• 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!

Should the US have complusory voting?

Should the US have compulsory voting?

  • Total voters
    34
CriticalThought said:
The first one is a problem because the majority is not truly represented. Hence why we have a "silent" majority in this country that everyone in politics likes to speculate about.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? If they had the option to vote and chose not to exercise it, why can't we respect that? The majority has acquiesced to whomever the voters select.

CriticalThought said:
The second has been demonstrated to be greatly improved by compulsory voting in all the countries that have instituted it. If people are required to vote, they do generally take greater interest in it since they have to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

The first Google result that I clicked points to exactly the opposite conclusion:
http://www.crcee.umontreal.ca/pdf/CVE_CJPS_FINAL.pdf

No other studies came up on my first page of results.

CriticalThought said:
Countries that require voting and enforce it generally have a more informed and involved populace. Democracy should be as well informed as possible in order for it to function.
Click to expand...

If you want a more informed electorate, I think you'd do better by attacking that problem directly instead of through an indirect measure like compulsory voting. You could just mandate that they watch/read/listen to the news for two hours per year, from any media source they want. If this is really a problem (and I see no reason to think that it is), that would certainly do more to make them more informed and wouldn't waste any more of their time than requiring them to vote would.
 
Ikari said:
.If one cannot give their consent to the current incarnation of government, they should not be force to endorse it through their vote.
Click to expand...

We will just make it so that a person who does not pay their failure to vote fines cannot get a driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, etc. After all, those documents also signify their consent to the government, and so they will get exactly what they want.

You don't take part in a democracy, then you don't get the benefits of the democracy.
 
CriticalThought said:
You seem to assume that those people stay home. To the contrary, I think those are the people who are most likely to vote now. I think it is the truly moderate Americans who are turned off by all the rhetoric and celebrity that our elections have come to spew out. Hence, why I think we need to thrust them back into the domain, so that they can become informed, make informed decisions, and cancel out some of those who have bought into the brand that the candidates are selling.
Click to expand...

Oh - I know they vote - so I loath the current system.

Overall - I believe that voting should be earned - not just given away - and if someone chooses not to use their priviledge then that's fine.

But as long as our country is geared towards the 2 main parties I think that no one should be forced to do anything.
 
CriticalThought said:
Apathy is rather dangerous in democracy. It needs to be fought or evil men will find their way into positions of power. History should have taught you that much.
Click to expand...

If someone really unacceptable to the majority came to power, then apathy would decline and they could vote him/her out of office.
 
CriticalThought said:
We will just make it so that a person who does not pay their failure to vote fines cannot get a driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, etc. After all, those documents also signify their consent to the government, and so they will get exactly what they want.

You don't take part in a democracy, then you don't get the benefits of the democracy.
Click to expand...

Those signify government power over the People. And the way you describe them being used is a form a tyranny. You cannot have democracy through tyranny. People should be more involved. A republic requires a well educated and participating populace to keep. While this is true, I see no proper and just way to enforce the participation in the system through law. People must be free to make up their own minds and to use their vote in the manner which they feel is best; even if that's not voting.
 
Kandahar said:
Why is that a problem? If they had the option to vote and chose not to exercise it, why can't we respect that? The majority has acquiesced to whomever the voters select.
Click to expand...

I'm feeling repetitious here. Because a democracy is only as good as how informed and involved its populace is.

The first Google result that I clicked points to exactly the opposite conclusion:
http://www.crcee.umontreal.ca/pdf/CVE_CJPS_FINAL.pdf

No other studies came up on my first page of results.
Click to expand...

Paying people to vote is not compulsory voting. Quebec also does not have compulsory voting.
 
Kandahar said:
If you want a more informed electorate, I think you'd do better by attacking that problem directly instead of through an indirect measure like compulsory voting. You could just mandate that they watch/read/listen to the news for two hours per year, from any media source they want. If this is really a problem (and I see no reason to think that it is), that would certainly do more to make them more informed and wouldn't waste any more of their time than requiring them to vote would.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't make any difference at all. You can't learn anything from just watching two hours of something.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh - I know they vote - so I loath the current system.

Overall - I believe that voting should be earned - not just given away - and if someone chooses not to use their priviledge then that's fine.

But as long as our country is geared towards the 2 main parties I think that no one should be forced to do anything.
Click to expand...

To the contrary. I think it would say quite a lot if a true majority voted in the election but for neither of the two candidates.
 
Kandahar said:
If someone really unacceptable to the majority came to power, then apathy would decline and they could vote him/her out of office.
Click to expand...

Really? How come it never seems to work like that in reality?
 
there are already enough uninformed idiots voting. the last thing we need is to force even more apathetic retards into the voting booths
 
CriticalThought said:
To the contrary. I think it would say quite a lot if a true majority voted in the election but for neither of the two candidates.
Click to expand...

When I voted for Barr people's reaction was 'what a wasted vote!'

Everyone's mentality about voting in general needs to change - right now it's all bull****.
 
CriticalThought said:
Paying people to vote is not compulsory voting. Quebec also does not have compulsory voting.
Click to expand...

OK, well let's see the evidence that show that this DOES have an impact. You are the one claiming that compulsory voting leads to more informed decisions and that this has been demonstrated, so let's see the studies.

CriticalThought said:
That wouldn't make any difference at all. You can't learn anything from just watching two hours of something.
Click to expand...

A lot more than you can learn from two hours waiting in line and filling in bubbles for vaguely familiar names. Actually I guess you can learn a bit from that too, but probably not the kind of knowledge you're talking about.
 
Ikari said:
Those signify government power over the People. And the way you describe them being used is a form a tyranny. You cannot have democracy through tyranny. People should be more involved. A republic requires a well educated and participating populace to keep. While this is true, I see no proper and just way to enforce the participation in the system through law. People must be free to make up their own minds and to use their vote in the manner which they feel is best; even if that's not voting.
Click to expand...

Is it really? If a person pays their taxes, does that not signify they recognize the legitimacy of the government? Voting has nowhere near as much power as money.
 
CriticalThought said:
If a person pays their taxes, does that not signify they recognize the legitimacy of the government?
Click to expand...

all that signifies is that they don't want to go to jail
 
No. If a person is not interested in voting and is force who will he or she vote for. They are better left at home.
 
CriticalThought said:
Really? How come it never seems to work like that in reality?
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of a politician in this country (I'm talking state or national, not some city dogcatcher) with a very low approval rating who was reelected? Because as I see it, the only way that can happen is if the opposition splits its vote, or if the opposition nominates someone who is even more unacceptable to the electorate.
 
Kandahar said:
OK, well let's see the evidence that show that this DOES have an impact. You are the one claiming that compulsory voting leads to more informed decisions and that this has been demonstrated, so let's see the studies.
Click to expand...

Well gimme a sec. I'm not used to people actually asking for evidence on this forum. It's usually a "my unsubstantiated opinion is better than your substantiated opinion" type place.

For starters....

https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0042398/article definitive version.pdf

A lot more than you can learn from two hours waiting in line and filling in bubbles for vaguely familiar names. Actually I guess you can learn a bit from that too, but probably not the kind of knowledge you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Interesting assumption. How come anyone knows anything before going to an election then?

Your hyperbolization is getting a bit ridiculous.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is it really? If a person pays their taxes, does that not signify they recognize the legitimacy of the government? Voting has nowhere near as much power as money.
Click to expand...

No, because they take our taxes at gun point. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. It's not voluntary.

I think in terms of the preservation of the Republic, you are better served endorsing other changes than forced voting because forced voting does not really address some of the real problems. You should advocate going after the laws and regulations which have closed the system off and prevent true political competition. Why are there only 2 candidates at the major debates (not primaries I mean, but like the Presidential debate which has R and D only)? Why are corporations unfettered when it comes to campaign contributions, but the individual limited in how they can spend their personal money for candidates they like? Why is the press so biased and unwilling to report on all the candidates? There are a lot of problems, and in many ways the voter apathy comes from some belief that they are stuck in a system they cannot affect. If we can open up the political system, allow true political competition, and have proper reporting by the press; we will have gone much further in solving the problem of apathy and uneducated decision making than we will by forcing people to vote. Also, I like IRV.
 
I could agree to this if we received a quantity of votes based on the number of dollars in taxes we paid. So if we are voting in a federal election our federal income taxes would come into play. Since I am forced to pay about 40K per year I should have 40K votes. On the local level I pay state taxes. So for state races I might have roughly 3K votes to spend as I wish. If you pay no taxes you get one, and only one, vote.
 
Kandahar said:
Do you have an example of a politician in this country (I'm talking state or national, not some city dogcatcher) with a very low approval rating who was reelected? Because as I see it, the only way that can happen is if the opposition splits its vote, or if the opposition nominates someone who is even more unacceptable to the electorate.
Click to expand...

Do you remember a certain election in which man named Bush beat out a man named Gore without actually carrying the popular vote?
 
CriticalThought said:
Do you remember a certain election in which man named Bush beat out a man named Gore without actually carrying the popular vote?
Click to expand...

downside to how our electoral college system works (or doesn't)
 
Ikari said:
No, because they take our taxes at gun point. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. It's not voluntary.
Click to expand...

The whole "gun point" hyperbole is kind of tired. If I don't pay my taxes, they will fine me, and if I don't pay the fine, they will throw me in jail. So what? I could choose not to pay my taxes, they are not going to kill me as "at gun point" implies. I can certainly protest in jail. If enough people did it, then the government would fall through.

If we can open up the political system, allow true political competition, and have proper reporting by the press; we will have gone much further in solving the problem of apathy and uneducated decision making than we will by forcing people to vote. Also, I like IRV.
Click to expand...

Ideology. Just head in the clouds, abstract notions. So many things we "should" do, but will never happen. At least with compulsory voting we can get a larger segment of the population involved in the process.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
downside to how our electoral college system works (or doesn't)
Click to expand...

If more people had voted the result would have been very different. A man with a 49% approval rating would not have beat out a man with a 51% approval rating.
 
CriticalThought said:
The whole "gun point" hyperbole is kind of tired. If I don't pay my taxes, they will fine me, and if I don't pay the fine, they will throw me in jail. So what? I could choose not to pay my taxes, they are not going to kill me as "at gun point" implies. I can certainly protest in jail. If enough people did it, then the government would fall through.
Click to expand...

At gun point implies government force. How do they take you to jail? If you resist, what happens? Ultimately everything is backed by a gun. Just ask Randy Weaver.

CriticalThought said:
Ideology. Just head in the clouds, abstract notions. So many things we "should" do, but will never happen. At least with compulsory voting we can get a larger segment of the population involved in the process.
Click to expand...

The same can be said about your proposal. It's not going to happen, not in this country. But if we're talking about, in general, ways to improve the system. My suggestions would go a lot further than yours in accomplishing those goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom