Dear Editor,
Putting Warmington's nonsense about "no vote, no benefits" aside, some of the issues that he raised have been taken up by at least the leader of the Opposition. One of them is this business of compulsory voting. It would seem that most of us don't understand the implications of us going this route, especially in a country like ours. I think it would not be a good thing.
I am not sure if Warmington was just talking without thinking, but he said something that struck me. He said that if he checked his computer and found out that a person coming to him did not vote, that person could just turn back. Now, if it is that any politician can just do a check and find out if someone has voted or not, isn't there some legal issue here? I thought that a person's vote was supposed to be secret.
If Warnington was talking about checking the voters' list, that wouldn't be a good indication of who voted. A voter on the list may choose not to vote. However, if he was talking about somehow checking if the person actually voted, then this leads straight into some of the dangers that I have with compulsory voting.
With the paper-based system that we use, if someone is forced to vote, that person can frustrate the system by simply spoiling his ballot. Of course, that person would have wasted his time and scarce State resources, but at least, with the paper-based system, he really wouldn't have voted at all. And without compulsory voting this waste would not happen.
With electronic voting the story is a bit different. People who are forced to vote would have no choice but to select a candidate, as such the system would need to be programmed for spoilt ballots.
The question is, if the law requires that a person's vote be secret, how will an electronic system ensure that? -- considering Warmington's dribble about checking if a person voted.
What worries me is that I suspect that Warmington's views are not unique among Jamaican politicians. What if we decide to go the way of compulsory voting and we have a system that is configured to tie each vote to the voter -- if this isn't already the case -- and then we have politicians, like Warmington, checking not only if I did vote, but for which party? Imagine the favouritsm that would result, to say the least.
Of course, these issues would be true of a non-compulsory voting system. However, with the non-compulsory system, the electorate would have the power to frustrate the plans of strange politicians by simply not voting.
I think we should leave this business of compulsory voting alone.
Michael A. Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Can Warmington really check votes?
-->
Putting Warmington's nonsense about "no vote, no benefits" aside, some of the issues that he raised have been taken up by at least the leader of the Opposition. One of them is this business of compulsory voting. It would seem that most of us don't understand the implications of us going this route, especially in a country like ours. I think it would not be a good thing.
I am not sure if Warmington was just talking without thinking, but he said something that struck me. He said that if he checked his computer and found out that a person coming to him did not vote, that person could just turn back. Now, if it is that any politician can just do a check and find out if someone has voted or not, isn't there some legal issue here? I thought that a person's vote was supposed to be secret.
If Warnington was talking about checking the voters' list, that wouldn't be a good indication of who voted. A voter on the list may choose not to vote. However, if he was talking about somehow checking if the person actually voted, then this leads straight into some of the dangers that I have with compulsory voting.
With the paper-based system that we use, if someone is forced to vote, that person can frustrate the system by simply spoiling his ballot. Of course, that person would have wasted his time and scarce State resources, but at least, with the paper-based system, he really wouldn't have voted at all. And without compulsory voting this waste would not happen.
With electronic voting the story is a bit different. People who are forced to vote would have no choice but to select a candidate, as such the system would need to be programmed for spoilt ballots.
The question is, if the law requires that a person's vote be secret, how will an electronic system ensure that? -- considering Warmington's dribble about checking if a person voted.
What worries me is that I suspect that Warmington's views are not unique among Jamaican politicians. What if we decide to go the way of compulsory voting and we have a system that is configured to tie each vote to the voter -- if this isn't already the case -- and then we have politicians, like Warmington, checking not only if I did vote, but for which party? Imagine the favouritsm that would result, to say the least.
Of course, these issues would be true of a non-compulsory voting system. However, with the non-compulsory system, the electorate would have the power to frustrate the plans of strange politicians by simply not voting.
I think we should leave this business of compulsory voting alone.
Michael A. Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Can Warmington really check votes?
-->