This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: on are et hically t roubling, t hough t his is not obv iously so. There is no reason t o
suppose t hat people should be equally int erest ed in polit ics at all t imes, or t hat all people should find v ot ing equally sat isfact ory .(st oker,2006) Abov e all, it is morally
and polit ically import ant t o dist inguish amongst different t y pes of non-v ot ers.
There may be reasons t o be t roubled by t hose who do not v ot e because t hey are
not part icularly excit ed by any candidat es, or because t hey are disenchant ed by
t heir fav ored polit ical Part y " as t he failure t o v ot e may point t o deep-seat ed weaknesses in t he
compet it iv e part y sy st em, and in t he organizat ion and ideology of t he main
polit ical part ies. But t hese problems, real as t hey are, seem far less urgent t han
t hose of t he people who do not v ot e because v ot ing and polit ical part icipat ion of
any form seem as alien and remot e as univ ersit y educat ion, st able, well-paid
work, decent housing, safe st reet s, and respect from ot her members of societ y .
The difficult y in such cases is t o see how compulsory v ot ing will address, rat her
t han exacerbat e, t he alienat ion of t hese non-v ot ers, who are t y pically t he object s,
not t he subject s, of polit ical debat e and policy , and who t y pically const it ut e t he
"problems" t hat polit icians are compet ing t o solv e. (Irwin and holst ey n, 2005). In
t his sit uat ion compulsory v ot ing would impact t he result s negat iv ely .
Cont ent ion 2: compulsory v ot in...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 01/16/2014.
- Winter '14