Electoral duty is similar to a people's court

In a Christmas speech Miloš Zeman the thought reappeared compulsory turnout. Our words and actions often tell us who we are - and voting is a tool of populists, extremists, it violates personal freedom and forces all incompetent people to make decisions about us.

Populists and extremists

The relative electoral system we have in the Czech Republic has the property that it eliminates extremes and the emerging governments are a kind of average - which does not suit anyone, but also does not harm anyone extremely.

The quality is positive - if the communists win the election, their most extreme ideas will probably be dulled by a coalition party. Some populist atrocities would probably have taken place, but with the open competition of political parties, the new Victorious February would most likely not have taken place.

However, compulsory turnout will also reach people who do not care who wins the election and who are not interested in political decision-making. They will be people who will be forced to declare their support for a political party - mostly without knowledge and information. The decision-making of the given people turns into a choice election posters a simplification - I will choose the one who shouts the most or sees them the most, or "I like animals, so I choose the green ones"; or vice versa - the current government is seen in the media, so I will elect it.

Incompetence in decision-making means that they gain votes and power incompetent candidates populist parties that offer simple and pleasing solutions. Imagine if people from the 10th or 11th places of SPD candidates, for example, got into parliament.

People who are not interested in the issue, if they have to vote, usually choose extremes without deeper knowledge.

Obligatoryly destroy the lives of your neighbors

Compulsory turnout can be named in another way: you must decide on the lives of your neighbors, people from the area or the other side of this republic. In other words, by compulsory voting, we force people to make decisions about others, even though they are not interested in making those decisions. Such a great people's court.

We force people, for example without knowledge and interest, who for most of the time, for example, are not interested in politics at all, to decide on the lives of people they do not know. It is perverse and unacceptable. It is such a responsible act that anyone who doubts the correctness of their choice for others should stay at home. If we move ourselves about the correctness of our choice, how can we even afford to pass on this indecision to others?

After all, it is classic socialization of losses, which leads to moral hazard!

By choosing, we are involved in deciding the lives of other people in this country - it is such a responsible step that if I am not ready to take responsibility for my decision, I should rather not take it at all.

Non-voters do not hold responsibility

An absolute foul is then blaming those who remained at home - "voters" for "bad election results". By not voting, the non-voters only declared that no offer of political parties was relevant to them. Responsibility for the results is always up to the voters!

We often hear from the disappointed voter of the party that "lost" the election that "this government is not his because he did not vote for it" (this is a legitimate argument), followed by accusations that "if you (non-voters) did not stay at home, we could change (to my image), so you are co-responsible for the bad result ".

So the acronym: I did not elect a government - I am not responsible for it - you did not elect it - you are responsible for it. That is hypocritical.

At the same time, it is precisely the non-voter who is not responsible for the creations of the legislators. It is only he who has chosen that with his voice does not give confidence none of the candidates and will not be involved in deciding on the other inhabitants of this country.

State directiveism

The idea of ​​compulsory turnout is thus only an immoral effort by some politicians to get through the electorate realize your dream of absolute power. Mandatory participation would become an argument to defend the legitimacy of state decisions that politicians would seek to control your life. It is only a step towards non-freedom, which can strengthen populists, extremists and a possible establishment.

It's a tool social corruption, when all without distinction are obliged to decide on others - and thus accept responsibility for the consequences. It is a declaration that the state has a greater right to your time and decision-making than you.

An electoral obligation is therefore necessary to preserve freedom refuse.