going to do is pull their troops out of Iraq. 90% of the public were apparently opposed to the war - now it's almost like Spain is a democracy.
Page: