What do you think of my plan for compulsory voting?

I think voting should be mandatory... sort of.





1. A list of multiple choice questions is formulated.


2. Candidates answer questions.


3. Voters answer questions.


4. Rather than actually voting for a candidate, the person's vote goes to the candidate who the voter agreed with most often.





I think that solves a couple of problems. First, the candidate is actually forced to say what he agrees with - no more flip flopping or ambiguous answers. Also, voters won't have to research candidates (since most are too lazy and instead vote along party lines or according to which candidate they like the best).





I'm serious - though of course this system would never actually be used - but I'd still like some responses!





Example question:


1. Gay marriage:


A. should be completely legalized.


B. should not be legalized. Civil unions should be available to gays in place of legal marriage.


C. should never be legalized.


D. is an abomination. Homosexuality should be illegal, too.

What do you think of my plan for compulsory voting?
Forcing anyone to do anything is a bad move.





A person is far more likely to actually care about what they're doing if it is voluntary.





Although your method would work well as a way of voting. Instead of the ignorant masses voting for whoever has the flashiest ads and slings the most mud, they could vote based on their preferences for current issues and at the end be told who they voted for.





It's not perfect...but then again, neither is our current system.
Reply:How could you be sure the candidate was telling how he really felt? I mean we have that problem now, candidates make up their opinions based on polling information.





What if all the candidates were the same on most of the issues? That's how it is now inside parties, I mean for instance all the Republican candidates believe homosexuality is an abomination. You can't be a Republican candidate if you cheese off their base in the Religious Right.





Also, most issues that are big in campaigns never actually are important after the election. The candidates try to play up issues where they think they can get an advantage, but once the election is over they forget all about them. Gay marriage is a big deal during elections but we don't hear about it in between. Republicans have been promising to ban abortion during campaigns but once in office they do nothing much about it.





And on the issues that really -were- important they often reverse themselves. Reagan said he wanted to be president to balance the budget. That was the most important thing, he said. But once in office he acted like deficits just didn't matter. Bush's dad said 'Read my lips! No new taxes!' but once in office he changed his mind and went for tax hikes.





It -is -good to get candidates to commit themselves -early- on important issues, so they can't wiggle out later when the polls change. And it would also be good if voters educated themselves and refused to vote for hypocrites. (But then who would they vote for? 8^) ).
Reply:I oppose the concept of forcing people to vote.
Reply:Many voters are too ignorant to understand the questions. It doesn't take ANY intelligence to press a button by a name. Most voters don't realize the thought processes they use themselves to arrive at their choices. I really like your idea, but it has a fundamental assumption that a prospective voter must be able to comprehend each question. You should have a selection E. Voter does not care. That might work. Just think of all the expense of holding instructive classes for voters to be able to actually negotiate such a process. Boggles the mind!
Reply:i have a right to not vote.
Reply:Politeness prevents me from being honest about what I think of your proposal.

parts of a flower