• 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
C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm starting to think we should require that people vote. If you don't vote you should get fined. It's not a very libertarian position, but given how few eligible Americans actually vote, I doubt that the majority is very well represented. The fines don't even have to be high, since most people will turn up to vote just to avoid the hassle of paying one. And it works! It increases voter turnout by as much as 16%!

The following countries have enforced compulsory voting....

Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Chile
Ecuador
Fiji
Liechtenstein
Nauru
Peru
Singapore
Uruguay

Not exactly a list of totalitarian regimes.
 
I guess the question I would have is what problem does compulsory voting solve? Why is it a bad thing that most people don't vote? IMO we're far better off if people who aren't interested about politics and don't know anything about the issues DON'T pollute our democracy with their input. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing fewer people vote.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, not voting is a form of protest for some people.
Click to expand...

What a silly form of protest. Thats like my child holding his breath if he doesn't get what he wants.
 
No. The irony is that forcing someone to vote against their will and participate in democracy is undemocratic in itself.
 
No, I don't think that you should force voting. For one, there may not be a candidate someone really can get behind and are left without the ability to vote on that office. In the end, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People should take voting more seriously, be more informed on all the candidates, and make intelligent decisions. But you can't force them to vote if they don't want to. I think it's perhaps relatively foolish to forgo just randomly your vote, it's a symbol of your power and sovereignty that you are lending to government. But it's their choice and they need to be free to make it.
 
megaprogman said:
What a silly form of protest. Thats like my child holding his breath if he doesn't get what he wants.
Click to expand...
What is silly is subjective, and even silly protests are supported by the constitution.

CriticalThought said:
Not exactly a list of totalitarian regimes.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a list of the most successful regimes either.

Yes, let us learn democracy from unstable Latin America and a country that bans chewing gum then whips violators.
 
Last edited:
No. There are plenty of reason why people don't vote. Either there is no one close enough to there preferences, or like my father, cannot escape from the hospital to vote. I mean hell even when I do vote, I just press buttons. I mean do I really care who is Water Management Backup Carrier is?
 
Kandahar said:
I guess the question I would have is what problem does compulsory voting solve?
Click to expand...

Low voter turn out. Low interesting in politics.

Why is it a bad thing that most people don't vote? IMO we're far better off if people who aren't interested about politics and don't know anything about the issues DON'T pollute our democracy with their input. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing fewer people vote.
Click to expand...

Or maybe more people should get involved and become informed. I have this silly idea that a democracy should be based upon an informed public, not an ignorant public where only the extremists vote.
 
Lakryte said:
No. The irony is that forcing someone to vote against their will and participate in democracy is undemocratic in itself.
Click to expand...

Well...if most people want compulsory voting...wouldn't establishing compulsory voting then be democratic?
 
Ikari said:
No, I don't think that you should force voting. For one, there may not be a candidate someone really can get behind and are left without the ability to vote on that office. In the end, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People should take voting more seriously, be more informed on all the candidates, and make intelligent decisions. But you can't force them to vote if they don't want to. I think it's perhaps relatively foolish to forgo just randomly your vote, it's a symbol of your power and sovereignty that you are lending to government. But it's their choice and they need to be free to make it.
Click to expand...

Just because you are required to vote does not mean you are required to vote for a candidate. This is a strange assumption you people have. You could vote for "Snow White" or "Underdog" the point is you vote.
 
CriticalThought said:
Well...if most people want compulsory voting...wouldn't establishing compulsory voting then be democratic?
Click to expand...

Well that would come through a vote, and that means only the people who do vote would vote on it. So the majority of that population is not the majority of the actual population (nearly half of people don't vote I believe). Regardless, it is their vote and they can do with it as they please. Though I think one thing here clearly outlines the danger of strict democracy. It's mob rule, there's no guarantee of rights.
 
CriticalThought said:
Just because you are required to vote does not mean you are required to vote for a candidate. This is a strange assumption you people have. You could vote for "Snow White" or "Underdog" the point is you vote.
Click to expand...

Some people don't vote because they cannot give their consent to the government.
 
Lakryte said:
Not exactly a list of the most successful regimes either.

Yes, let us learn democracy from unstable Latin America and a country that bans chewing gum then whips violators.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Australia and Brazil are quite successful.
 
CriticalThought said:
Low voter turn out. Low interesting in politics.
Click to expand...

The first sentence is not inherently a problem (or if it is you haven't explained why). The second sentence isn't solved by mandatory voting.

CriticalThought said:
Or maybe more people should get involved and become informed. I have this silly idea that a democracy should be based upon an informed public, not an ignorant public where only the extremists vote.
Click to expand...

That's unrealistic to expect everyone to become more informed, and in any case that isn't what you're proposing. You didn't say "mandatory voting and compulsory news-watching" or something like that...you just said mandatory voting. Forcing people to check a box for one candidate or another doesn't make them more informed, it just wastes their time and makes the electorate less well-informed on average.
 
Last edited:
soccerboy22 said:
No. There are plenty of reason why people don't vote. Either there is no one close enough to there preferences, or like my father, cannot escape from the hospital to vote. I mean hell even when I do vote, I just press buttons. I mean do I really care who is Water Management Backup Carrier is?
Click to expand...

Why don't you care?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm starting to think we should require that people vote. If you don't vote you should get fined. It's not a very libertarian position, but given how few eligible Americans actually vote, I doubt that the majority is very well represented. The fines don't even have to be high, since most people will turn up to vote just to avoid the hassle of paying one. And it works! It increases voter turnout by as much as 16%!

The following countries have enforced compulsory voting....

Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Chile
Ecuador
Fiji
Liechtenstein
Nauru
Peru
Singapore
Uruguay

Not exactly a list of totalitarian regimes.
Click to expand...

I have SERIOUS issues when people who don't care at all about the issues, politics, taxation (and so forth) let their decisions (blind, random, based on popularity or whichever person they've heard of) affect every aspect of MY life.

If they don't care to exercise their right then by all means - let the people who DO care A LOT make educated decisions for them instead.

I can tolerate someone having a different - but well informed and educated view - affect my life.
But I do NOT tolerate at all when some lazy good for nothing dumb **** who couldn't even spell the word 'war' if it smacked him in the face actually makes the deciosions that will determine the path that our family's life will take in the next 4 years.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The first one is not inherently a problem (or if it is you haven't explained why). The second one isn't solved by mandatory voting.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

That's unrealistic to expect everyone to become more informed, and in any case that isn't what you're proposing. You didn't say "mandatory voting and compulsory news-watching" or something like that...you just said mandatory voting. Forcing people to check a box for one candidate or another doesn't make them more informed, it just wastes their time and makes the electorate less well-informed on average.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why don't you care?
Click to expand...

Because most people don't know anything about the local candidates or issues, and have better things to do than learn about them. For that matter, the same argument can be scaled up to the state or national level. The only reason that I stay informed about politics is because I find it inherently interesting, but I have no problem with people who don't, since there are plenty of other subjects that *I* find boring.

If someone isn't inherently interested in politics, it's perfectly rational for them to not waste their time learning about it: the costs (the time spent learning when you could be doing something you enjoy) greatly outweigh the benefits (the probability that your individual vote will swing the outcome of any important election).
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Well that would come through a vote, and that means only the people who do vote would vote on it. So the majority of that population is not the majority of the actual population (nearly half of people don't vote I believe). Regardless, it is their vote and they can do with it as they please. Though I think one thing here clearly outlines the danger of strict democracy. It's mob rule, there's no guarantee of rights.
Click to expand...

Well once it is established, the voting majority will have the opportunity to vote it away.

And we still have our Constitution and our checks and balances, so we are still a Republic even with mandatory voting.
 
CriticalThought said:
Well once it is established, the voting majority will have the opportunity to vote it away.

And we still have our Constitution and our checks and balances, so we are still a Republic even with mandatory voting.
Click to expand...

A person's vote is their power. It's their authority and sovereignty they are investing into the government. If one cannot give their consent to the current incarnation of government, they should not be force to endorse it through their vote. People must remain free to choose how to use or not use their vote as their own free will dictates.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I have SERIOUS issues when people who don't care at all about the issues, politics, taxation (and so forth) let their decisions (blind, random, based on popularity or whichever person they've heard of) affect every aspect of MY life.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
Because most people don't know anything about the local candidates or issues, and have better things to do than learn about them. For that matter, the same argument can be scaled up to the state or national level. The only reason that I stay informed about politics is because I find it inherently interesting, but I have no problem with people who don't, since there are plenty of other subjects that *I* find boring.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom