Red = Compulsory voting, enforced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F63%2FCompulsory_voting.svg%2F400px-Compulsory_voting.svg.png&hash=f3dc6121c326a36374e5c7381a42b6b92f4b8498)
I live in a red compulsory voting country and I'm OK with it.
It isn't actually compulsory voting, you just have to turn up and have your name crossed off, or face a small fine.
People whinge about it occasionally but change hasn't been seriously pushed.
Citizens have rights and obligations, I don't really see the obligation too get off your ass every few years as too burdensome.
The obligation should encourage an increased interest in politics which should be a good thing.
Views?
I think it's an awesome idea, I wish we had it in Canada.
Even if you don't want to support any of the candidates, at least show up and spoil your ballot to get your message across. I can understand being frustrated with your choices, but I can't understand total apathy towards who is running your country.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on November 26, 2011, 01:09:38 AM
Views?
I don't know -- I can just imagine the shit storm the conservatives would kick up over it. A lot of states, CA for one, is letting people vote by mail now if they prefer (it used to be you could only mail in your vote if if could prove yourself housebound or out of town during an election) and I'd like to see if that helps boost the voting numbers first.
Seems wrong to me. There can be a definite reason why people don't vote e.g. they don't like any of the parties on offer.
But if people don't vote then they don't have a right to complain about a particular party.
It should remain as a personal choice whether to vote or not. I would certainly rather a person abstain than to turn up and through a dice.
I think it is a bad idea. If people don't turn up to vote then this is an indicator about the popularity of the political parties. If they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse ;D).
Quote from: Tom62 on November 26, 2011, 04:39:12 AMIf they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse ;D).
You don't actually have to vote, just turn up and leave your ballot blank if you want, or write "a pox on all your houses" if you want.
There was a referendum in Tasmania giving the option between a couple of different damn locations, many people just wrote no damns as a protest. It did make a difference in the end.
I don't like it. To me, it's one more freedom for a government to take away. Freedom to vote is a beautiful thing. Freedom not to vote is also beautiful. The Republicans would fight this with the idea that freedom is important, but only because the more people vote, the more Democrats win. The Republicans don't like freedom when it infringes on their ideals... i.e. gay marriage.
As long as you can choose to leave your ballot blank, I really don't see anything wrong with the system.
Quote from: Stevil on November 26, 2011, 04:26:52 AM
Seems wrong to me. There can be a definite reason why people don't vote e.g. they don't like any of the parties on offer.
But if people don't vote then they don't have a right to complain about a particular party.
It should remain as a personal choice whether to vote or not. I would certainly rather a person abstain than to turn up and through a dice.
You don't have to vote, you can abstain if you wish. Thus one has a much clearer picture of what the opinion of the population actually is and you can't get pundits claiming to know what the 'silent majority' wanted.
I would be 100% for a 'must participate' law. You can vote or abstain, but you must take part.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on November 26, 2011, 05:00:51 AM
Quote from: Tom62 on November 26, 2011, 04:39:12 AMIf they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse ;D).
You don't actually have to vote, just turn up and leave your ballot blank if you want, or write "a pox on all your houses" if you want.
There was a referendum in Tasmania giving the option between a couple of different damn locations, many people just wrote no damns as a protest. It did make a difference in the end.
damn or dam? Odd requirement to have a referendum about the use of bad language :D
If the voter's options are covered, this is a good idea.
By "options covered", I mean a chance to vote against all candidates OR vote undecided.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 26, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
If the voter's options are covered, this is a good idea.
By "options covered", I mean a chance to vote against all candidates OR vote undecided.
That's interesting. One could have a 'plus' vote and a 'minus' vote that balenced out to zero. So you could vote for the person you liked and against the one you don't thus rulling out extremeists!
I agree with Asmo. A lot of people in the UK would like a tick-box for None of the above. The politians are dead against it, I imagine because the blow to their vanity would be unacceptable.
As for voting against a candidate, I've never heard of the idea before, but it's interesting. I think people very often want above all to keep one of the candidates out.
is cyprus red?I can't tell
strange since im 27 years old and so far I have voted only once in my life
Against. If someone doesn't care about the process enough to vote voluntarily, they probably aren't informed about the candidates/issues, and really don't have anything to contribute. Let those who are involved and actually care do the voting. Plus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 26, 2011, 01:35:42 PM
Against. If someone doesn't care about the process enough to vote voluntarily, they probably aren't informed about the candidates/issues, and really don't have anything to contribute. Let those who are involved and actually care do the voting.
That is a fair point.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 26, 2011, 01:35:42 PMPlus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.
We'd probably disagree on this, obligatory seat belts for motorists, helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists I'm OK with, as for conscription and national service I'm dubious.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on November 26, 2011, 01:52:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 26, 2011, 01:35:42 PMPlus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.
We'd probably disagree on this, obligatory seat belts for motorists, helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists I'm OK with, as for conscription and national service I'm dubious.
We have police road blocks from time to time to check for drunk drivers - technically, unless the police have "just cause", they have no legal right to stop my car. But society has decided that the slight imposition of stopping an innocent driver versus the benefit of weeding out drunk drivers makes this "injustice" acceptable.
How many "civic duties" do most of us actually have to participate in, and how much do they actually distrupt our lives?
Forcing someone to take an hour out of their day, once every couple of years, to tell the government how they feel about their political representation (whether positively or negatively) doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Quote from: EcurbAgainst. If someone doesn't care about the process enough to vote voluntarily, they probably aren't informed about the candidates/issues, and really don't have anything to contribute. Let those who are involved and actually care do the voting.
This. The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter, and all that jazz.
I don't vote myself, not just because I'm apathetic, but because I simply don't know enough to make a responsible decision. I also think this is the case with most people, even those that do vote, so if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.
Quote from: Melmoth... if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.
I agree. It should be limited to taxpayers who pass a simple examination on current affairs. And it should not be compulsory.
I think voting should indeed be limited, however, all those worthy of voting should be under the obligation to do so.
Quote from: Melmoth on December 05, 2011, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: EcurbAgainst. If someone doesn't care about the process enough to vote voluntarily, they probably aren't informed about the candidates/issues, and really don't have anything to contribute. Let those who are involved and actually care do the voting.
This. The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter, and all that jazz.
I don't vote myself, not just because I'm apathetic, but because I simply don't know enough to make a responsible decision. I also think this is the case with most people, even those that do vote, so if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.
So if people all had to vote anyway, wouldn't it at least help encourage a greater number to get involved or be more informed.
Seems like by allowing people to not show up because they are too dumb, you are complaining about the result of the thing you support.
I think the forced voting thing has merit, though I can't imagine it working out in the states for the numbers involved.
I also think the greater powers in this country want as few people voting as possible.
Quote from: xm1So if people all had to vote anyway, wouldn't it at least help encourage a greater number to get involved or be more informed.
If someone is uninterested in the world of party politics, it's probably because they have other interests that take up their time. It's naive to imagine that anyone will want to "get involved" with something they normally wouldn't care about just because one of its most tedious and insignificant aspects has been made compulsory.
Quote from: xm1I think the forced voting thing has merit, though I can't imagine it working out in the states for the numbers involved.
I also think the greater powers in this country want as few people voting as possible.
Why would they? Personally, if I were a dishonest 'greater power', I'd rather the easily swayed, ignorant majority were all voting. That way all I'd have to do is focus on presentation, talk lots of nice-sounding, meaningless pap, make sure I look young and attractive for the cameras, and never have to worry about that small, educated minority of people who can see past my bullshit.
Quote from: skwurll on November 26, 2011, 05:35:25 AM
As long as you can choose to leave your ballot blank, I really don't see anything wrong with the system.
I agree. At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.
^ True. Unless there is no political party to represent your point of view. OR unless the voting system has failed entirely, leaving only two parties, say, that both fail to represent the wishes of the whole population. Maybe with a third, minor party who's voters are unwittingly damaging their own interests by dividing the votes at their end of the political spectrum, ensuring that the other extreme gets in (*cough* Liberal Democrats *cough cough*). Sometimes you can't vote for what you believe in because the option isn't there, and sometimes when it is, it's actually counter-productive to do so.
So what if voting was mandatory but veto was an option? What if you could make your vote count against one or more or everyone on the ballot? Would that make it fair and would that help generate a wider range of representation?
@xm1: I think there are various ways of making it fairer, sure. I showed a crumb of political interest only recently when they tried to introduce Alternative Voting in my own country, which I thought that was a brilliant idea. It makes a lot more sense than 'first past the post', which is too mathematically crude to possibly say anything about a populace. Only a credulous twit would think that such a simple system amounts to real representation. And while AV isn't much better, it at least does away with the problem I mentioned in my last post, where votes get divided among smaller parties at one end of the spectrum to ensure that the other end gets in.
Re your suggestions, I don't see them having much affect on fairness. Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible. You can't make a vote count against everyone because what matters is the balance of votes not the overall number, and vetoing one person is not much different from voting for their opponent (emphasis on the singular, for you may have noticed, there are usually only two).
A fair system would be one that removes all motive for 'strategic' voting. One where the only sensible strategy, in all cases, is to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. If there can be any disadvantage in doing that, or any advantage in not, then ultimately that system cannot be called fair or representative. Therefore, NO current democracy has a fair or representative voting system, and I doubt whether such a thing is even possible.
in Straylia voting is compulsory , which is a double edged sword as yes you make people get off their arse and participate but you also get a problem with the donkey vote ie people who just vote 1 2 3.
so it is vital for a candidate o get the no.1 position on the ballot paper.
also voting is on preferential basis , sometimes voluntary sometimes compulsory depending on which state / fed gov election is on.
preferential voting is supposed to give the same result as the french system of a runoff between the top two candidates by using a formula for distribution from failed candidates without the need to keep going back to the polls in a weeks time to finish the voting .
but a good numbers man can work wonders with the distribution of preferences if they are allowed in to the tally room ..
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 04:44:08 AM
At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.
I haven't missed voting in a single election in some 36 years, and there were plenty of times when that was the only reason I voted.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 07, 2011, 07:22:42 PM
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 04:44:08 AM
At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.
I haven't missed voting in a single election in some 36 years, and there were plenty of times when that was the only reason I voted.
Good. Now you can bitch and moan about the government all you want to because at least you did put some effort into it. (Effort besides taxes, of course)
Quote from: launion on December 07, 2011, 06:23:20 PM
in Straylia voting is compulsory , which is a double edged sword as yes you make people get off their arse and participate but you also get a problem with the donkey vote ie people who just vote 1 2 3.
so it is vital for a candidate o get the no.1 position on the ballot paper.
also voting is on preferential basis , sometimes voluntary sometimes compulsory depending on which state / fed gov election is on.
preferential voting is supposed to give the same result as the french system of a runoff between the top two candidates by using a formula for distribution from failed candidates without the need to keep going back to the polls in a weeks time to finish the voting .
The donkey vote is worth something but it isn't "vital"
Voting in Aus isn't actually compulsory, only turning up is.
You can leave your paper blank, draw a picture or make a statement.
Your ballot paper can't be identified as yours, no one is supposed to know what you did with it.
Quotebut a good numbers man can work wonders with the distribution of preferences if they are allowed in to the tally room ..
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, the system is somehow rorted?
The preference system is very simple, there is no room for creative interpretation.
Accidental Death of an Anarchist by the Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo.
"If ballots could change things police would not carry guns"
That disconcerting truth said, I believe compulsory voting is beneficial as public education policy
the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)
Also invalid voting of caricatures and curses are an indirect rejection of the system, or an indication of incompetence
------------------
In greece white/blank votes could sum up to 50 %, that should mean that the politicians are out and new faces come forth.
instead a 30% of the 50% of all votes, ie 15% of the population dictates a ruling government. Just like it would be if the 50% did not turn up.
Not only everyone should cast "something" choice or scorn, also the ancient idea of "exostrakismos" should be brought back.
The negative vote, that blackens the reputation and leads corrupt politicians to exile, jail or indeed, execution.
After all, they do swindle millions
And the voters/public are not smart, they are manipulated and short-sighted and with no memory
democracy is a good idea, that is why it is NOT happening actually
Quote from: pytheas on February 09, 2012, 07:36:35 AM
the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)
I don't agree. One can't assume anything of a 'null' vote. If you could assume something from nothing God is a reasonable concept.
Quote from: Tank on February 09, 2012, 07:39:31 AM
Quote from: pytheas on February 09, 2012, 07:36:35 AM
the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)
I don't agree. One can't assume anything of a 'null' vote. If you could assume something from nothing God is a reasonable concept.
well, you may not, but when called to vote there are usually more than 2 piles of printed papers, if you want to call the procedure democratic and not a joke.
Next to the piles of actual parties that are up for selection there is (and should be) a pile of blank pieces of paper.
Casting one of the papers provided, and following the instructions of checking -or not- up to a number of candidates printed upon it, is a valid selection.
Casting a blank piece of papers -
also provided means that you select none of the candidates and your presence is NOTED. It implies quite a lot actually:
1-you respect and abide by the procedure(i.e. democratic election procedure) since you did actually vote in a valid manner
2-you did not choose any of the candidate parties because you DONT WANT TO, hence your vote denotes them as NOT WORTHY for your political oppinion and expression
on the contrary, if you dont show up there can be no conclusions as to if you were bored to go, if a bus stepped on you and you are dead, or if you believe in a dictatorship and think voting is an unjustified right for individuals
Also strict as it may be, mistakes, caricatures, non-valid entries, entries that are not on the official provision and anything other than the above, is deemed inappropriate and discounted because there must be some measure of voter competence in understanding and following the procedure to minimize instances of misunderstandings and misinterpretations and doubt in correspondence.
So the blank piece of paper matters, irrespective of our agknowledgment
I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting. If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot. We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there. I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers. They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.
While I get the freedom argument about not forcing someone to vote, I think it would have some positive effects in the US, so I'm not against it. For example, Election Day is on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November (yes, that's really the rule). It's only one day, which is also not a holiday, so people still have to go to work, which is one reason so many people don't bother to vote. It needs to either be on a weekend or its own holiday, but there's never been a big push for it. If voting were mandatory for everyone, I guarantee there would be a push to finally fix this stupid rule. Not only that, but elections could not be so easily manipulated by campaigns and organizations with the money to transport voters to the voting booth who otherwise would not vote but still share their ideals. So overall, it would make the system more democratic.
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:52:16 AM
I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting. If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot. We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there. I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers. They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.
unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.
I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting, for parenting
...
Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:52:16 AM
I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting. If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot. We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there. I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers. They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.
unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.
I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting, for parenting
...
I'm not saying that they should be barred from voting. That would go against everything that I believe regarding the democratic process. I'm saying that I won't encourage them to do so, and that forcing them to do so would be frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 08:54:24 AM
Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:52:16 AM
I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting. If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot. We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there. I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers. They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.
unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.
I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting, for parenting
...
I'm not saying that they should be barred from voting. That would go against everything that I believe regarding the democratic process. I'm saying that I won't encourage them to do so, and that forcing them to do so would be frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.
maybe I am, there are many definitions of democracy and it gets fuzzy with the numbers of people involved
in compulsory army all have to go but you are exempt if you have a disability
epicuros said stay away from politics, it is one of the languages of war.
forcing them to do so without forcing them to a critical education is both ridiculous and proscribed, counteproductive as far as genuine human progress goes, not so for smart agentas
it is not enough that democracy is the only best acceptable option
it needs zen maintenance and a lot of shape-up exercise
I say we go total Greek, and just pick names out of a phonebook for our politicians. It would be like those sweepstakes lotteries, and much more interesting - imagine a random person being rudely awoken the next day with cameras and orders to show up at City Hall on Monday. :P
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 22, 2012, 01:52:52 AM
I say we go total Greek, and just pick names out of a phonebook for our politicians. It would be like those sweepstakes lotteries, and much more interesting - imagine a random person being rudely awoken the next day with cameras and orders to show up at City Hall on Monday. :P
that is an exceptionally superb idea, putting a personal iD number in proper use. Every term , just like a lottery, your number may be up. The selected though, would have to have compulsory voting in parliament for policies, and compulsory attendance, and compulsory financial scrutiny
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 04:44:08 AM
I agree. At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.
I'm sorry, this is simply one of those statements that annoys the hell out of me. Why do those of us who don't vote have no right to complain with the results of the elections or the B.S. the president signs and promotes, or the wars he starts? Most people who don't vote due so because non of the options are worthy of their vote.
I could have voted in the 2008 presidential election, but I would have complained regardless of if Obama or McCain won. They are both equal amounts of shit. Just as this next election cycle, unless Ron Paul happens to steal enough delegates at the Republican election, we will be left choosing between the Shitty Obama (who is pro-war, anti-liberty) or one of the many shitty Republican candidates who are pro-war and anti-liberty.
When you are going to be unhappy with the result regardless of who wins, you have every right to bitch despite not voting for the least shitty shit.
/rant.
That statement simply annoys me every time I read it. It's on par with, "if you dislike (insert country) why don't you just leave."
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 22, 2012, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 04:44:08 AM
I agree. At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.
Most people who don't vote due so because non of the options are worthy of their vote.
I don't think that's really true. As far as I can tell, most people don't vote because they're too lazy or wrongly think it doesn't affect them at all. While that's clearly not the case with you, I have to ask why you chose not to vote instead of writing in the candidate that you preferred, whether it be Ron Paul or someone else? Also, it's not just about who's president; there's also voting for your congressman/woman, senators, town government, ordinances, etc. It does matter.
There was a non-binding resolution on our last presidential ballot (I think) asking if we supposed abolishing our current system of state government and having a few hundred people picked at random like they do for jury selection to serve in government. While I voted no, there's clearly a part of it that does sound kind of appealing.
Quote from: Firebird on February 23, 2012, 03:12:35 AM
...I have to ask why you chose not to vote instead of writing in the candidate that you preferred, whether it be Ron Paul or someone else?
The short answer is that my participation legitimizes the state. There are many aspects of live I can't voluntarily avoid the state. For example: run-ins with pigs, TSA (if I absolutely have to fly and can't afford a charter jet), government run roads, etc. Voting is one of the few areas I can simply ignore and not get harassed by the state. I also get to ignore jury duty until the fateful day they send the letter certified mail...
There is actually a heated debate that occurred awhile back on another forum about anarchists voting for Ron Paul. There are two sides of the argument, with most of the principled anarchists refusing to vote regardless of the candidate. Part of the argument is that the Empire is likely to collapse soon, and if it occurred under a Paul presidency the sheep would blame the collapse on Libertarianism as opposed to the historical documented U.S. decline. The other argument is purely a principled one in that anarchist's don't participate in state sponsored elections.
Quote
Also, it's not just about who's president; there's also voting for your congressman/woman, senators, town government, ordinances, etc. It does matter.
I completely ignore local elections and don't bother to vote even when there is something that extends liberty on the ballot. Take for example local tax cuts. Yes, it is beneficial in my view if taxes are lower, but I refuse to vote for lower taxes since I would essentially be saying the government has a right to steal. I would simply be voting on how much they can steal, and in a sense, personally legitimizing the states theft.
By voting to extend liberty, you are saying the government can legitimately curtail liberty. By voting to lower taxes, you are saying the government can legitimately tax.
Quote
There was a non-binding resolution on our last presidential ballot (I think) asking if we supposed abolishing our current system of state government and having a few hundred people picked at random like they do for jury selection to serve in government. While I voted no, there's clearly a part of it that does sound kind of appealing.
I have to say I hate that idea for the following reasons.
1. I despise jury duty because it forces members of the population to miss work because they were compelled by the government to sit for a jury.
2. If the individuals do not voluntarily submit their names to the poll of potential politicians you would have the same problem. The state would compel individuals to participate in something they don't want too, by way of force.
3. If the state decided to not use force and asked people to submit their name into the pool, you are left with people who seek power in office. On top of that, you now have power hungry people who may not be able to read or write. Actually, I would prefer a government of individuals who can't read or write. That would actually be ideal...
Added:
I'm still deciding if I will vote for Dr. Paul if he gets the nomination. I don't mind being viewed as hypocritical in that regard, I'm simply not sure it would even be worth it. There have already been reports of voter fraud in the primaries and I'm positive those in charge would ensure Obama got a second term if it came between him and Paul. Not to mention I don't know of a single election that was decided by one vote in my state.