My country has an election tomorrow

admin: No, it really is sad. The people in America aren't stupid. I've seen public opinion. Anti war, more commerce, smaller military, more gun control, more financial security, job satisfaction, ect. None of that will never come into effect if the only people with the motivation to vote are the political minority.

admin: Interesting.
If I was pushed I think I would tie NZ Voter apathy to a shift the availability of information and the bias of news media agencies.

As the computer age has grown, information is more freely available to the masses. My theory is that this has led to a significant number of voters believing that democracy is dead or is too corrupt, that government is wrong, stupid or corrupt and that NZ Politics is completely irrelevant anyway - mostly because they now look at us as a part of a larger global community rather than a small local one.

The media part of this shift is partly due to the fact that newspapers are becoming increasingly irrelevant and TV needs constant stimulation to hold our attention with. This leads to more investigative journalism than ever before, which also contributes to the above symptoms.
The other part is that the places we go to get our information have changed now as well. Thanks to the internet, the extremist views are more accessible than ever, and these gets picked up by traditional media hungry for a story.
Also now, EVERYONE can be an expert, posting information, advice and opinion on blogs and youtube channels. Unfortunately people still haven't learned to independently fact check or look for bias.


Overall, I think it'd be a stretch to say that a decrease in voter turnout is a bad thing. It COULD simply mean that people who do vote are more informed, opinionated and impassioned now. People who see other people getting so worked up about it feel less inclined to vote because they don't feel like they're as passionate, opinionated or informed. Afraid of making a wrong or silly decision, they're content to stay home and leave it the ones who actually care about it.

Maybe?

nzlockie: Well I'm definitely not in a position to say you're wrong.

Blackflag: Why is there a lack of motivation to vote? Just a lack of results or choice?

admin: Probably a lack of confidence in their government. If you vote George Bush into power twice, would you feel more or less confident in your decision making?

Blackflag: I'd like to think I learn from mistakes when I make them. Mistakes usually make me more confident. But I see your point.

Overall, I think it'd be a stretch to say that a decrease in voter turnout is a bad thing. It COULD simply mean that people who do vote are more informed, opinionated and impassioned now. People who see other people getting so worked up about it feel less inclined to vote because they don't feel like they're as passionate, opinionated or informed. Afraid of making a wrong or silly decision, they're content to stay home and leave it the ones who actually care about it.
Aye, but what if it's the smart people who don't vote.
As an american who sides with a majority party in America, but said party has a lower voter turnout rate than the minority party, I am a big advocate for compulsory voting.

Blackflag: This should probably have been a reply.

Compulsory voting sounds like it would be a nice random topic.

admin: Yeah, I'm willing to put it up as a challenge. I'm eager for a good debate while waiting for the others.

My country has an election this week

Joepbr: How is government in Brazil anyway? All we ever hear about in the rest of the world is when the odd minister of something has some corruption going on, or a major football tournament is staged there.

It isn't your country. You are its citizen.

Blackflag: It's a democracy. The country belongs to its people.

admin: Really? I didn't know you heard about us so often.
Anyway, this is the closest presidential race since redemocratization, and the first that the incumbent, Dilma Rousseff has considerable chances of losing reelection (although she has a slight advantage, but everything can change, since it'll probaly go to a runoff in the end of October), and also probably the first presidential elections disputed mainly by two women. The environmentalist Marina Silva entered the race replacing Eduardo Campos, from the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), died in a plane crash in August, since she entered the race, she directly challenged Dilma, appearing ahead her in most runoff simulation polls, but Dilma is using her 55 million dollar campaing to spread false rumours and fearmongering and now gained sone advantage, but it's clear that the only thing certain about these election is that nothing is certain.
Oh, also, besides the president, we'll also elect a new congress (althoug only 1/3 of the senate will be renovated) and state government and assemblies.
By the way, voting here is compulsory for everyone between 18 and 70 years old and only optional for people betwen 16 and 18, older than 70 and illiterates.

Joepbr: I'm confused already . It sounds a lot like the US system just because of the words you use though.

admin: Besides having a senate and states, Brazil is far from the United States system of governance.
Federalism is simply the devotion to having a bicamarel legislature where several semi autonomous states recieve equal representation.

It isn't even plausible for a nation like Brazil to have a unitary government with their population.

Blackflag: Then perhaps could you try to explain to me the Brazilian system?

Also, doesn't China have a pretty unitary government?

admin: The Brazilian and American systems are very similar in the sense that they are both presidential federal republics (specially when compared with a parliamentary unitary monarchy like New Zealand), but there are several differences in the electoral systems like the two round voting for executive posts (president, governor and mayor), which the US doesn't need, since it only have two parties. In Brazil, the runoff election happen between the two most voted candidate when no candidate has more than 50% of the votes, which is very likely this year,since there are 3 big candidates, and 8 small ones.
The legislative elections are quite different,though, except for the senate, whch use a simple majority system without runoff, the elections for the chamber of deputies (equivalent to the house of representatives), state assemblies and city councils use a complicated open list proportiona representation, a very controversiwl system, in which you vote for a candidate, but your vote actually goes to the party, and after the seats are assigned to the parties, they are distributed to the most voted candidates in each party this mean that candidates that recieve a lot of votes can pass them on to other members of their parties, who can get elected even if they didn't recieve enough votes themselves, but also avoid problems like gerrymandering.

admin: They do, but they're also not a democracy. China's first concern isn't giving citizens the best representation.
In general, if you live in a nation India's size without federalism, you're going to expierience revolts quite often.

Blackflag: Well, Indonesia is the world's 3rd biggest democracy (behind only India and the USA) and it has a unitary system.