Should the election of people be held to the same requirement?
Got the idea from this story:
Election officials in Romania say too few voters participated in a weekend referendum that sought to put a same-sex marriage ban into the country's constitution, so the vote is void.
The Central Election Bureau reported after polls closed Sunday that 20.41 percent of registered voters cast ballots on the proposed amendment. The referendum needed at least 30 percent turnout to be valid.
The failed amendment would have changed the definition of family in Romania's Constitution to make marriage a union between a man and a woman instead of between "spouses." Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Romania.
Opponents had encouraged voters to boycott the referendum. The Romanian Orthodox Church supported the constitutional revision.
An interesting thought, to be certain. Australia has a mandatory voting law, however, it's been a while since I've read any research about it, and can't say with any certainty whether it's had any significantly positive effect upon the election results to benefit the people. Sure, turnout is high (90%+), but the quality of the candidates, and the matters upon which the ballots are case are something about which I've not read much – at least of late. Now, regarding the Romanian matter to which you refer, in a sense, I could see the benefit of such a requirement – that of having a minimum turnout to validate the election. In a sense, it's somewhat akin to the Constitutional Convention idea when the states convene it – it must meet minimum standards before people can vote upon it.
ReplyDelete