Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25

Positions of the worlds religions regarding the morality of bringing the dead back to life.

I recently added the use of recently deceased children's brains to the article for voodoo zombies; and a while ago I created the page for anarchist founder William Godwins Lives of the Necromancers. The page for voodoo zombies makes no reference to opposition to the practice within voodoo. I doubt an edit to the page for Jesus or Solomon saying that by definition this is what they did to Lazarus and Hiram Abiff would last more than five seconds. So what do the worlds religions have to say about this practice? Let me guess, no reply; like all my other tough questions. User:CensoredScribe 00:32, 25 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Only God can raise the dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and goodbye Bugs; I feel no need to add further references to any failed scientific attempts. Bones staying in the ground is better for the environment anyways, as they bio remediate heavy metals like lead and cadmium. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting question (would make a philosophy class hop). Off the top of my head I should think that the major religions have no moral position on bringing the dead to life, in that the ability to do so didn't exist when the religions were evolving. But what would their position be if such a thing became possible? My guess is the religions would dodge the issue - as they always pretend they have the answers to all the moral questions. But what should the moral position be? That is a very large question and would be dependent on the circumstances. Involving exploitation of the living, or the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

CensoredScribe - the only way on which this is a "tough" question is that it's very weird, and hard to give a rational answer to. Most of the regular respondents here, and spokesmen for the major religions, are going to see your beliefs(?) about raising the dead as nonsensical. So, not tough. Just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the OP's question, and a glance at his user page, tell me he's not a good faith user and there's no point spending any time engaging with him. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, certain characteristics of his writing style look familiar, suggesting he's been here before under a different name or names. Exactly who, I couldn't say, as I don't keep track of that stuff. But he'll eventually get the boot. Again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And now that we're onto him, he seems to have jumped ship.[1] Or perhaps not. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody know what was the fate of this boy?

21-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi, Iranian, sentenced to death but not executed. Is he in prison? what happened to him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZMikeAZ (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed part of your description of this possible living person which does not appear to be supported by sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you might have reworded. The question is about Ebrahim Hamidi, found guilty, without conclusive evidence, in the face of severely irregular prosecutorial conduct, and at the age of 16, of the crime of sodomy ("lavat"), and sentenced, in Iran, to execution by hanging. Simply removing the word "gay" from the question pretty severely hampers the ability of people to follow what's being asked. It's not merely the death penalty that sparked outrage, it's the "crime" for which it was meted out. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually he was accused of sexual assault not simple sodomy. This sort of misinformation is precisely the reason why I removed the unsupported characterisation. The OP has a simple question, which could be answered without getting into the messy business of the actual accusations for were the foundation of the case (which themselves risk BLP violations considering it remains unclear whether there's good evidence to support them) let alone moral outrage over the crime which ultimately the RD is not the place to discuss. In any case, I will never make any excuse for removing an almost clear cut BLP violation (the only reason it isn't entirely clear is because of the unfortunate fact the whole basis of this question is we have no idea if he is living). If you want, I could just remove the OP entire question which and leave it up to them to reword but I somehow think the most others on the RD would prefer if I do not do so. (I would also add there is long standing consensus we should not reword or refactor comments more then is necessary and putting additional words into the OP mouth would clearly fall into that category. Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any news items on Google after September 2010, when he was still under threat of execution. The volume of foreign condemnation at the sentence, particularly from France, suggests that if he had actually been executed, there would have been a major outcry. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You can argue about the morality of making such an act a crime, but did the suspect in fact do what he was accused of doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the people who prosecuted him feel otherwise, but I think it's fair to say that most unbiased observers believe Ebrahim Hamidi is a heterosexual Iranian accused and convicted of a crime (really attempted sodomy rather than completed sodomy) which he did not commit. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does his orientation matter under Islamic law, or is it the act (or attempted act) that's the important factor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Officially, it doesn't matter; it is the attempt at the act rather than an inclination to the act that is illegal. However, critics of the various implementations of Sharia law believe that distinction is generally ignored, and that the law is often used as a pretext enabling the persecution of gay (and in this case, non-gay) males in the absence of any overt act. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Besides, there are no gays in Iran. Just dove handlers. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Except he was not simply accused of sodomy but sexual assault. The fact that the law he was prosecuted under would could also apply to consensual sex doesn't change the fact he was accused of sexual assault and this was likely taken in to account in his sentence. (Edit: Actually I'm not sure he was found guilty of simply sodomy, while a number of sources including AI simply mention sodomy while also making clear he was accused of sexual assault, I note HRW [2] mentions forcible sodomy and lavat beh onf. The fact that the victim apparently later withdrew his testimony of being sexually assaulted instead suggesting they simply attempted to sexually assault him may not have any bearing on the actual crime he was found guilty of since the judge used his 'knowledge'. (In other words, the judge may have believed him guilty of and found him guilty of sexual assault even though the only extant accusation at the time was he had attempted sexual assault.) In any case, it seems clear making this a simple 'gay rights' issue or 'sodomy' as you are doing, is frankly offence to people of all sexual orientations, as if there if there is no difference between someone who is gay or has consensual sex with another man, and someone who commits sexual assaults which is what is at dispute in this case. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is no controversy over executing people guilty of sexual assault, simply that it's quite a different controversy. I would add confounding such things, similar to the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni case for example is deeply harmful since it confuses the real world persecution those who are gay or engage in prohibited consensual activities face in Iran; with other problems like the high usage of the death penalty in Iran for stuff which while crimes in most developed countries don't generally earn the death penalty even in those that maintain it. Or the possible use of unsound evidence (or even no evidence) in such cases and a lack of representation. And other stuff like the controversial execution of juvenile offenders. All of which are relevant talking points, except they shouldn't be rolled in to one and of course wikipedia is a place to discuss none of them.) The relevance of to OP's simple question, remains unclear to me, particularly since it remains entirely unclear any sexual activity took place, but if you want to engage in long discussions mostly unrelated to the OP questions and fault me for removing a clear cut BLP violation you could at least have the decency to get it right. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any single statement that could be characterized as "getting it right", as the truth is actually unknowable in this case. It's certainly not clear that the Iranian judiciary actually distinguishes between homosexuality, sodomy, and forced sodomy, even if they claim to. Surely it's better to point out the issues involved than to obscure them. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've modified my response slightly since you response, I guess based on your earlier complaint you will have no problem with this action. In any case, you're still missing the point that making this about consensual sex when there's no evidence it's about that at all (at least in the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni there was the allegation even if the evidence supporting it was weak) as you did is what confuses the issue. I did none of this, I simply removed a BLP violation, noting it here and providing a clearer explaination to the OP why. I did not obscure it in any way the BLP violation was confusing and unneeded as I have said several times. Instead I offered clarity when you confused it. The fact if the matter remains that the OP's question was what happened to the unfortunate man (now), not whether his sentence was deserved (which isn't a question for the RD), why there was outrage, what he was accused of, what evidence for it there was or anything of that sort. You're the one who brought these irrelevant details in to the question and then did a half arsed job at it requiring other people to waste their time to correct you. I would add your claim that no distinction is made, goes against the evidence in cases like this (where from what I can tell, the allegation is they attacked him or got in to a fight and then at some stage sexually assaulted, or attempted to, him), as well as reliable sources like HRW who while acknowledging there are serious problem (including the fact that someone who engaged in consensual sexual activites may be pressured to make accusations of assault to try and protect themselves when found out or that an assumption may be made that someone won't consent to such activities) don't suggest that no distinction is ever made. And in case you missed it, in these long discussions we've held, none of us other than Alanspodge has in any way answered the OP's actual question. (For the record I did attempt to answer when rewording but as with Alanspodge didn't find anything more recent.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin

In a recent women's Bible study about the Apostle Paul, it was suggested that he was a married man because any member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would have had to have a wife. I'm questioning that fact and hope you can lend some light on the possibility of Paul (a Hebrew of Hebrews, as scripture says) having a spouse. Thanks for your assistance32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would be a follower of Jesus in the first place. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the Bible, it explains how Paul became a follower of Jesus in some detail in several places, both in writings about him by others and in writings by him. Acts of the Apostles, ascribed to Luke, describes the incident on the Road to Damascus, an event you can read more about at the Wikipedia article Conversion of Paul the Apostle. Paul himself covers the event as well, notably in his own Epistle to the Galatians. --Jayron32 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the existence of Paul's wife is a contentious issue, as shown here. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is questionable whether Paul was ever a member of the Sanhedrin, the primary evidence for this assertion seems to hinge on the interpretation of Acts 26:10 which some take to mean that Paul had a vote in the assembly.

Secondly, although frequently asserted, even by seemingly reliable sources, I've not been able to find any primary source for the claim that marriage was a requirement for Sanhedrin membership. Even if such a requirement is to be found in the Talmud or later rabbinic sources, that does not prove that it was a requirement in Paul's time (pre-70 AD). - Lindert (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To your first point: I'm unfamiliar with the text, but wonder whether "the assembly" might more correctly refer to the congregation (at large); the Sanhedrin was a council. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(ETA) - I've just raised this possible ambiguity on the Talk:Sanhedrin page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

William Calley, My Lai Massacre

Why did Richard Nixon let William Calley off with just house arrest for the My Lai Massacre? Seattle (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that Jay Bybee is a federal judge, not a debarred and disgraced ex-lawyer, and for the same reason Donald Rumsfeld is not in prison for crimes against humanity. He did essentially what he was supposed to do, up to the point the act became too extreme and too public. And the cynic in me very much wants to say "and he did it to small brown poor people far away". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, Stephan, but you have to make it in another way. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, "US politics, even more so than other bourgeois politics, is historically infamous for its systems of personal corruption, graft, and machinery; and, that unusually, this extends to the judicial system. Such infamous conduct has not changed in recent years, and has been historically known to support racist and imperialist outcomes."? It does sound even worse when you strip the irony back. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What proportion of the time do Christians, on average, devote to God, Mary, or the saints?

I once read the full version of this academic article that Christians - especially those in Europe in earlier times - would pray to Mary more often than they would to God or the other saints. Now, that made me think about exactly what proportion of people's devotional time was actually spent on praying to Mary, as opposed to the other entities. What is the purpose of praying to God, Mary or the saints? Do they share the same purpose, or is praying to one means slightly differently than praying to another? 164.107.103.177 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As to your first question, what is the average proportion, that is pretty much impossible to measure. Some Christians believe that every moment of their lives are dedicated and devoted to God, while others may consider that only prayer and church time is directly devoted to God. As to the purpose of prayer, see: Prayer. For 'prayer' to Mary, see Marian devotions, and for Saints' intercession... see Intercession of saints. Mingmingla (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about the median or mean, but the mode is ~an hour on Sundays. One would have to define the population to get a better response. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read "Mary / the Saints" - are these relevant only for Catholics? My impression is that fundamentalist Protestants invoke Jesus (= "personal savior") on an individual basis throughout their waking hours. Are there church-based denominations more oriented toward public worship services? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article, Intercession of saints explains all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about saints and Mary and so on is mostly a Catholic thing, and amounts to de facto polytheism. Protestant denominations generally pray to God and/or Jesus, not to saints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Orthodox would disagree with you. Devotion to Mary and the saints is, perhaps, mostly non-Protestant, but it's certainly not even close to being exclusively Catholic. And, as always, "de facto" polytheism is in the eye of the beholder... and if the beholder worships three gods and counts them as only one, his discernment can be questioned.  :) - Nunh-huh 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Eastern Orthodox. Do they pray to saints also? As regards the Trinity, that's the notion of a single God in three personas or aspects or whatever. Such is not the case with saints. They're individuals. Hindu gods and Catholic saints both specialize in aspects of the human experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The orthodox indeed venerate the saints. If I ask you to pray to god for me, would you accuse me of polytheism? Those who ask for the intercession of Mary and the saints would say that it's an exact analogy. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The standard Protestant view is that God is all-knowing and all-seeing, and that "intercession" is not only unnecessary, it has no biblical basis - it's an invention of the Catholic church, and makes sense in terms of how they structure their organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that position. It just doesn't seem to have much to do with monotheism to me. I think in discussions such as those on the reference desk, where different viewpoints are to be respected, it's generally a good policy not to rely on sectarian positions to determine that one sect or another is lying when it claims to be monotheist. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

All three of the Abrahamic religions are officially monotheistic. The OP asked about Christians and God and saints. The Catholic view of the value of saints is functionally similar to Hinduism. Modern Protestants in general have no use for saints - they're essentially the Roman Catholic Hall of Fame, and have nothing to do with anything biblical other than being in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Christians and Hindus are also similar in believing in a trinitarian godhead. Does that make Christians polytheists as well? It's a logical fallacy to say that one shared characteristic makes things identical. Gratuitous observations labeling one Christian sect or another as polytheistic seem a bit out of line on the reference desk, and certainly aren't needed in responding to the original question asked. It would be fine to say "Some Protestants think Catholics are polytheists", better if you state exactly which Protestants they are, and better yet if it can be backed up with references. But I think it's misleading to state your personal belief that '"the stuff about saints" amounts to "de facto" polytheism' as if it were a generally accepted truth.- Nunh-huh 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The concept of the Trinity does not qualify as polytheism. The concept of praying to saints rather than to God is non-biblical, and typically Protestants reject the idea. Some of the older Protestant sects might still pray to saints. The more recent ones typically would not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The point, though, is that praying for saintly intercession also doesn't qualify as polytheism. There are certain Protestant sects, with a strong anti-Catholic strain that would say otherwise, but the correct answer to "are Catholics polytheists?" is "no", your feelings to the contrary notwithstanding. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They are, they just don't realize it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs has spoken. So may it be written; so may it be done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer this question you would first need to accurately define a Christian. Numbers of Christians in Wikipedia articles are obtained by many means. For my country, Australia, that involves counting those who self identify as one of several "Christian" groupings on a voluntary question on our five yearly census. I would submit that, of those, many never pray at all. How many, we will never know. I doubt if anyone has ever surveyed who the others pray to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Constructive vote of no confidence

The Cabinet of Germany article says that "There is a grace period in-between the dismissal of a Chancellor by the Bundestag and until the Bundestag can elect a new Chancellor, so as to allow the federal government, if it so wishes, to advise the Federal President to dissolve the Bundestag so that elections may be held." That's all well and good, but just above this, it says that the dismissal of the old Chancellor and election of the new Chancellor happens at the same time, i.e. the constructive vote of no confidence. So how is this reconciled? 92.23.130.40 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. The law provides a number of safety measures to prevent an "extended" power vacuum. Here is an English translation: PDF. But there may be very short periods of time (only weeks), when no regular chancellor is in office. But during this time the former chancellor and their ministers are required to continue their office as acting interim chancellor and government. GermanJoe (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the difference that one is a vote of no confidence coming from the Bundestag, the other a vote of confidence requested by the Chancellor? Ssscienccce (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, both types of vote have this "grace period" of 48 hours (Art. 67.2 and 68.2) - no matter if it's a no-confidence vote by the Bundestag or a confidence vote by the Chancellor. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's inaugural parade

During the inaugural parade of 1965-01-20, were flags at half-mast? I've looked all over for the subject, even finding photos such as this set, but I can't find any textual references to the issue, and none of the images I've found showed any flagpoles at all. I'm holding a group of prints taken around this time that depict a cavalry troop from Culver Academies at 38°53′30.5″N 77°1′0″W; it's a parade in cold weather (judging by the bystanders' cold-weather clothing), and all the flags are at half-mast. I don't know that it is the inauguration parade, but I don't know why else an Indiana academy's delegation would be in a DC parade. 2001:18E8:2:1020:960:1ACF:434A:32B3 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's 30 minutes of footage of the parade [on You Tube here, if you have half an hour to spare... 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's some flag shots at about 15:02 there which look like they're at full height. It seems quite strange to me that flags would still be at half mast fourteen months later; State funerals in the United States does not give a specific time for Kennedy but suggests that thirty days was usual for a president. Depending how confident you are on the date, the photo could be eight years later - the Second inauguration of Richard Nixon in January 1973 took place just under a month after Harry Truman's death, and flags would have been at half-mast for thirty days. It may be from the day itself or from the rehearsals. According to this press kit, Culver were indeed at 1973 as well as 1965. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And as LBJ died on January 22, flags would have remained at half-staff for nearly 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Medicis breaking Machiavelli's arms

"The context in this case is that the Medici family to whom he dedicated his love letter is the same group who personally broke Machiavelli's arms for being such a staunch advocate for free government."[3]

Is there any historical evidence that Machiavelli's arms were actually broken by the Medici family? I googled around and all I could find are verbatim quotes or paraphrases of the Cracked article.Dncsky (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Machiavelli was subject to the strappado, which (according to most sources I'm aware of) lead to dislocated shoulders, but not to any actual fractures. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help. Do you know which source from the strappado article includes this information? Dncsky (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Machiavelli's torture is mentioned in the strappado article at present. The main source that our articles on Machiavelli use is Anthony Grafton's introduction to The Prince. The primary source for the incident is a poem that Machiavelli himself wrote while in prison - I've not yet been able to track down a precise title or the text, but I'm sure it's available somewhere. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This site has the text of the poem (translated). Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do people vote?

I'm doing a project and I need help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.235.74 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's either that or guns. See loyal opposition. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In my country, Australia, we vote because it's illegal not to. See Compulsory voting. Obviously too some of us like to think that we can influence government decisions by helping to choose who is in the government. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In some cases voting, or not going to the guns immediately, is seen as part of long term strategies of going to the guns. Also, in Australia while it is illegal to draw dicks on the ballot paper (the traditional expression for this practice/protest), it is a popular form of protest over voting itself and the state is incapable of policing this conduct. For example, in the recent Senate elections in Australia, 6% of voters refused to vote. Of those who voted, 3% of voters failed to vote correctly or deliberately drew dicks on the ballot paper. So approximately 9% of the Australian Senate Electorate refused at one level the legitimacy of that election. Obviously if 9% of Australian electors, united in purpose, engaged in armed action against the state, the Commonwealth would not long stand. There are degrees of loyalty obviously, and degrees of opposition. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

They vote because it's a civic duty. At least it is in America. In Australia it's compulsory, so it's not a civic duty, but merely just something you have to do, like renewing your driver's license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Having sold my last car 16 years ago, I have to ask: In which country is it compulsory to renew your driver's license? Especially if you do not want to drive? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to live in a country where you have to renew your marriage licence every year, otherwise the marriage lapses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather dichromatic view, Bugs. A civic duty is still a duty, whereas the ability to have a direct say in the affairs of the nation ought to be a pleasure. I and millions of others would still vote here if it were not compulsory. People complain about the disruption to their lives yada yada, but it takes 5 minutes once every c. 3 years, hardly climbing Mt Everest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your philosophy. I just think that compulsory voting is tyrannical. Everyone should vote - because they want to, not because Big Brother tells them they have to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why was your response to Bugs instead of to HiLo? Oh well. In any case, I vote if it's convenient for me...and so I can have the sticker that says I Voted. I don't think it makes any difference and I think all career politicians are corrupt and worthless. --Onorem (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Was that a question to me? If so: I responded to Bugs because ... well, I was responding to what Bugs said. That seems reasonable, don't you think? I had no reason to address HiLo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you specified my ID, I assumed you were talking to me. Maybe Ono overlooked that detail. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some good articles for you to read:

• Civic engagement,
• Suffrage,
• Representative democracy,
• Voter_turnout#Reasons_for_voting and
• Election

- you should be able to pull out quite a list of reasons from these. Best on your project. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Voting is the means by which one ideologically hostile faction takes power from another without resort to force. When there are no free elections there is either civil war or one-party dictatorship. This is the concept of loyal opposition. The opposition is opposed, but it is also loyal enough to the concept of the nation or state to accept being out of power without resorting to violent means. This is exactly what happened in the US Civil War. When the Southern Democrats couldn't get what they wanted by the vote they ceased to be the loyal opposition, and took up arms. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• OP, you may find this paper and the references in it useful for your project: Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote To Improve the Well-Being of Others, Aaron Edlin, Andrew Gelman and Noah Kaplan, Rationality and Society, 2007. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, it's compulsory to register to vote once. However, if you don't want to vote you can choose to not register. You can't be fined for not voting when you're not on the electoral roll. It's compulsory to vote in federal, state and local elections.
Sleigh (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's true that you can't be penalised for not voting if you're not registered. But you can be penalised for not registering, and continued failure to do so would be contempt of court. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How strong is puritanism in Australia? μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's less popular than voting is in America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I vote, because I might as well. Paraphrasing: "Most people are too simple-minded, or too shortsighted to deserve the right to vote." Even though I'm just a grain of sand in a mountain, I vote to counter those types of votes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's unfair to sufferers of myopia. And what if you and they just happen to vote the same way? If your stated reason is really why you vote, we may have to consider to whom the term "simple-minded" really applies.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That is ironic, because I'm myopic. The author of the quote was actually a politician of all professions. Here's a link to an explanation of the quote: [4]. And that is why I prefer a technocratically supported absolute monarchy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'd rather go for a scientocratically supported absolute monarchy, on the basis that I just heard of this neologism, and that it is more accurate.

I vote because women in my family died so that I could choose not to... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to your foremothers, Tammy. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is the real reason Canadians vote. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The question of why people vote is the subject of the paradox of voting. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)