• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why should more people vote?

For the longest time, I thought mandatory voting should be the way to go... no longer do I feel that way.

Let me see if I can streamline my opinion here:

If a person that's eligible to vote in this country is too stupid to understand why voting is so important and too apathetic to want to take the time to vote, then their not voting is probably a good thing for the country.

I agree. i believed as you for the longest time but after reading several articles that gave good reason otherwise I've changed my mind. While you might be able to compel people to vote you can't force them to actually educate themselves and make considered choices. I'd rather people who don't actually think about what their voting on stay home.
 
More and more useful idiots cancel out/over ride the votes of patriots.

"Libertarian" and "Alt-Reich" are entirely incompatible. Just so you know.
 
This is to spur conversation and I'm not (yet) stating my own view on this.

I see a lot of people saying 1) voter turnout is low, and 2) all the ways it can be increased.

But it's always taken for granted that this is an objective good.

There should not be any voter suppression, but if people don't want to vote, why should they?

Sure, from the point of view of the voter, it means they participate in the process and their "voice" is heard.

But if people don't care enough to do so, why is it a problem that they choose not to?

What's the objective good of high voter turnout?

Simple answer"

So that the President of the United States of America, the most powerful position on the planet, is not elected by Less Than 1/4 of the eligible voters. Sounds like a good idea to me.
 
Simple answer"

So that the President of the United States of America, the most powerful position on the planet, is not elected by Less Than 1/4 of the eligible voters. Sounds like a good idea to me.

How would it be objectively better if more people voted?
 
How would it be objectively better if more people voted?

It would become more of what the Founders Envisioned, a Republic For The People and By The People.

I know why you might be against even more voters doing their duty, but I am for more voting because just because a smaller sector of the population votes does not mean that they are necessarily a representation of the smarter sector of people.
 
It would become more of what the Founders Envisioned, a Republic For The People and By The People.

I know why you might be against even more voters doing their duty, but I am for more voting because just because a smaller sector of the population votes does not mean that they are necessarily a representation of the smarter sector of people.

I didn't say I was against anything; I'm asking what the objective good of it is.

What, specifically, would be DIFFERENT if more people voted?
 
I didn't say I was against anything; I'm asking what the objective good of it is.

What, specifically, would be DIFFERENT if more people voted?

Re-read the first sentence in my reply, read slower this time.

Clue: some Americans want the Nation to be what the Founders set up for us.
 
Re-read the first sentence in my reply, read slower this time.

Clue: some Americans want the Nation to be what the Founders set up for us.

Yeah. The Founders weren't all that big on a lot of people voting. You probably want to check that again.

So, answer my question -- this is not a question of history or of intentions, but of actual result: what would be DIFFERENT if more people voted?
 
Re-read the first sentence in my reply, read slower this time.

Clue: some Americans want the Nation to be what the Founders set up for us.
The Founders put in place a lot more restrictions... i.e.: non-land owners, all women, slaves, etc... than even the Reps and Tea Partiers want to do today, so that's not a very good example.
 
The Founders put in place a lot more restrictions... i.e.: non-land owners, all women, slaves, etc... than even the Reps and Tea Partiers want to do today, so that's not a very good example.

Wrong, its a great thing. Fewer people voting=not alot of free riders voting..
 
The US Constitution disagrees. The right to vote is explicitly stated in the 14th and 15th amendments.

Those amendments only guarantee the "right" to equal protection based on race, sex, gender, etc. In fact, in Bush v. Gore, “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (see 104b)
In case anyone didn't catch that...I quoted a democrat source.

Anyway...if there really was a clear "right to vote," why would sites like FairVote.org exist?
 
Those amendments only guarantee the "right" to equal protection based on race, sex, gender, etc. In fact, in Bush v. Gore, “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (see 104b)
In case anyone didn't catch that...I quoted a democrat source.

Anyway...if there really was a clear "right to vote," why would sites like FairVote.org exist?


While that's a true statement the full citation clarifies it a bit:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

So the right to vote for Presidential electors is granted by state legislatures and can be taken away by those legislatures. Right now all 50 states select electors via citizen voting and, since most people assume they have a right to vote for President, it it is highly unlikely that that will ever change - I'd expect any legislator who advocated for that would be looking for a new job pretty quickly - so while there may not be a "right to vote" specifically embedded in the Constitution, as you correctly point you (my mistake there), the right exists in practice.

To your point that doesn't mean that people can't try to game the system, however I'm not sure that a "right to vote amendment" would be anything more than a symbolic gesture given the 14th and 15th amendments, and specifically the equal protection clause of the 14th. But I haven't really thought a whole lot about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom